1982-12-15

MOTIONS UNDER S.O. 43   MEDICAL CARE COLOUR CODING FOR MEDICAL GAS CONTAINERS

['No.']
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Whereas deaths caused by gas equipment mix-ups in hospitals are all too frequent, and whereas the Health Protection Branch and other agencies are already working diligently to reduce such deaths, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Grey-Simcoe (Mr. Mitges):
That this House favours a mandatory standard colour coding for all medical gas containers and supply lines.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.



Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine):: Madam
Speaker, I rise to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Professor Jose Luis Massera of Uruguay was seized and imprisoned for expressing political opinions. He has been tortured and held in terrible conditions in the Prison of Torture, Libertad, Uruguay. The conditions being suffered by Professor Massera are likely to lead to physical and mental illness, and possibly death, if his release does not occur immediately. Therefore I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie):
That the Canadian Government condemn the actions of the Uruguayan Government and demand the release of Professor Massera. These flagrant violations of human rights are in direct contravention of the Helsinki Accord, and steps must be taken to have Professor Massera released and to put an end to acts such as he has suffered.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Dauphin (Mr. Lewycky):
That this House cease the impasse over Canagrex and revert to its initial assessment of the Bill which was highlighted by enthusiastic support from the House Leader for the Official Opposition at first reading on December 8, 1981, and further reinforced in the House through agreement in principle on second reading debate where Members of the Official Opposition from Elgin, Moose Jaw, and Provencher, to name a few, supported the legislation, including support for Canagrex's ability to buy and sell agricultural products.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AID
Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot):: Madam Speaker, I rise to move a motion similar to one I have moved twice before because I have an indication that it might receive unanimous consent today. Since more than 100 million human beings are born into the world each year, most of whom will live in conditions of sub-standard housing, will remain illiterate by United Nations standards, and four-fifths of whom will continually suffer from malnutrition, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday):
That the political parties of this Parliament, through consultation, consider the advisability of having the UNICEF organization produce special parliamentary Christmas cards so that Members and Senators may have an appropriate option of sending Christmas cards that depict scenes from Parliament Hill and, concurrent with their good wishes for the Christmas season, be able to assist the needy children of the world.

December 15, 1982


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


STATUS OF ARCTIC PILOT PROJECT
Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. The $2 billion Arctic Pilot Project promoted by Petro-Canada promised new advances in shipbuilding and marine technology, industrial development for the Canadian East Coast, and access to a world market for Arctic gas. However, this vital project has been seriously delayed and is now stalled before the National Energy Board. Therefore I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan):
That this House direct the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to review the status of the Arctic Pilot Project and ensure that this vital ocean energy initiative is not drowning in the Government's sea of bureaucracy.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS
Mr. Sid Parker (Kootenay East-Revelstoke):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to ask for the unanimous consent of the House to deal with a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that the Government would not permit a debate in the House of Commons on the testing of the Cruise missile in Canada, in spite of the fact that this weapon represents a dangerous new step forward in the arms race, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap):
That this House instruct the Government to provide for one day's House business in which this House can debate the testing of the Cruise missile on Canadian soil.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, whereas this Liberal Government is reneging on its agreement and changing the legislation regarding indexing of pensions for retired army personnel, retired RCMP and retired civil servants, which is shameful, while the Prime Minister and the Government refuse to investigate let alone cancel the permit given by the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Roberts) to friends in Banff which will desecrate a beautiful park, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Simcoe South (Mr. Stewart):
That this House condemns this callous Government which tries to kid the people by calling dictatorship leadership.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.
*	* V


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
In order to maintain our country's credibility as a defender of world peace, I move, seconded by the Member for Saskatoon East (Mr. Ogle):
That the Canadian Government turn down any requests by the U.S. Administration and President Ronald Reagan for testing their new cruise missile system here in Canada.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


MINES AND MINING
Mr. Thomas Siddon (Richmond-South Delta):: Madam Speaker, whereas the Minister of State for Mines (Mrs. Erola) has once again shown her lack of appreciation for the problems endured by the Canadian mining industry as revealed by her comments in New Brunswick yesterday where she said that the Government can do little to help the slumping mining industry, and whereas this continuing effort to put the blame for the
December 15, 1982

depressed state of mining solely on world conditions completely ignores the effects of the federal Government's anti-investment policies and regressive tax measures, such as the proposal to tax the imputed rent of mining company employees, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson):
That this House censure the Minister of State for Mines for her callous disregard of the effects of her Government's retrograde tax measures and antiinvestment policies upon the Canadian mining industry.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS
Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Yesterday the leaders of the major Christian Churches in Canada met with the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to ask him, on behalf of millions of Church members, to refuse Cruise missile testing in Canada and the production of components of nuclear weapons in Canada. I therefore move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-St. James (Mr. Keeper):
That the Prime Minister now publicly respond to the request of millions of Canadians that the Church leaders presented to him yesterday.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


DEMAND THAT CRUISE MISSILE TESTING PLANS BE ABANDONED
Mr. Ted Miller (Nanaimo-Alberni):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Whereas Canadians voted overwhelmingly for balanced nuclear disarmament during referenda held coast-to-coast last month, and whereas citizens in the Vancouver Island communities of Port Alberni and Nanaimo voted 79 per cent and 82 per cent respectively in support of such resolutions, while students at Nanaimo's Malaspina College asked that their campus be declared a nuclear-free zone, 1 move, seconded by the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Miss Jewett):
That Parliament instruct the Government to abandon its plan to test the Cruise missile over Canadian soil and that the Government redirect its foreign policy toward policies that will promote international peace, and that Canada be declared a nuclear-free zone as well.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. John McDermid (Brampton-Georgetown):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. The Minister of Labour has made very serious allegations against the Court of Canadian Citizenship. The Minister has alleged, among other things, that judges are expected to turn down a number of applicants as criteria for good performance, that there are clashes between the French and English speaking judges, and that there is a deliberate effort made to keep applicants from one ethnic group from being interviewed by a judge who comes from that same group. Does the Prime Minister agree that such allegations attack the integrity of the Court of Canadian Citizenship, and will he conduct a full investigation into the very serious allegations of the Minister of Labour?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, I had not heard of these allegations, but I will take notice of the question, and look into the matter, as the Hon. Member suggests.


Mr. Lawrence:: We knew we could count on you.


ALLEGATIONS WITH RESPECT TO APPLICATION OF RULES
John Horton McDermid: Is that while the Prime Minister is looking into the issue I raised yesterday?
Will the Prime Minister also look into the allegations of the Minister of Labour that there are rules and regulations currently being applied which do not bear any resemblance to the citizenship legislation? Will he ensure that political pressure by Members of the Liberal Party is not being brought to bear on the everyday operation of the Citizenship Courts and the judges who, as 1 pointed out yesterday, are being used by his Party on one hand and, on the other hand, are being attacked by a Member of his Cabinet?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, that hardly seems like a supplementary question, having looked into the matter raised by the Hon. Member yesterday, and I would not want to give the detailed response which could be given by the Minister today in the House.

December 15, 1982
Oral Questions
However, it would seem to me that it is not a matter of using courts when one encourages Canadians to become citizens. That is the-


Mr. Nielsen:: Ask Ouellet to look into it.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -policy of this Party, to encourage new Canadians to become citizens, and we are happy to be associated with it.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER APOLOGIZE
John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, my final supplementary question is also directed to the Prime Minister. Since Judge Alice McKeown, the then national co-ordinator of citizenship judges, upon learning of the allegations of the Minister of Labour which were made, by the way, in a letter to the then Secretary of State, said that the credibility of the Court of Canadian Citizenship had been seriously undermined, will the Prime Minister demand that the Minister of Labour publicly apologize to the Court of Canadian Citizenship judges?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, that is a return to the first question, and 1 said that I would take notice of it and look into the matter.


An Hon. Member:: The same as you did yesterday.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I cannot say more on this day because I do not know what the statement was, the contents of the letter, and, indeed, 1 am surprised that a distinguished judge would use a Member of Parliament as a vehicle for his representations.


John Horton McDermid: It is a she.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If he has representations to make, I should think that he would proceed in another way than doing it in this open way.


INDEPENDENCE OF CITIZENSHIP COURT JUDGES
Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon West):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. I have in my hand copies of the letters from the Minister of Labour to the Secretary of State which outline in specific detail a very serious castigation of the entire Citizenship Courts, a wide brush accusation of racism and of attempts to improve performance by the number of rejections. I am quite prepared to send these letters over to the Prime Minister. They were circulated to the so-called Met Pac group in his caucus a year ago. That is the Metropolitan Political Action Committee, 1 suppose.
In terms of principle, does the Prime Minister believe that the Citizenship Court judges should have independence in terms of political pressures being put on them by members of his Cabinet?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, of course i believe that independence should exist, but, not having seen the letter, I cannot begin to see the relationship between the question and the allegation of the letter.


Erik Nielsen: The Minister should resign.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Just from the quotes of the letter I have heard, it would appear to me that a Member of this Cabinet, as it should be the duty of any Hon. Member of this House, would try to improve the citizenship process, and if he or she feels there is anything untoward in the process itself, then he or she should be awake enough, as are our Members, to draw it to the attention of the relevant people.


Erik Nielsen: The Minister should resign.


ROLE OFJUDGES
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, again my question is directed to the Prime Minister. The Minister of Labour has, in effect, made a charge that the Citizenship Court judges are a bunch of incompetents. I do not know whether this has any relation to the method of appointment on the part of the Prime Minister and his Cabinet, being that most appointees are Liberal devotees or wives of former Cabinet Ministers.
I also have a copy of a letter from the Solicitor General to the Minister of Labour, in which he gives a legal opinion that, notwithstanding the fact that there is some role for the Citizenship Court judges to play, no attention has to be paid to those decisions because the Secretary of State has the right to decide on citizenship matters, absolutely, without reference to the Citizenship Court judges. I wonder if that is the policy of this Government, that the Citizenship Court judges have no role to play in the applications for citizenship.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, 1 think the Hon. Member is using a kind of perverse logic. He accuses the Minister of having made a charge against the Court. From my understanding of the reading of the quotes, the Minister was complaining about certain aspects of the administration of the citizenship laws, and surely that is not the same as making a charge. The Hon. Member, in his own question, accused Citizenship Court judges as being a bunch of Liberal devotees. Is that a charge, Madam Speaker, or is that a smear, or is that a way of showing his respect for the Courts?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Crosbie:: It is a fact.
December 15, 1982


NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS
Miss Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Yesterday in the House, the Prime Minister suggested that the NDP should use an opposition day to debate the Cruise missile question. I take it that by making that suggestion the Prime Minister would welcome such a debate and the ensuing vote. I would like therefore to ask the Prime Minister whether he would allow and welcome free expression of opinion and a free vote should the Cruise missile be debated, and not follow the example set the last time the NDP had an opposition day on the Cruise missile and related matters, on April 29, when the Government took all this as a want of confidence motion in the Government and therefore insisted that its Members could not be free, if they wished, to vote against the Cruise missile. Will the Prime Minister in other words, not use this issue as a confidence measure, but indeed allow a genuine free debate and free vote?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, on the first part of the question, indeed I would welcome such a debate. I believe the matter is extremely serious and I certainly share the Hon. Member's concern with the importance of this issue being aired in Canada, it being properly understood and the proper decisions being taken by Government, so on the question of a debate, 1 repeat that I would welcome the debate and 1 hope the NDP will follow up on that suggestion.
Insofar as the latter part of the question about a free vote is concerned, I think the Hon. Member is showing a slight misunderstanding of the rules. If it is an opposition day and there is a vote, under the rules that is a vote of non-confidence in the Government. Of course, 1 would not suggest that these Members should support the NDP in a vote of non-confidence in the Government of which they are Members.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT ALLOCATE DAY FOR DEBATE
Pauline Jewett: Madam Speaker, many of the Members on the other side, including the Minister of Employment and Immigration, would welcome a free vote.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pauline Jewett: I would like to remind the Prime Minister that there is not, in fact, an NDP opposition day left. The Prime Minister probably knew that at the time he made the suggestion. In view of that fact, plus the fact that he has to regard votes on opposition days as votes of want of confidence, that is all the more reason why he should take up the suggestion we have made time and time again, and indeed follow in the footsteps of his distinguished predecessor in 1958. At that time, the Liberals in opposition insisted on a parliamentary debate and vote in the House on the last most significant inter-
Oral Questions
governmental matter between Canada and the United States in defence, namely NORAD. Will the Prime Minister therefore, in view of all this, set aside a Government day, as the Liberals forced Mr. Diefenbaker to do then, for discussion, debate, and vote on the Cruise missile testing?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, for one part, I would remind the Hon. Member that between now and March 26 there will be seven opposition days. Therefore, it is possible for the New Democratic Party to use one of its days, if its members think the subject is so important, to debate this issue. I repeat, we on this side are happy to debate the subject. In so far as referring to experiences in previous Parliaments is concerned, I cannot say. I do know that under the rules as they stand now, if the Opposition uses one of its days to call a vote it is, by definition, a vote of non-confidence.


PROCEDURE ADOPTED IN 1958
Mr. Doug Anguish (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. In June, 1958, the late Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson insisted that the Government of the day, under the Right Hon. John George Diefenbaker, set aside a Government day to discuss the very important question of the agreement between the United States and Canada, the NORAD Agreement. In fact the Leader of the Liberal Party at that time said it was normal procedure for matters of such importance to be debated and vote on in this House of Commons. Does that not fly in the face of what the Prime Minister is telling us now?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, repeatedly since I have been Prime Minister this Government has agreed to put government days aside so that we would debate issues of international concern. This is one example. I remember another example when one of the opposition parties put, forward one day and we put forward another government day so that there could be a two-day debate. This is something we certainly envisage if the House Leaders want to discuss the use of government time in such a way. I repeat, if there is no such discussion, the New Democratic Party, sensing the urgency of this, can certainly move a motion any time on one of its opposition days between now-


An Hon. Member:: He said it was normal procedure.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, they are talking of the lack of days. Did they suddenly just discover today that this was an urgent and important matter? Our own Liberal Convention held early in November debated this subject very thoroughly and there was a vote at the end of that. If the Hon. Member wants to know how we voted, she can refer to that convention.


Mr. MacEachen:: She might rejoin the Party.

December 15, 1982
Presence in Gallery HOUSE OF COMMONS


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF MINISTER FOR FOREIGN TRADE, OF THE NETHERLANDS
Madam Speaker:: I would like to draw the attention of Hon. Members to the presence in our gallery of the Hon. J. W. Bolkestein, Minister for Foreign Trade, of The Netherlands.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[ Translation]


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF MR. HONORIUS LACOMBE, EDITOR OF FRENCH DEBATES
Madam Speaker:: I also wish to draw the attention of the House to the presence in our gallery of Mr. Honorius Lacombe, Editor of the French Debates, who is retiring today after seventeen years of dedicated service with the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: I am sure that Hon. Members will be very grateful to him for continuing the tradition of publishing an objective report of the Debates of this House.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


GARRISON DIVERSION
Mr. Jack Masters (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Madam Speaker, 1 have a question for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Could the Minister, who has been very involved in trying to stop the Garrison Diversion Project, inform the House of the impact for Canada of the vote in the U.S. House of Representatives last evening which, in effect, suspended funding for Garrison?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An Hon. Member:: It has nothing to do with his
responsibilities.


Madam Speaker:: I am quite sure that is not under the purview of the Minister's administrative responsibility, having been in that Department which is responsible.


POLITICAL PARTIES
Mr. John Bosley (Don Valley West):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State I will direct my question to the Prime Minister. It is pursuant to a question asked
yesterday by the Hon. Member for Brampton-Georgetown. Yesterday the Prime Minister indicated that he would take notice of the question that was asked and that he would answer today. He knows that the Minister of State for Multicultural-ism has already given his view on this matter when on "Canada A.M." today, in describing the use of Citizenship Court judges to recruit Liberals, he said "if that helps them think that the Liberal Party is a good Party that cares about them, I am pleased with that."
The document distributed by the Liberal Party at its Convention says very clearly that the purpose of the meetings using Citizenship Court judges is not only just to explain citizenship, but to "bring potential Members of the Liberal Party into contact with established Liberal associations". Will the Prime Minister indicate, Madam Speaker, whether that is a policy on the use of the judiciary which the Prime Minister of Canada supports?


Hon. Jim Fleming (Minister of State (Multiculturalism)):: Madam Speaker-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Sydney Clark Fleming: As I pointed out yesterday, if trade unions, church groups and others are encouraged to ask Citizenship Court judges to describe to groups they bring together what it means to become citizens, then I think a political party should be encouraged to do that, if that helps people to better understand the political process, what citizenship is all about, understanding politics and voting in elections.


INDEPENDENCE OF JUDICIARY
John William Bosley: Madam Speaker, if we cannot get an answer from the chief Minister, perhaps I could direct my question to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General. Will the Attorney General, the Minister of Justice for Canada, tell me whether, in his view, it is reasonable for the judiciary to be used in Canada to, "bring potential Members of the Liberal Party into contact with established Liberal associations"? Is that a tradition of the independent judiciary as he knows it?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Minister of Justice):: Madam Speaker, I think that is just another way of asking the same question which my colleague has just replied to.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
December 15, 1982


FISHERIES
Howard Edward Crosby: Madam Speaker, I have a question 1 would like to direct to the Prime Minister. It concerns the status of the Task Force report relating to the Atlantic fisheries. I am sure the Prime Minister is aware of the difficult conditions which exist in the Atlantic fisheries because of the delay in making public the report of the Task Force which dealt with the Atlantic fisheries. My question relates to the Government and Cabinet policy with respect to such public inquiries.
What is the position of the Prime Minister with respect to disclosure of parts of the report which are made known to the public in various ways by leaks from the persons involved in the Task Force and by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, himself? He must know this creates a state of confusion. What is he going to do about it? And what is his policy with respect to these leaks and the misinforming of the public on such a vital matter?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member is asking about our policy on leaks. Our policy is to condemn them firmly.


REQUEST THAT RECOMMENDATIONS BE MADE PUBLIC
Howard Edward Crosby: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister has just condemned his own Minister of Fisheries and Oceans because he is responsible for the leaks in an interview with a correspondent in London, England, when he disclosed certain vital aspects of the recommendations made by the Task Force on the Atlantic fisheries. Will the Prime Minister, knowing the difficult state of the Atlantic fisheries, indicate to those persons intimately involved with that troubled industry, what the Government proposes to do? When is it going to make the recommendations public? When is it going to come up with a policy to resolve some of the problems? Or is he just going to let the Atlantic fishing fleet flounder on a sea of government indecision?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, 1 heard, and so did you, the Minister of Fisheries answer that very question yesterday when he dealt with the Kirby Report, and he even referred to the Pearse Report, and indicated it was before the Government, and that their recommendations would be brought forth. That was the answer the Minister gave. I am not quite sure why the Hon. Member is asking a repeat of the same question.


MISCELLANEOUS ESTIMATES COMMITTEE
Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valiey-Hants):: My question is also directed to the Prime Minister. I would like to know how
Oral Questions
he reconciles his penetrating philosophical views about "the anti-democratic reflex reactions of the Liberal flocks of sheep", when they flip-flopped on Bomarcs in 1963, with the independent action of the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier who "raised his voice against the dictatorship of the Leader", and last week voted against Bill C-133, only to lose his very membership on the relevant Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, as a matter of curiosity, when the Hon. Member said, "raised his voice against a dictator", who was he quoting from?


QUERY RESPECTING PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Madam Speaker, perhaps the Prime Minister has selective amnesia. It sometimes inculcates the very interesting mind of the Prime Minister. I am quoting from the Prime Minister's article in "Cite Libre" of April, 1963, when the then philosopher was commenting on the dictatorship of the then Prime Minister, Mr. Pearson. My supplementary, Madam Speaker, is that in that article the Prime Minister of today, as a philosopher then, wrote, and 1 quote:
I notice amongst the old guard Liberals a degrading cynicism that remains unchanged; amongst the young Liberals I observe the same obsequious-


Madam Speaker:: Order. Order! The question period is to entertain questions, not long quotations.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: My question is very short and very much to the point, and it very much involves the whole political morality of this Government.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: And to continue the quotation, which the Prime Minister wrote in his own hand-


Madam Speaker:: Order. Order!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I would like to ask the question.


Madam Speaker:: Order. Order! I can certainly give the floor to the Hon. Member to ask the question, but not to debate and not to make lengthy quotations. And I am not treating him in any other way than I am treating other Members of the House.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Madam Speaker, I will try to observe your restrictive stricture.


Madam Speaker:: What is the question?


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: My question to the Prime Minister, Madam Speaker, is this. Having developed an interesting reputation for political philosophy before he became a practising politician, why has he changed his mind from the article in 1963 when he talked about "old guard Liberal cynicism", and he, God forbid, "never trampled on democracy"? is not what
21596

December 15, 1982
Oral Questions
happened to the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier a trampling of parliamentary democracy, or has the Prime Minister just joined the "old guard" ranks of Liberal cynicism?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member is confused. In his first question he referred to an article of some 25 years ago, I guess, or 20 years ago, and it cannot be all that urgent a matter. In the second part of his question, between quotes he indicated that the Member for Ottata-Vanier had, "raised his voice against a dictator". I was asking the source of that quote. 1 suspect the Hon. Member has made those quotations up as he makes up a lot of his questions.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I will be raising a point of privilege, Madam Speaker, at three o'clock. 1 will read the whole speech. I give you notice now.


Madam Speaker:: Order. Order! 1 really wonder what has come upon the Hon. Member. He has had an answer. The Hon. Member for Selkirk-lnterlake.


NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS
Mr. Terry Sargeant (Selkirk-lnterlake):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister who has stated three to four times in this House in recent weeks, including this afternoon, that he views the Cruise missile matter as serious, yet over the past nine months he has tried to defend his Government's decision to permit U.S. Cruise missile testing in Canada as part of an effort to achieve arms control agreements. But as early as 1974, U.S. military planners, including Admiral Holloway, then Chief of U.S. Naval Operations, argued for the Cruise missile because it could be deployed covertly and thus make any arms control verification meaningless. Given this information, will the Prime Minister now make a commitment to stop fuelling the arms race by refusing to allow Cruise missile testing in Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I must point out to the Hon. Member that I do understand the concern shown by himself and by many Canadians on the testing of the Cruise missile in Canada, if that is indeed to happen, and which has not been decided yet. That is a matter which is being negotiated in the form of an umbrella agreement with the United States. I understand the concern. I want to point out, as 1 did to one of his fellow members of the New Democratic Party the other day, that this is part of our participation in an alliance, and, if we refuse to
take some role in the alliance, we are either hypocrites because we are supposing someone else should take that role, or else we should withdraw from the alliance. I have not heard his party suggest with any unanimity that we withdraw from the alliance.
As to the Cruise itself, I want to point out that one of the reasons why we have followed this policy which we are debating now is that the Cruise, by its very nature, cannot be a first-strike weapon. The Cruise delivery time is two to three hours, depending on where it is launched from. It cannot be a first-strike weapon, it can only be a retaliatory weapon, used in cases where someone else started a nuclear war, or a war that we feel is going to mightily destroy the alliance. That is a basic point. If the Hon. Members were lobbying against the Pershing or something else, I would understand it more because I suppose conceivably it could be a first-strike weapon. But when you are talking of a missile the delivery time of which is three hours, Madam Speaker, I do not see how the Members over there, or anyone in good faith, could suspect that this is one way in which our side wants to start a war.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: Madam Speaker, I submit that the Prime Minister has become a born-again militarist.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: That will be the frosty Friday.


PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING WITH CHURCH LEADERS
Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: Madam Speaker, given the Prime Minister's obvious disregard for the damaging impact of Cruise missile deployment on future arms control operations, and given that his mind is so obviously closed on this matter, could he tell the House why he wasted the time of the leaders of Canada's major Christian churches who met with him yesterday for the express purpose of changing his Government's position on Cruise missile testing and participation in MX development?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, they asked to meet me. I do not think it was their assessment that I wasted their time. We had a rational, intelligent discussion. I am sorry the Hon. Member is unable to carry on that kind of discussion. When he calls me a militarist, Madam Speaker-obviously we are a member of an alliance. We are not non-aligned, we are members of NATO. If that makes us militarists, because we are not absolutely neutral, so be it. But then I challenge his Party to get up and say now that they are not militarists in that sense, that they want to get out of NATO.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
December 15, 1982


METRIC CONVERSION
Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Madam Speaker, my question had been intended for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Perhaps I could direct it instead to the Minister responsible for small business.
The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has broken his word to the House of Commons and to retailers in Canada. He gave assurances to this Parliament back in January, 1981, that he would not prosecute those businesses who still choose to deal in imperial measurement, perhaps along with metric measurement. Will the Minister call off his colleague and stop force marching Canadians into metric and into the courts?


Mr. David Berger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Madam Speaker, the retail gasoline industry met with the Minister on a number of occasions, and had a committee, as the Hon. Member is aware, which oversaw the transformation from the imperial system to the metric system. That committee stood down earlier this year because conversion had taken place in about 99 per cent of the cases. It is possibly damaging to certain competitors of those who seek to infringe the law, and therefore the Minister has taken steps to apply the law.


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Surely, Madam Speaker, even the Parliamentary Secretary is not naive enough to believe that there are not many upset Canadians who are being forced to deal in metric, not only in the gasoline retail trade but in many other sectors of metric conversion.


METRIC COMMISSION BROCHURE
Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Madam Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary will know that the Metric Commission is sending out a five-colour brochure, reported to have cost more than $100,000, with every family allowance and pension cheque, wherein it is stated that metric conversion is voluntary in Canada and that we in this country must go metric because the United States is going metric. Both statements are untrue.
Will the Parliamentary Secretary bring to the attention of the Minister that his own Department should stop this Metric Commission from publishing false and misleading advertising?


David Berger: Madam Speaker, I do not know where the Hon. Member gets the impression that metric conversion is voluntary in certain sectors; it is part of the Weights and Measures Act and the Minister has a responsibility to apply that law. Further, Madam Speaker, given the fact that all young people in this country these days are educated in the Metric system I have a great deal of difficulty understanding-


Mr. Epp:: Anything.
Oral Questions


David Berger: -the lobby being raised by the dinosaurs across the way.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.


Some Hon. Members:: Leader! Leader!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, apparently they want a new leader over there.


Madam Speaker:: Order.


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister is meeting with the President of Pakistan this week and, as the Prime Minister knows, there is a great deal of fear that Pakistan is a country determined to develop a nuclear weapon. Will the Prime Minister tell the House what he hopes to accomplish in his meetings with the President of Pakistan, and is he going to urge him to sign full scope safeguards and sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty? If the President of Pakistan does not agree to do that, are we going to continue our policy of refusing to deliver nuclear fuel or any other nuclear implements to Pakistan?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, Madam Speaker, without going into the details of what has happened over the past years, I can assure the Hon. Member that in our past negotiations with Pakistan we stood pretty firm in ensuring that they would not become a nuclear state with Canada's assistance. That remains our position. Of course we will discuss that subject with him again, and it would be our desire that Pakistan and many other countries sign the non-proliferation treaty.
The Hon. Member asks what other subjects will be discussed. There will be many, but I am sure as a front-line state Pakistan will be willing to discuss with us the problems arising from the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, a matter which I understand has caused concern even in the mind of the Hon. Member, preoccupied as he is with the leadership question.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister seems to have leadership much on his mind. Methinks the throne is not as secure as it might appear, Madam Speaker.


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: He just has to look behind him.


John Carnell Crosbie: Safeguards are needed by the Prime Minister.

December 15, 1982
Ora! Questions


ARGENTINA-NUCLEAR ENERGY AGREEMENT
John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, Canada ended nuclear co-operation with Pakistan in 1976 when they refused to accept full safeguards in connection with our nuclear reactor in Karachi, but we still have Canadian technicians working on a Candu nuclear reactor in Argentina; we are still shipping them nuclear fuel bundles; we are still cooperating with them in the nuclear sense even though they have threatened to construct nuclear weapons.
Could the Prime Minister explain to the House the apparent contradiction between our policy with respect to Argentina and the policy he says we are still going to implement with respect to Pakistan?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If I understand the Hon. Member correctly, Madam Speaker, he is supporting the position this Government took in the past as regards nuclear and non-nuclear co-operation with Pakistan. I am grateful to him for having reminded the House of that.
As far as Argentina is concerned, it is another case which has been answered in detail by the present Minister of Justice when he was Secretary of State for External Affairs. Just to refresh the Hon. Member's memory, it had to do with the fact that if we were unilaterally to denounce our agreement with Argentina now, then we would be doing away with all safeguards. They are bound by the safeguards agreement we have now. Since the first signing of agreements in the early 1970s we have attempted to heighten the level of those safeguards and we have not been successful in every case. But to follow the course advocated by the Hon. Member would mean that there would be no safeguards at all with the material and the technology which has already been transferred to Argentina.


GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO BRANDT COMMISSION STATEMENT
Mr. Bob Ogle (Saskatoon East):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. Yesterday afternoon there were two groups of people here. One came representing the churches of Canada, seven national leaders, and at the same time Dr. Brandt from Germany and his commissioners were in the House of Commons. I think that was a very significant event. I feel that both came speaking with a prophetic voice.
This morning the Brandt Commission made a statement which called for urgent action to discuss means to increase world-


Madam Speaker:: Order, order. The Hon. Member should be asking a question, not quoting from a report.


Robert Joseph Ogle: 1 would like to ask the Prime Minister, without that much preparation, whether he is prepared at this moment to give a short answer on how he reacts to the Brandt statement this morning asking for greater liquidity, to reverse the decline in world trade and to alleviate the mounting burden of
debt around the world? Does he have a feeling about how Canada can respond?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I know Members of Parliament had the privilege of discussing all these subjects with Mr. Brandt and his colleagues, and I discussed them with them the previous day. I think the Hon. Member knows that Canada has been responding and has been taking positions which the Brandt Commission recognizes as showing the proper kind of leadership. Naturally they would want us to do more.
Mr. Brandt and his colleagues suggested the convening of a Cancun-type conference and were very profuse in their congratulations to Canada for having played a leading role in the Cancun Conference. If the Hon. Member is really trying to find out whether Canada is on the same wavelength as the Brandt Commission, the answer is that we have been saying for a long while that the North-South problems are very grave and that they are linked not only to the peace of the world but to economic recovery. We have been saying that. We believe that, but it does not mean that we can give Mr. Brandt or any other organization a blank cheque on the future.


COMMITTEE STUDY OF NORTH-SOUTH RELATIONS
Robert Joseph Ogle: Madam Speaker, the House of Commons is changing its rules at this time. Would the Prime Minister be willing to ask the Government to set up a Standing Committee to study the North-South question steadily, the same way the Brandt Commission has extended itself?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, we just had a task force of the House, chaired by, I believe, the Hon. Member for Gloucester, which issued a report on this very subject. 1 think the findings of that task force are still worthy of interest, and certainly they have been studied by the Government in determining its policies.


THE ECONOMY
Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. This morning there were reports in the newspapers which indicated that the Minister is changing his position on the size of the federal Government's deficit for the purpose of funding direct job-creation programs. This comes at a time when the deficit is at the particularly high level of 40 per cent of federal Government revenues.
Would the Minister explain to the House why he is reversing himself on this and considering a further increase in the size of the deficit, rather than encouraging Canadians across the country to create jobs through tax incentives designed to generate about as much revenue as the apparent tax costs would be?
December 15, 1982


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, a few weeks ago, in answer to a question of a similar nature, I indicated to the House that, as I was going to proceed with numerous consultations for the preparation of the budget, obviously there would be all kinds of speculations in the press about the options I would tend to entertain as the Minister of Finance. 1 said that 1 would not comment on those speculations because I was convinced that they would go in all kinds of directions. I should like to advise my hon. friend right away that he will probably see other articles in the next few weeks indicating a contrary direction. The advice I can give him is that he should read all of them as pure speculation. As far as the specific point he raised is concerned, I will take it as representation in the preparation of the budget.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: 1 hope, if the Minister of Finance raises this with his colleagues from the Provinces tomorrow, that he will let the House in on the secret which he apparently wants to hold off until the budget.


SUGGESTED TAX CREDIT FOR HOME RENOVATIONS
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, let me give the Minister an example of what I have in mind, the type of tax incentive to which I was just referring. Would he consider a tax credit, for example, of $5,000 against a portion of costs incurred in home renovations completed over the next six months? Obviously this would help the construction industry. It would stimulate expenditures on furniture and wood products with a high Canadian content and a high labour content, and it would be spread throughout the country. Would the Minister give consideration to this type of plan since it is likely to be more effective than large Public Works programs directed by bureaucrats here in Ottawa, and far broader and more efficient than the current CHRP direct loan program which requires a bureaucratic approval in each case?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his interesting suggestion. I would only remind him that we already have in operation a program for home renovations which provides $3,000 grants and which has generated something like $175 million of investment by the private sector. I do not think he has invented the wheel in his suggestion. He only wishes to add more money to it; I will bear that in mind in the preparation of the budget.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: You do not understand the difference.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, 1 wonder whether the Prime Minister could confirm that on November 5, 11 days after the announcement by Mr. Michael Pitfield of his intention to resign as Clerk of the Privy Council, the Government passed an Order in Council PC
Oral Questions
1982-3439 to raise Mr. Pitfield's salary from the eighth decile D-M 3 level to the tenth decile D-M 3 level.
Will the Prime Minister confirm that that action had the effect of increasing Mr. Pitfield's pension by $1,500 to $3,000 per year at a time when the Government was acting to reduce the pensions of other Canadians?
Would he also confirm that Mr. Pitfield's salary has been increased 9.28 per cent since the introduction of the six and five guidelines?


Some Hon. Members:: Shame, shame!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Madam Speaker, I cannot confirm that but I will be happy to look into it. As regards the passage of that Order in Council, my recollection is that it was done effective April 1. I may be subject to correction on that, but it seems to me that that is an action which is taken as regards all Deputy Ministers, all Order in Council appointees. They are done every year on recommendations of the Special Committee from the private sector appointed to advise the Government on senior salaries. If the facts as quoted are correct, 1 can assure the House that the action was taken as part of an increase given to all senior public servants.


SALARIES OF SENIOR PUBLIC SERVANTS
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, is the Prime Minister telling us that since the introduction of the six and five principle for ordinary Canadians, senior public servants, on average, generally, have been receiving salary increases in excess of 9 per cent as is the case with Mr. Pitfield? Is that what he is telling us? Also, would he tell the House of Commons on what authority he acted?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, on the first part of the question, the answer is no, that is not what I am telling the Hon. Member. If he looks at my previous answer he will see that he is making up the suggestion and not basing it on the facts.
When the Hon. Member asked me on what authority, I indicated that at least the moral authority came from a committee of private sector people which was set up more than a decade ago and which I believe was called the Kline Committee. But as far as the legal authority is concerned, it was the authority of the Governor in Council to recommend to His Excellency the Governor General, the salary levels of Order in Council appointees.


FINANCE
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. On October 27 the

December 15, 1982
Point of Order-Mr. Epp
Minister announced that he was deferring any changes in the federal sales tax proposals until May, 1984. Can the Minister give this House absolute assurance that he will not try to introduce these changes piecemeal, product by product in the interval, say, for instance, in lumber and building products?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I can tell the Hon. Member that I am not contemplating any such step. He knows, however, that the task force has been agreed to. It is being set up, and consultations will take place. Obviously if there was unanimity on the task force in the private sector that certain steps would be taken, I would want to look at the advisability of proceeding with certain steps, but I can tell the Hon. Member that neither my Department nor myself is considering any such step at the present time. We have never discussed this matter.


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Provencher.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Madam Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Transport-


Madam Speaker:: I am sorry, I thought the Hon. Member was rising on a question of privilege, of which he had given me notice. Questions of privilege are not exactly in the order in which I received them, but he was the only Hon. Member rising. I would just like Hon. Members to allow me to put an end to the Question Period, and I will do it this way.


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate have passed Bill C-140, an Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Government of Canada for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1983.


POINT OF ORDER
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Madam Speaker, I want to raise a question of privilege of which I gave you written notice today. I would ask you, Madam Speaker, to take a look at yesterday's Hansard at page 21585. You will note that Hansard records my name in two different places and that I was rising on a point of privilege. Circumstances being what they were yesterday afternoon, a vote was called by you and with the ringing of the bells there was no opportunity for me after ten o'clock last night to raise my question of privilege, and it is for that reason that 1 do so today.
Yesterday during the events of the afternoon there was an exchange between myself and the Hon. Member for Restigou-che (Mr. Harquail) during which the Hon. Member for Resti-gouche, I presume wanting to participate in the debate at that time, was trying to get your eye. I suggested to him, as there were exchanges across the floor, that he should not rise and not further embarrass himself. The Member for Restigouche made a comment which I believe was, first, unparliamentary and, second, I believe it was obscene.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Just to put this procedure more in conformity with our rules, the Hon. Member should be rising on a point of order and not on a question of privilege. Otherwise I need not hear him and can tell him that he does not have a question of privilege. The Hon. Member does have a point of order. If he wants to raise a point of order, I will entertain it.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I have a question of privilege, Madam Speaker, which takes precedence over a point of order.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Madam Speaker, 1 will take your advice. I will continue where I left off. I believe the comment was, first, unparliamentary and, second, I believe it was obscene. Third, I believe the comment was unworthy of any Member in the House, to raise matters in the manner in which that one was raised.
1 notice that the comment is not recorded in Hansard. 1 have checked with a number of my colleagues on this side of the House to confirm whether or not they heard the comment made by the Hon. Member for Restigouche. A number of them assured me both yesterday and today that they heard the words used by the Hon. Member from Restigouche. Even though the matter is not recorded in Hansard, it is important the words of Hon. Members in this House be taken as the truth. Even though the words were not recorded in Hansard- and I have no intention of repeating them and thus entering them into the pages of Hansard-these types of exchanges are unworthy of all Members in the House and I would ask that the words uttered yesterday by the Hon. Member for Restigouche, confirmed by Members at least on this side of the House as having been made, be withdrawn.


Mr. Maurice Harquail (Restigouche):: Madam Speaker, on this particular subject raised by the Hon. Member for Provencher (Mr. Epp), he admits that I did not have the floor, that I had not been successful in getting your attention. The Hon. Member has just stated that I did not have the opportunity to participate in the normal way. He confirms that I had not been successful in being recognized to participate at a very crucial time in the exchange and in the debate that was taking place at the time which, as Your Honour will only too well recall, resulted in a five-hour bell.
As I was trying to get the floor to make a correction for the House by pointing out that the Minister had already begun his remarks and that you had given the floor to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan), at that point a dozen or more Members were heckling. It is very little wonder that the
December 15, 1982

comment was not recorded in Hansard. There were more than a dozen people drowning out my voice and drowning out my attempt to be recognized by the Chair, which created the problem in the first instance. 1 think if the Hon. Member had not been so reckless himself in participating in the manner in which he did, he would not be faced with this embarrassment for himself today.


Madam Speaker:: The only point that is of interest in this particular exchange, and I thought the Hon. Member for Restigouche (Mr. Harquail) was rising for that purpose, is that I did not hear the words. I did not hear any words that were unparliamentary. They are not recorded in Hansard. Therefore, I have to rely on the word of Hon. Members. Hon. Members on this side of the House say they heard unparliamentary language. The only way I can rule on the matter is if the Hon. Member for Restigouche will confirm that he used unparliamentary language. Unless he does, there is no way that 1 can rule that what was said was unparliamentary. I have to take the word of all Hon. Members. If the Hon. Member for Restigouche feels he said nothing that was unparliamentary, I am afraid the point of order cannot be taken and I cannot rule on it.


Mr. Beatty:: Show some honour.


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Provencher.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Madam Speaker, with all respect, I think that creates a particular dilemma for all Members of the House in this sense, that literally anything can be said across the floor.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Literally anything cannot be said across the floor. If I hear unparliamentary language, 1 deal with it. If I do not hear unparliamentary words, then I consult Hansard. If unparliamentary words are not recorded in Hansard, we also have the tapes and we can listen to them. Since we have none of those records and if the Hon. Member for Restigouche does not confirm that he used unparliamentary language, 1 have to insist that I cannot rule on the matter.


Maurice James Harquail: Madam Speaker, in the interests of the great respect 1 have for this institution and for the Chair, and through you to the Hon. Member, whether he knows it or not the respect that I have for him, I want to say that if he has read something into this or heard something which is not recorded, it is difficult for me to respond to it. But I would want to take the opportunity to say that if the Hon. Member has been offended, 1 will withdraw whatever was said in the heat of debate that offended him. But he in fact knows full well that he contributed to the particular instance to which he is referring, if there was such an instance.


Madam Speaker:: The matter is obviously closed.
Privilege-Mr. McKnight PRIVILEGE
mr. Mcknight-use of franking privilege


Mr. Bill McKnight (Kindersley-Lloydminster):: Madam Speaker, I gave you notice of my question of privilege earlier today. 1 have raised this issue in the House regarding the use of franks and House of Commons stationery by Members outside of what would normally be considered their duties as Members of Parliament. 1 have read a ruling that you made on one occasion and I will give you the page number and the day so that you will have it for reference.


Madam Speaker:: Order. Please do not read to me my ruling. The Hon. Member can read it later on. Right now, he should tell me what his question of privilege is.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Madam Speaker, as I indicated in my letter to you, the question of privilege I am raising today concerns the use of privileges which Members of Parliament have because of our positions that could cause disrespect or be used in an unmeaningful way.
In order to enable you to make a ruling on this matter, I have taken the opportunity to inform the Hon. Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Anguish) that I would be raising it as well as to provide that Member with a copy of the correspondence which 1 hope to discuss. My reason for doing this is that I have correspondence from the Saskatchewan Land Bank Tenants Association, Box 89, Sonningdale, Saskatchewan which is signed by Chris Mewhort, who is the Secretary of the Saskatchewan Land Bank Tenants Association. It is a letter sent to J. F. Watts, Box 1105, Weyburn, Saskatchewan. In these pieces of correspondence in the envelope which bears the frank of the Hon. Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, I do not find anything that refers to the Hon. Member by name, constituency or anything else which indicates that the Hon. Member is aware that his frank is being used.
If our franks are being used without our knowledge-


Madam Speaker:: Order. I can see that the Hon. Member is complaining about the use that another Hon. Member has made of his frank.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: No.


Madam Speaker:: It is not that? It is only proof, then, that the Hon. Member has not been quite clear as to what his question of privilege is. I want to know how whatever he is complaining about or what he is intending to expose affects his personal privilege.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Madam Speaker, as I said in my initial remarks, with respect to the use of the privileges which are allowed Members of Parliament because of our positions, there is a great concern and need to protect the rights that are given to us by the House and, in fact, the people of Canada.


An Hon. Member:: What is your point of privilege?

December 15, 1982
Privilege-Mr. McKnight


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: I am sure that is not one of your assistants that I hear, Madam Speaker.
My question of privilege is that Members must know whether their franks are being used, because our franks are important. If a frank has fallen into the wrong hands or used without a Member's knowledge, it is important that all Members of Parliament are made aware of this. Letters that do not pertain to federal Government business or do not pertain to matters concerning a Member's own constituency may be sent out and people will assume that the frank was used with the Member's knowledge and, therefore, his endorsement of whatever information may be contained in those letters.
I raise this question of privilege because 1 feel that you, Madam Speaker, as the first Commoner of the House, have the right and will to protect the use of our franks. I have brought this to the attention of the Hon. Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake and, through raising this question of privilege, I am asking that Members be made aware of the situation and be sure that their franks are used only with their knowledge, since it may not have been used with the knowledge of the Hon. Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake.


Madam Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member must be fair. He does not know whether the frank has been used with the knowledge of another Hon. Member. He does not know whether the Hon. Member used it himself. It is not a very precise exposition of a complaint of a problem and 1 cannot accept it as such.
Furthermore, with respect to the matter of the use of a frank, if the Hon. Member has a complaint, especially of the type he is now discussing, I think he could discuss it with the Hon. Member. As Hon. Members know, the use of the frank is a matter that is usually discussed among the Members of the Committee on Management and Members' Services if there is a particular problem arising from the use of the frank. The Speaker does not interfere to tell Hon. Members in what instances they may use their frank or may not use their frank. This is up to the Hon. Member to determine. He does it within his own conception of what is or is not proper. If something improper arises, Hon. Members usually discuss it in the Committee.
1 cannot hear the Hon. Member further. He has already spoken for quite a while on this subject and has not made clear that it is a question of privilege. I have gone to the trouble of explaining to him where he can get redress on this particular matter. I would urge him to do just that.
I will deal with the questions of privilege in the order they have been received. The Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Footh-ills (Mr. Thacker).


Mr. Thacker:: Madam Speaker, 1 rise on a question of privilege.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In all fairness, the name of the Hon. Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Anguish) was dragged before the House. As you said, Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member making the charge spoke for quite a while. We have a tradition
in the House of giving the Member at least a few minutes to reply to the charges that are being made. I maintain that that Member should have that right. 1 see the Hon. Member for Kindersley-Lloydsminster (Mr. McKnight) nodding his head.


Madam Speaker:: I do not say that the Hon. Member would not have the right to reply, but I have already ruled on the matter, which is not a question of privilege, in any event. If the Hon. Member wishes to reply I may hear him later; but the Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills rose before him and that is why I recognized him.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Madam Speaker, in view of the fact that the matter was raised by the Hon. Member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight) and that the Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Anguish) wishes to respond, I would be delighted to stand down for a couple of minutes to allow him to respond. I do not want the Hon. Member to stand again on a point of order and interrupt a proper question of privilege which affects every Member of the House. I believe you will find that all Members have the same problem I have with respect to Private Bills. It truly is a question of privilege which must be dealt with.


Madam Speaker:: There is some difficulty. I have already ruled on this particular question. I could perhaps accept what the Hon. Member has to say on a point of order but he should not comment on the ruling. If he wants to give an explanation, I will hear him on a point of order.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, the correspondence to which the Hon. Member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight) referred arose from a concern over a bill that was presented in the provincial legislature of Saskatchewan. It concerned Bill 46, an Act to abolish the land bank. In the wisdom of the previous Government, it saw fit to create the Saskatchewan land bank and the Saskatchewan Land Bank Commission as a means to get young farmers on the land. In the wisdom of the new Government which just came into power in Saskatchewan, it has seen fit to abolish the land bank by introducing Bill 46.
The Hon. Member does raise a very important matter. The letter which he has brought into question was sent out under the signature of a Chris Mewhort, who is a land bank tenant and represented the Saskatchewan Land Bank Tenants Association.
I believe that when a Member's frank is used it must be done in a way that upholds the honour of this institution. This is not accomplished if Members use their privilege as Members of Parliament, especially with regard to franking of correspondence, to send correspondence which has a political leaning or nature to it.
I submit that in the case of this letter that was sent out by the Saskatchewan Land Bank Tenants Association, there was no political motivation on my part. There were some 2,600 land bank tenants in Saskatchewan. Many of those are cardcarrying members of the Progressive Conservative Party, many
December 15, 1982

are New Democrats and many are also members of the Liberal Party, I would submit.
1 have no personal motivation in this matter because the letter that the Land Bank Tenants Association sent out was not only within my constituency-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: It was in mine!


Douglas Keith Anguish: -but it was sent out to all of the approximately 2,600 land bank tenants in the Province of Saskatchewan.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: It came from my constituency!


Douglas Keith Anguish: 1 do not solicit any funds in the letter for myself as a politician or for my political party. 1 hear the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn) starting to cry that this was from his riding. I would admit that fact, and he can respond as well.
It happens that Mr. Mewhort, the Secretary of the Saskatchewan Land Bank Tenants Association, does in fact live in the riding of the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West. The writer of this letter came to me and said that he was very concerned about the passage of Bill 46 in the Saskatchewan legislature because it took away the rights that people have under the Charter of Rights and Lreedoms which would apply to this House. In fact, Bill 46 takes away the right to any recourse-


Madam Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member is going far beyond the explanation that he was going to give with regard to the complaint raised by the Hon. Member. 1 asked him to make his comments short. I think we accept the explanation that he has given, but he must make his comments very short.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Madam Speaker, I was coming to my point. I think that two things were indicated. The Hon. Member was asking if this was not an abuse of my frank, and was also asking if 1 was aware of the use of my frank on this piece of correspondence, which I could read into the record if you so wish, Madam Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Go ahead.


Douglas Keith Anguish: The frank was used with my full knowledge on this piece of correspondence. I would admit that. I maintain that there was no abuse of my frank as a Member of Parliament or, if Your Honour would see fit to find that there was an abuse, it would certainly be less flagrant than it was on November 30, 1978 when-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


Douglas Keith Anguish: -when the Hon. Member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton)-


Madam Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member is raising another point in order to justify-
Privilege-Mr. Thacker


Some Hon. Members:: No, no!


Madam Speaker:: -his own conduct, which 1 do not judge. I told Hon. Members before that I do not judge whether the frank was used properly or not. If Hon. Members maintain that there is a complaint which could be lodged, then they must lodge the complaint before the Committee on Management and Members' Services.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I have a question of privilege.


MR. THACKER-PREPARATION OF PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS
Blaine Allen Thacker: Madam Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 17. You will know from the notice that I gave to you that the question I propose to raise today affects each and every one of us as Members, because we all have Private Bills which we have presented and which we want to present. The question relates either to the inability or, as written in my notice, the refusal-although 1 am not sure that is the case-of the legislative drafters to prepare our Private Bills in time.
The reason I raise this matter before Your Honour-


An Hon. Member:: Filibuster!


Blaine Allen Thacker: -is that it falls under your jurisdiction on the Hill.
Since I became a Member in 1979, I have attempted to have Private Bills drafted with respect to gun control, with respect to making salaries public of officials who work for us and Crown corporations, and another relating to the Constitution which would provide for balanced budgets. Such Private Bills would reflect the wide views of constituents.
Ever since becoming a Member in 1979, I have met with different lawyers in the private legislation branch. The first time I went over there was in 1980, after we came back with the new Government in place. I met with a young lawyer and his adviser to discuss these Bills. They were supposed to be drafted but they never were. My researcher would go back after a few months and ask for an update. Then a draft of the gun control legislation came and it simply was not in the proper form. I held a meeting, then a second one, with a supervisor at which time I explained why 1 wanted to have a certain clause of the Constitution deleted. That officer was actually quite rude in the sense of implying that his branch would not draft just any Bill that a Member wanted. I wanted to have Clause 133 totally taken out of the Constitution, leaving the question of language to the Provinces, but the officer simply refused to draft that Bill. I think that is-


Madam Speaker:: All right, I see what the Hon. Member's question is all about. What I must tell him is that it is not a question of privilege. It is, rather, a question concerning the services of the House. 1 very much regret that the Hon.

December 15, 1982
Privilege-Mr. Thacker
Member is running into that kind of trouble in getting his Bills drafted. I know that in that particular section we have run into some difficulties with some of the staff having to absent themselves-


Mr. Rose:: Yes, everyone quits. That is what your difficulty is.


Madam Speaker:: -and at least one having resigned to take another position which he thought was more in line with his interests. I knew that there was a bit of a backlog, but I did not know that it had inconvenienced Hon. Members to the extent that the Hon. Member would want to raise the matter in the House. I must tell him that he could raise it with me privately in my chambers, and I will certainly see to it that he gets his Bill or Bills drafted in the time that he needs them. If necessary, I will seek help from other services in order to satisfy Hon. Members.


Erik Nielsen: I rise on the question of privilege.


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) rises on a point of order.


Erik Nielsen: I do not believe the Hon. Member for Leth-bridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker) had finished his comments, but it raises a serious question of privilege-


Mr. Smith:: Filibuster!


Erik Nielsen: -in my submission. I hear the Parliamentary Secretary saying "filibuster!" He is not concerned with the rights of Parliamentarians.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: The provision of services by the law branch of the House of Commons is very much a matter within the particular bailiwick of each and every Member of Parliament.
1 have heard more than one complaint from Hon. Members who have not been able to get their legislation drafted. As Your Honour knows, it has now been three months since Mr. Maingot has left and his position is still vacant. Surely, it cannot be all that difficult to fill a position of director of the House of Commons law branch, which is specifically charged with providing services to all Members of Parliament.
Then, too, I am aware that Professor Franks of Queen's University was commissioned to prepare a study. I am afraid I do not know who commissioned it. Perhaps the Office of the Chair commissioned that study. However, that study should be available and should be read by all Members of Parliament. For that purpose, it is my personal submission to Your Honour that the Franks report should be tabled so that it is available to all Members of Parliament.
Lastly, I suggest that any critiques which have been prepared of the Franks study should also be made available to all Members of Parliament so that we know where we are going
with respect to the future of his very vital service of the House of Commons law branch to Members of Parliament.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: Is the Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker) rising on a point of order or a question of privilege?


Blaine Allen Thacker: On the question of privilege, Madam Speaker. 1 believe, just from your own words, it has been shown that there is a prima facie case, and the question is not whether or not you try to solve it by meeting privately with me, or whether, by a motion, it is put before the proper committee so that all sides of the House-


Madam Speaker:: No, I said it did not touch on privilege. The particular complaint which the Hon. Member was making did not touch on privilege, but I did say that I would be glad to discuss with him how we can solve this problem.
For the benefit of the Hon. Member for Yukon, I can tell him that the post of law clerk has been filled on an interim basis. The post was not left vacant; it was filled on an interim basis by another member of the personnel. Therefore, it was not left completely in abeyance. However, the Hon. Member is right in saying that it should be filled. At any rate, those are problems of administration which Hon. Members know should not be taken up and discussed in the House.


Mr. Benjamin:: I have a point of order, Madam Speaker.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I have a point of privilege, Madam Speaker.


Madam Speaker:: I have another notice of a question of privilege by the Hon. Member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone).


MR. MALONE-DRAFTING PRIORITY OF PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS
Arnold John Malone: Madam Speaker, 1 preface my comments by saying that while you will note some similarity between what I am about to say and the comments of the Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker), I believe 1 can make a distinct difference, in terms of the concept of Private Members' Bills, that will set it apart from what you heard from that Hon. Member.
One of the common understandings of all Members is that we are treated equally. Our chances to raise questions, to raise points of order or questions of privilege, to print Bills or our opportunities to speak, are equal to all.
In making reference to the printing of Private Members' Bills, I want to bring to the attention of you, Madam Speaker, a specific comment of an officer who is in charge of drafting. I want to pause at this point to say that I lay no critique towards those good officers and the hard work that they do in drafting.
1 would not want any slant of anything I say to reflect on them because I think we are all aware of the fact that the restraints

December 15, 1982

of both the country and this Elouse of Commons have led to an understaffing of those Members.
The specific comment that I would like to bring to your attention with respect to the reasons I could not get a Private Members' Bill drafted until into the next session is as follows: "There are some Bills of priority that must be drafted first".
I submit that, when there is a judgment of priority and the question of what comes first, what comes into question then is which Member among Members should be the first to receive consideration. 1 submit that a consideration is taking place out of this Chamber as to the status and nature of some Members versus others; a judgment is being made as to which Member ought to receive priority. Any time, whether within or outside the House, that there is a priority decision given as to which Members are to be first, that jeopardizes those Members who must be something other than first.
When we, for whatever reason, have cause to bring to the attention of the House of Commons a piece of legislation in the interest of our constituents, our Province or our country, we should be able to do that without having to challenge whether or not we meet the priority of some other Member. If we have, as individual Members of the House of Commons, legislation that we want drafted and placed before the House, we should not have to wait until another session of Parliament, especially when that session could be several months from now. We want to be able to have our legislation at least receive the attention of the public by the fact that it receives first reading and, hopefully, is debated in this Chamber.
1 have had a number of Bills. The nature of the Bills are not necessarily important, but I have a list here of six. I am sure that just by reading them Members would find in the main most of them are probably important and which to a large extent they may concur in. But the fact is that we cannot even get them drafted, and if the reason for it is that there are some Bills of priority that must be drafted first, then 1 submit that there is a judgment being made that affects the working operations of each and every Member in this Chamber. That, 1 suggest, constitutes a question of privilege.


Madam Speaker:: 1 think the Hon. Member could have come to my office and discussed this problem because it is obviously a problem dealing with the manner in which the services of the House of Commons are provided to Members.
May I tell Hon. Members that I spend a lot of time trying to improve the services to Hon. Members because I know that those services are essential to the accomplishment of their tasks as Members of Parliament. I think Hon. Members will recognize that 1 have spent a lot of hours doing just that.
1 would tell the Hon. Member that if he has been told that some Bills have priority over any of his Bills, I think I can explain to him what that really meant. Our policy is that Bills are drafted on the basis of first-come, first-served; so the first Members who came, 1 suppose, would be the ones who had priority.
Privilege-Mr. Hnatyshyn
There is no judgment made by any people in the law branch or by myself or anyone who has to deal with these problems as to which of the Bills are the most important ones. That is certainly not a judgment that is made. If he has been told that there were certain priorities, it is simply because other Members presented themselves before he did.
1 have a notice of a question of Privilege by the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn).


MR. HNATYSHYN-ALLEGED ATTACK ON CITIZENSHIP COURT
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, 1 did rise on a point of order, 1 do not know if you would want to hear me-a separate point of order-flowing from remarks of the Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Anguish) with respect to the admission he made as to the franking from my constituency of certain material, not under his signature but apparently under his auspices. 1 have the document in question and 1 would propose, with the unanimous consent of the House, to table these documents which are in the nature of a fund-raising opportunity and a membership application by an association involved with provincial legislation, not dealing with any responsibilities that we have in this Parliament.
I would ask, Madam Speaker, if 1 could obtain unanimous consent to table this material so it will be a matter of public record.


Madam Speaker:: There are no precedents for that kind of tabling. The Hon. Member might make the documents available in another way, but there is no precedent for that kind of tabling.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I wanted to ask for unanimous consent under Standing Order 42 of the rules of this House, which I think is available to us.


Erik Nielsen: The House can do anything with consent.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I certainly take your advice. 1 am quite prepared to-


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) is quite right; the House can do anything with unanimous consent. Does the House consent to the tabling of these documents?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member does not have unanimous consent.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, 1 want to rise on a question of privilege arising from matters in the Question Period today, in which 1 participated, relating to an unprecedented attack on the independence of a judicial body in our country, not only by a Member of the House of Commons but also by a Member of the Cabinet-and 1 refer to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Caccia).

December 15, 1982
Privilege-Mr. Hnatyshyn
The point I want to raise by way of a prima facie case this afternoon is that this particular attack on the citizenship court is one which affects the rights and privileges of all Members. I think it would be helpful to us if 1 were to read specifically the contents of this letter which I have in my hand. I have given copies to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) so that he is apprised of the correspondence. As he indicated he may not have been, I felt it was a courtesy to let him have this information.
This is a letter from the Minister of Labour to the then Secretary of State who is now the Minister of State for International Trade (Mr. Regan). 1 make the point that while the letter is to the then Secretary of State, it has been published in the legal sense inasmuch as copies have been sent to the Metropolitan Toronto Political Action Committee and also to all Toronto Ministers of the Cabinet.
I will read the letter, Madam Speaker, and you will see the severity of the accusations and statements made which, I suggest, verge on, if not in fact meet, the test of libellous statements.
The letter is addressed to the Hon. Gerald Regan, P.C., M.P., Secretary of State, House of Commons, Ottawa, and is dated November 20, 1981. It reads as follows:
Dear Gerald:
Following letters I wrote you and your predecessor in recent months on citizenship matters, I am taking the liberty of writing this time on the organization of citizenship judges. Repeatedly the point has been made with me that:
(1)	there is a structure of national and regional co-ordinators which is costly and considered unnecessary; judges seem to resent that organization because it causes internal frictions;
(2)	judges are expected to show more rejections in their workload as one criterion of good performance; women applicants have to pay for this insane requirement;
(3)	apparently one or more clashes between groups of English-speaking and French-speaking citizenship judges have taken place at a recent annual meeting;
(4)	apparently deliberate efforts are being made to keep applicants from one ethnic group from being interviewed by the judge who comes from that same group.
If these points are important enough to you, I would take the liberty of suggesting a thorough review of the situation. In addition, as mentioned in my last letters, rules and regulations are being applied which do not seem to have any resemblance to the legislation. I am available for elaboration on these points and on the examples I have brought to your attention in previous letters.
With kind personal regards,
The letter is signed "Charles" over the signature of "Charles Caccia".
My question of privilege is simply this. You will take notice of the provisions of the Citizenship Act which established the Citizenship Court. There are many precedents which have been dealt with in this House of Commons regarding what 1 consider to be criticisms not only of the judiciary, but criticisms of judgments of individuals and the collective judiciary. In this particular case, outside the House of Commons a Cabinet Minister gave to those people who received the publication of this particular allegation the imprimatur of being the considered view of Members of this House of Commons.
Madam Speaker, I think that you can see, and you will agree, that when it is alleged in a very racist statement that apparently efforts are being made to keep applicants from one ethnic group to be interviewed from one who comes from another group, the reference is that the Citizenship Court judges are conspiring against the responsibilities that are to be carried out under the Citizenship Act.
When you consider that the allegation is made by a Member of this House that judges are expected to show more rejections in their workload as one criterion of good performance, when Parliament has spoken on these issues by the enactment of legislation, and when a Member of this House, a Member of the Cabinet bearing responsibility, says that rules and regulations being applied have no resemblance to the legislation, it reflects upon the House.
There are analogies not only in this country but in the United Kingdom, at the Mother of Parliament, of recent vintage. By way of example, the Solicitor General for Scotland in the United Kingdom recently said publicly-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Is the Hon. Member arguing that a Minister of the Crown cannot write a letter to express an opinion on the way some person is applying the legislation? The Hon. Member has not yet told me where his personal privilege has been affected. The Hon. Member knows that a Minister does not necessarily speak for Parliament. He speaks for himself, for Cabinet, his caucus, and all these other things, but certainly not for Parliament. So I cannot accept that argument. If the Hon. Member has other arguments, especially as to where his privilege has been affected, I will be glad to listen to him.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, there are two points 1 would make. I am not objecting to the fact that one Member of Parliament writes to another, whether it be a Cabinet Minister or not. That is not the point. This document has been published by virtue of the fact it has been circulated among a number of people in Canada. By doing this, the Minister has indicated in no uncertain terms that legislation passed by this House of Commons, this Parliament as a whole, is being abrogated. He casts an aspersion on Members of the judiciary, namely the Canadian Citizenship Court.
The point is simply this. Members of Cabinet have a responsibility to reflect the views of the House of Commons in accordance with those authorities which we give by way of legislation, practice or tradition. What has happened here is without authority, without sanction or legislation. By virtue of no tradition, the Minister has circulated an accusation which affects the privileges of all Members of the House of Commons. The Minister is making the allegation that Citizenship Court judges are not performing the task that we as legislators have enacted.
I was making an analogy. In the United Kingdom, the Solicitor General of Scotland made a public statement that the laws relating to rape in that country were not properly constituted and were not being properly handled. Because of that statement made in public, the British Prime Minister asked for
December 15, 1982

his resignation and it was tendered. It was because of an admission on the part of the Minister that the Government was not handling its responsibility.
1 draw an analogy here. In terms of legislation, whatever the Prime Minister asks the Minister of Labour or Secretary of State, it is his responsibility. However, here the Minister of Labour is saying that laws passed by Members of the House of Commons have been abrogated by some conspiracy by at least some of the Citizenship Court judges. As a Member of Parliament, I refuse to accept that categorical assertion.
If there are no greater facts, we should have the matter referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections so that we can determine the validity of the allegation to find out whether our laws are being abrogated by a conspiracy among some judges. If, Madam Speaker, you find that I have presented to you a prima facie case that our rights have not only been abrogated in this House, but that there is a reflection on the laws that we have passed, I will make the appropriate motion with respect to a reference to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Willowdale (Mr. Peterson) had risen before the Hon. Member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis). I would like to know on what point the Hon. Member for Willowdale is rising.


Mr. Peterson:: Madam Speaker, I am rising on a question of privilege arising out of today's performance. 1 have so far heard at least five-


Madam Speaker:: Order. If it is a new question of privilege, I will hear the Hon. Member for Simcoe North, who wants to intervene in the question of privilege raised by the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn).


Mr. Doug Lewis (Simcoe North):: Madam Speaker, I want to add further to the very able argument of my colleague from Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn), who has read into the record the very serious allegations made by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Caccia) with respect to the independence of the judiciary and the way the judiciary is operating. What we should be looking at is Beauchesne, page 25, Citation 80(2), and I quote:
A question of privilege, on the other hand, is a question partly of fact and partly of law-the law of contempt of Parliament-
In 1976 the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) felt that interference by a Cabinet Minister with the judiciary was so important that he came into this House on March 12 of that year and made a statement as Prime Minister. You will recall, Madam Speaker, that at that time there had been several occasions upon which Cabinet Ministers from the Liberal Government had been called into question with regard to contacting judges. There was a question regarding the then President of the Treasury Board; one regarding the present Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Chretien); and another regarding the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde), who at that time was an employee. There was a question regarding the then Minister of Public Works, Mr. Privilege-Mr. Hnatyshyn
Drury, who has since resigned. Then there was finally the question concerning the then Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs who resigned as a result of the judge's inquiry and then was reincarnated as the present Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet).
The Prime Minister very specifically said at page 11771 of Hansard on March 12, 1976:
I entirely concur with the view of the Chief Justice that the independence of the judiciary must remain protected from interventions from Members of the Cabinet-
He went on to say:
-there should be an immediate clarification of the regime which under this and,
I hope, any future Government will govern the relationship of Members of the Cabinet with Members of the judiciary.
Finally he said:
-no Member of the Cabinet may communicate with members of the judiciary concerning any matter which they have before them in their judicial capacities-
I appreciate, Madam Speaker, as does this House, that the Minister of Labour wrote the letter directly to the Hon. Gerald Regan, the Secretary of State, but what bothers this House, my colleagues on this side, is that a copy went to members of METPAC. We do not know who "METPAC" is. If the Minister of Labour had a concern with the conduct of the citizenship judges, why do the members of METPAC have to be apprised of his concern? Would it not have been something which the Minister of Labour should have dealt with directly with the Secretary of State, without spreading this kind of malicious allegation to all the members of METPAC and, presumably, to their secretaries and the people in their offices?
I believe, Madam Speaker, what concerns this Parliament and my colleagues on this side is that the Minister of Labour, by his actions, has brought every citizenship judge in Canada into question. Stucture is one thing, but they should not suggest they show more rejections, or that women applicants are not getting a fair break, or that there have been clashes between judges, or that there have been deliberate attempts to keep members of an ethnic group from sitting on applications from their own ethnic group. That is what we on this side feel is a contempt of Parliament. By suggesting this in his letter, the Minister has made every member on both sides a party to this allegation. We feel that is an abuse of the privilege of all the Members of this House.


Madam Speaker:: It seems to me that the question raised by the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West might be a legitimate complaint, one the Hon. Member might make in this House, but criticisms of judges made outside of the House certainly do not call for the intervention of the House. It is really a matter for the courts to decide if they feel that the judiciary has been in any way affected by those particular criticisms. The fact that these criticisms were made in a private letter which subsequently was circulated to a number of other people does not change the matter at all. As a matter of fact, this letter

December 15, 1982
Privilege-Mr. Peterson
was supposed to have been circulated to members of MET-PAC. Who is METPAC? 1 do not know.


An Hon. Member:: A Toronto Liberal organization.


Madam Speaker:: 1, as the Chair, have no way of finding out who these people are and why this letter has been circulated to them. This is a matter which has to be dealt with in another way than the one which is suggested by these two Hon. Members.
I would remind Hon. Members that criticisms of judges do not impair the operations of this House whereas a question of privilege would deal with the operations of this House. These particular criticisms of judges do not impair the operations of the House or obstruct Members, as a matter of fact, in their duties. They are able to perform their duties regardless of whether or not criticisms of that nature have been levelled at judges.
I have a lot of sympathy for the strong feelings which Members have about this particular situation, and they should be encouraged to pursue the matter in every possible way they feel they can pursue it, but 1 cannot allow them to do it under the guise of a question of privilege and, unfortunately, I have to rule that 1 do not find privilege in the Hon. Member's question.
1 have a question of privilege from the Hon. Member for Willowdale (Mr. Peterson).


MR. PETERSON-CONDUCT OF MEMBERS OF OFFICIAL OPPOSITION
James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege arising from today's proceedings. I feel that my privileges as a Member of Parliament to do the job for which I have been elected have been very seriously impaired by the type of conduct which I see going on today. We have already had at least five questions of privilege raised by Members of the Official Opposition. I see at least five or six other Members who are-


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member might not like what is taking place in the House at the present time. He can have opinions on whatever is taking place, but certainly that is not a question of privilege. He has risen to expose a question of privilege, but unfortunately I have to interrupt him because he does not have a question of privilege.
The Hon. Member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis) on a point of order.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, while you were delivering your judgment, the Hon. Member for Don Valley East (Mr. Smith) allowed to the House that he was a Member of METPAC, and that might be of some assistance to you.


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Blais) on a point of order.
[Translation}


Mr. Blais:: Madam Speaker, my point of order concerns the procedure being used by the Members of the Opposition. I simply wish to point out that immediately after the oral question period, a series of questions of privilege were raised in an entirely disorderly fashion. As you know. Madam Speaker, there were at least six or seven other Members who advised the Chair that they intended to raise a question of privilege. My point or order is as follows: According to Standing Order 12 of the House of Commons, the Chair has the duty to preserve order in the House, and on page 441 of Erskine May, it says that it is the right of any Member of this House who conceives that a breach of order has been committed, to rise in his place.
With all due respect, Madam Speaker, I wish to say that after what happened when the bells started to ring yesterday afternoon, and considering the debate on the motion before the House pursuant to Standing Order 75C, and the position taken by the Opposition on motions of closure and time allocation under Standing Order 75C of the House of Commons, it is clear that the Opposition is systematically trying to create disorder in this House.

There are, of course, Madam Speaker, the rules of this House which have to be honoured, but beyond that there is the necessity in a democratic institution such as the Parliament of Canada that there be sound debate, and that the Orders of the Day, when they are ready to be called, ought to be called by the Chair. There ought not to be a possibility of systematic interruption by the misuse and abuse of the rules of the House by the raising of spurious questions of privilege by the Opposition. For them to do that, even though they may do that very quietly, in my view, Madam Speaker, constitutes a grave disorder that attacks the very essence of a deliberative body in a democratic society such as ours. And the Opposition, Madam Speaker, even though they think they are very bright and very smart in doing this, are discrediting the very essence of this Parliament of Canada and this House of Commons and they ought to be ashamed of themselves for doing so.


Madam Speaker:: The Minister is absolutely correct in saying that when there is a breach of order, it is the duty of the Chair to intervene as appropriate. I do not know whether the Minister was openly or implicitly criticizing the Chair's behaviour in the circumstances, but it seems to me that this afternoon, all proceedings have taken place as prescribed by the Standing Orders. 1 cannot prevent Hon. Members from raising a question of privilege. I can only rule on questions of privilege. The questions are raised, and it is my duty to hear them. I try to ask Hon. Members to state their questions of privilege as quickly as possible, and especially to describe in the first few sentences what exactly their question of privilege is. That is what 1 have been doing all afternoon. If Hon. Members decide to raise a lot of questions of privilege, 1
December 15, 1982

cannot do otherwise but hear them, and in doing so, I am fulfilling my duties as Speaker of the House of Commons. The Hon. Members of the Official Opposition are using one provision of the Standing Orders, while Hon. Members on the Government side use others. 1 respect Hon. Members on both sides of the House, and 1 am trying to conduct this debate as calmly as possible.
1 have a question of privilege from the Hon. Member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby).


MR. CROSBY-ALLEGED LEAKING OF TASK FORCE REPORT ON ATLANTIC FISHERIES
Howard Edward Crosby: Madam Speaker, before I embark on my matter of privilege 1 think it behooves us to respond to some of the remarks of the Hon. Member for Nipissing (Mr. Blais) as to those who use the rules of the House.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member was rising on a point of order. He said what he had to say, 1 ruled on that point or order, and the Hon. Member will not comment on that ruling. If he wants to expose a question of privilege, I will hear him.


Howard Edward Crosby: Madam Speaker, matters of privilege do not give rise to legal precision in the manner in which some Members have indicated in this House. In fact, no less an authority than our own Clerk of the House has said in the course of an article that the Canadian Parliament has always refrained from defining privilege too precisely in order to avoid anything which could be used to limit privilege in the future. I remind the Chair of that statement because, in order properly to raise a question of privilege, one has to lay the groundwork and refer to the-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I see where the Hon. Member's question is coming from. The groundwork may be laid once the Hon. Member has told me what the question of privilege is. That is what the House wants to hear in the very first part of the Hon. Member's intervention. After that, if I feel I need some information, I will allow the Hon. Member to develop his arguments.


Howard Edward Crosby: Madam Speaker, if I may state my question of privilege as precisely as I can, it relates to the fact that the report of the task force on the Atlantic fisheries was prepared under Government direction and that matter has been reported on to the House. But what has happened over a period of time is that there has been systematic and deliberate leaking of items within the report by Ministers of the Crown, such as the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. De Bane), the Chairman of the Task Force, J. Michael Kirby, and other persons connected with the task force. Publication of elements of the report has caused great confusion and difficulty for people in
Privilege-Mr. Crosby
my constituency, across my province of Nova Scotia, and to many who are concerned with the Atlantic fisheries.
Therefore, I rise to complain as a Member of the House of Commons that both my privileges and my ability to represent my constituents have been adversely affected by this deliberate action on the part of Members of the Government and others connected with the Government.
I can provide examples, Madam Speaker. In a statement printed in the Halifax Mail Star it is reported that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans hinted there were differences within Cabinet. While he recognized the urgency of settling on a new policy, in those areas where there was no unanimity the report would have to be delayed.
In the case of J. Michael Kirby, Chairman of the Task Force, he has given interviews to members of the press also.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member has said nothing since the beginning of his intervention which would allow me to think that he has even the beginnings of a question of privilege. The Hon. Member knows that the way in which the Government chooses to publicize its policies, programs or studies has nothing to do with privilege. That is quite a different matter and I will not spend any time defining privilege to the Hon. Member. He knows what it is.
The leaking of publications to one person rather than to another-we had one the other day and 1 ruled on it-is not a question of privilege. If the Hon. Member has a question of privilege. I would like him to come to the point immediately so as to allow me to judge whether he has one. If he speaks for ten minutes without telling me what the question of privilege is, I will have to assume that it is not very clear in his mind where the privilege lies. I am sure the Hon. Member can be clear, and I invite him to be.


Howard Edward Crosby: Madam Speaker, in order to respond to the challenge you have given me-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: What challenge?


Howard Edward Crosby: The challenge to state my question of privilege. It is simply this. On November 5, 1982 my colleague, the Hon. Member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse), asked the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans when the report would be published. The Minister responded that it would be published at some later date. Again the other day my colleague, the Hon. Member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser), asked when the report would be published and again the response was "At a later date". In fact, elements of the report are being published all the time by way of leaks to members of the press. That affects our privileges in dealing with this very important matter.
Without regard to the technicalities of privilege, Madam Speaker, which 1 would be pleased to discuss and provide documentation, I am simply saying that I am having difficulty dealing with this very vital matter of policy with respect to the

December 15, 1982
Privilege-Mr. Kilgour
Atlantic fisheries because there is a report before the Government which the Government has said it will release at a later date, and in fact elements of that report are being continually released by way of comments, interviews and material given to members of the press and others which are being published. It is simply that, Madam Speaker-a Government that chooses not to deliver the report to the House of Commons but to deliver it elsewhere.


Madam Speaker:: Well, if I understand it, the Hon. Member is getting previews of that report. In a sense, that could turn out to be quite useful. However, I have to maintain my point. I have a lot of sympathy for the Hon. Member's complaint, but it is a complaint and he can bring it up in other circumstances, not under the guise of a question of privilege. I have to rule that he does not really have a question of privilege.
The Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) has a point of order.


POINT OF ORDER
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Madam Speaker, in order to be of assistance to all my colleagues in the House and to the Chair, I would like to seek unanimous consent to table an envelope addressed to Leslie Benjamin, Regina, Saskatchewan, under the frank of the Right Hon. Member for Yellow-head (Mr. Clark), a letter on House of Commons stationery asking me for a donation for the P.C. Canada Fund.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Along with a leaflet referring to the Progressive Conservative Party financial statement. I would ask leave for unanimous consent to table these documents in the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: Does the House give its unanimous consent for the tabling of these documents?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member does not have unanimous consent. The Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour) on a question of privilege.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Madam
Speaker, I will be very brief. As I indicated in my notice to you, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Consumer
and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Berger), to the best of my information and belief, used the word "dinosaur" in referring to Members of this Party earlier in Question Period. I have not yet been able to get the "blues", but I am informed that that is the case. If you wish, Madam Speaker, to put the question to him and ask him whether or not he did do so, it is your choice to do so. Otherwise, I would go on to make the case that you should rule that the word "dinosaur" is not an acceptable parliamentary word.


Madam Speaker:: I heard the word "dinosaur" but I do not know whether it is unparliamentary. I am just being advised that it is not on the list, so it is not an unparliamentary expression.


David Kilgour: I think it should be.


Madam Speaker:: I might rule on that some day! Furthermore, that is not a question of privilege. It is a point of order. I want to tell the Hon. Member that because he rose on a question of privilege and received priority over other Hon. Members who were rising on points of order, I have to apologize to the other Members who were rising on points of order for recognizing the Hon. Member, since he said he had a question of privilege. The Hon. Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan) told me this afternoon that questions of privilege have precedence, a point of which I am aware.
When Members who have questions of privilege do not rise in the House I cannot recognize them, and that was exactly the case. The Hon. Member does not have a point of order in this particular circumstance. I would remind him that anything concerning unparliamentary language is a point of order.


MR. NEIL-S O. 43 MOTION OF MR. ALTHOUSE
Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Madam Speaker, I will be very brief. My question of privilege arises as a result of a motion under Standing Order 43 this afternoon which was proposed by the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse) and seconded by the Hon. Member for Dauphin (Mr. Lewycky).
The motion is deliberately misleading in that it attempted to point out that two Members of my Party and I were supportive of the Canagrex Bill but have since changed our minds.


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member is debating a motion which the House has dealt with already. There was no unanimous consent to debate the motion under Standing Order 43. He seems to be debating that motion just now, and 1 cannot allow it at this particular time because the House has dealt with it.


Douglas Charles Neil: Madam Speaker, I am suggesting that if someone makes a statement in a motion under Standing Order 43 which deliberately misleads, there is a question of privilege and I, as a Member, am entitled to raise it.
December 15, 1982


Erik Nielsen: Now you have a question of privilege. Go ahead.


Douglas Charles Neil: 1 am entitled to rise on a question of privilege with respect to that motion. Otherwise, if that is not the case, the situation is that any Member of the Elouse can rise on a motion under Standing Order 43 and impute motives, accuse people of something, and there is no recourse. I suggest that I have a question of privilege based on that motion under Standing Order 43. The suggestion was that I, in particular, along with two other Members, have changed my position with respect to Canagrex. This is not the case.
If the Hon. Member who proposed the motion and the Hon. Member who seconded it would read Hansard for January 29, they would find that that was not the case. In particular, if they look at Hansard for February 5, 1982 when the vote was taken on second reading, they will find there was no unanimous consent for second reading of Bill C-85 but that the vote on second reading was on division.
I suggest the motion was a deliberate attempt by the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre to cast aspersions on myself and other Members of my Party named in the motion, and I believe 1 have a question of privilege.


Madam Speaker:: I believe that is a point of order. The Hon. Member was mentioned in the motion under Standing Order 43. I suppose I have to take this as his desire to make a statement about the fact that his name was used. He has a point of order, and I guess the Hon. Member has made his point.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Madam Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. In referring to the comments of the Hon. Member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil), I would like to indicate that my name was mentioned as well as the Hon. Member for Provencher. I want to associate myself with the words of the Hon. Member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil) and suggest that this type of attempt to draw people into these kinds of statements has been a tactic the New Democratic Party has used for a long time and is not worthy of the House.


Madam Speaker:: The point has been made.


MR. NOWLAN-REMARKS OF MR. TRUDEAU DURING QUESTION PERIOD
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I rose earlier to let the Chair know that I intended to raise a question of privilege at three o'clock. Quite frankly 1 would like to elaborate on it. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is not here. I asked to see the "blues" or to have the "blues" here so that I could lay the facts on the table. In response to a question from me this afternoon, 1 heard the Prime Minister say that I fabricated-the word was "fabricated"-the quotes that I was using in my question. It is very clear under Beauchesne that "fabrication" or "fabricated"-
Point of Order-Mr. Harquai!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. It is also very clear that that is a point of order, not a question of privilege.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Madam Speaker, with respect, it says right in Beauchesne that this is a matter of privilege reflecting on a Member, in effect saying that I lied in the House of Commons. If that is not a fundamental question of privilege, I do not know what is.
Quite frankly, I will look at the "blues" tomorrow and I will not take too much of the time of the House. I want to give the Prime Minister notice that I was quoting from the historic document, "Cite Libre", of April, 1963 entitled: "Pearson or The Abandonment Of Conviction; 'Lester B. Pearson ... the defrocked priest of peace'." This article was written by the Prime Minister, about whom many of us have heard before in terms of the article. I very deliberately used three quotations taken right from the article which, in effect, castigated the then Liberal Party for making a fundamental flip-flop on the Bomarc missile. Not a Liberal spoke out either in the Party or, more particularly, in the House of Commons. Those were the quotes which I used. The Prime Minister knows well from what I quoted; he knows this article. This article helped make a reputation for the gentleman in terms of a clear political and analytical finding. I am asking the Prime Minister to withdraw-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member is not going to continue this speech because he is continuing to debate a question which he raised during Question Period. He has pointed out that he is not certain he heard the word. When he makes certain that he did hear it, he can raise his point of order and I will accept it at that time, but not at this time.


POINTS OF ORDER
Maurice James Harquail: Madam Speaker, perhaps this will be helpful for Members on all sides. I would like to learn about the following from you. Three times this afternoon questions of privilege were raised and I thought it was a time-honoured rule that Members involved in questions of privilege be in the House to respond. The Hon. Member from Halifax West (Mr. Crosby) raised a question of privilege with respect to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. De Bane), who was not here. Another question was raised with respect to the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), who was not here.


Some Hon. Members:: That is their problem.


Maurice James Harquail: Is it not an accepted practice that, if a question of privilege is to be raised, there at least be agreement, understanding or common courtesy that the Member involved in the question of privilege be in the House to hear the question and be able to respond to it? Perhaps, Madam

December 15, 1982
Point of Order-Mr. Althouse
Speaker, you could shed some light on this. Is it not an accepted practice?


Madam Speaker:: It goes several ways. It is not a rule; it is a matter for the Speaker to determine whether the Speaker needs to hear a response on a question of privilege.
In these cases this afternoon I did not feel I required any response on the part of another Hon. Member. If they had been in the House and had sought the floor, perhaps I would have heard them, but I had to deal with this business. A question of privilege, as Hon. Members know, has a character of urgency and takes precedence over other business. I have been able to rule on these questions without hearing responses, and that is perfectly proper.


Maurice James Harquail: Madam Speaker, just to finalize this, I defend those Members who are not here and reserve on the record their right to have the opportunity to respond and rebut the points which have been made.


Some Hon. Members:: Tomorrow!


Madam Speaker:: No, they would not have an opportunity to respond because, once I have ruled, the matter is closed. The Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Smith) might have chosen to respond in the names of the Hon. Members who were referred to. They did not ask for the floor and I was able to rule on those questions. I was sufficiently informed about the substance of what were not questions of privilege by the way, to rule on them.


MR. ALTHOUSE-REFERENCE BY MR. NEIL
Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil) has just referred to my motion which I moved under the provisions of Standing Order 43 today as being deliberately misleading and an attempt to deliberately mislead the House, which I think casts aspersions on me. My motion was based specifically on what was recorded in Hansard at page 14471 and attributed to the Hon. Member for Moose Jaw. The point contained in my motion this day was that the Conservatives had been in favour of the buying and selling option. I shall quote from Hansard-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member should not be discussing his motion. He has raised one point; that is to say, the Hon. Member used the expression "deliberately misleading". I believe I heard that expression. Is the Hon. Member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil) quite certain that is what he wanted to say, or would he care to withdraw those words? The only way that charge can be made is in a substantive way.


Douglas Charles Neil: Madam Speaker, I deliberately made certain that I did not accuse the Hon. Member of deliberately misleading the House. I said that the motion was deliberately misleading; I did not say that the Hon. Member was deliberately misleading the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: I think the Hon. Member for Humboidt-Lake Centre can accept that. If he will, I think we can resolve the matter.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Madam Speaker, on the point of order, I simply refer the House to page 14471 of Hansard where we find that the Hon. Member for Moose Jaw said:
As far as I am concerned, Canagrex as a corporation should be concerned directly in sales, in co-ordinating sales with foreign governments and the industry in Canada.
Further down the page, we find:
-the name of the game should be sales.
It was very clear that he discussed sales, and a buy and sell option was part of that.


Madam Speaker:: I could not hear the last sentence of the Hon. Member because of the noise. Does the Hon. Member for Humboidt-Lake Centre consider that the intervention by the Hon. Member for Moose Jaw satisfies the point of order he raised earlier?


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Yes, Madam Speaker. I am satisfied with the Hon. Member's statement that I have not misled the House. I was simply pointing out that the motion itself was not misleading the House either, as Hansard itself shows.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, on that very point, the Hon. Member for Humboidt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse) has said that my colleague, the Hon. Member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil), stated that he withdrew the charge of deliberately misleading. In fact, what the Hon. Member for Moose Jaw said was that the motion was deliberately misleading-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. That matter is settled to the satisfaction of both Members. That is the spirit in which this rule is applied. If Members are satisfied that they have not been offended or that language which is not parliamentary has not been preferred against them, then they are both satisfied and the matter is closed.


MR. SCOTT (HAMILTON-WENTWORTH)-REPLY OF MR. BERGER DURING QUESTION PERIOD
Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Madam Speaker, my point of order arises from an answer given to me earlier this day during Question Period by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Berger). This is the earliest opportunity I have had to raise my point. The Parliamentary Secretary asked me where I got information that metric conversion was voluntary in Canada. I want the record to show that the Government's own brochures which are being sent out by way of-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member asked a question during the course of Question Period. He received an answer. If he is not satisfied with that answer, he may not bring it back under the guise of a point of order. This is not a point of order. He may ask another question tomorrow during
December 15, 1982

Question Period, and every day subsequently, if he gets the floor. That is the way to deal with that particular question.


MR. MALONE-DISTRIBUTION OF MATERIAL RESPECTING PENSIONS
Arnold John Malone: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This point of order is one to which I know you will want to give some attention. It relates to the distribution of materials in the House of Commons itself. I make specific reference to the recent tabling by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) of a new pensions approach for Canadians. So far there is nothing wrong. But what happened, as I understand it, is that around 3.30 p.m. that day, arriving here on Parliament Hill was a vehicle containing all of the printed material. Interestingly enough, first to be unloaded were volumes and volumes of specific brochures for the media, after the vehicle had previously stopped at the National Press Club. Again, when Members attempted right after to obtain copies, we found that those materials were not available to us.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. 1 think it will be obvious to the Hon. Member why this particular matter is not my concern. I do not control the buses. I do not control their itinerary, and I have no reason to do so. If the Hon. Member has a complaint, and it might be legitimate, he can make it to the Hon. Minister or to any other person who is in charge of distribution; but those distributions are certainly not my responsibility.


Arnold John Malone: Madam Speaker, I hear your comments and I accept them totally. You are absolutely right, and I would not expect you to have any control of the buses. That, however, was not the point. The point I was coming to was that the media had for at least 40 minutes full access to all information while Members of the House of Commons did not. I share this with you, that when we approached distribution, the people in distribution expressed most vividly how concerned they were and told us that if we wanted copies-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I have to correct the Hon. Member. As soon as the document was tabled in the House, it was, in principle, available to Hon. Members and they could consult it. At any rate, if the Hon. Member has a complaint about the press getting one copy or several copies before he did, that might be a legitimate complaint; but he had better make it to the Minister and not to myself. As far as the House is concerned, the document was tabled and Members could consult it.


MR. ANDRE-AUTHORITY FOR SALARY INCREASE FOR MR. MICHAEL PITFIELD
Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Earlier this afternoon the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) a question about the salary increase recently given on November 5 to Michael Pitfield, formerly Principal Secretary to the Privy Council. The Right Hon. Leader of the
Point of Order-Mr. Andre
Opposition asked upon what authority that was done. The Prime Minister replied, perhaps in error, that it was done on the advice of the private sector advisory committee on upper level public servants' salaries. That advisory committee advises on levels only, not on specific elements.
Perhaps the Prime Minister may have unintentionally misled the House, but in terms of that authority, Michael Pitfield when rehired by the Prime Minister in March, 1980, arranged-


Madam Speaker:: That is not a point of order.


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker-


Madam Speaker:: No, the Hon. Member may not continue discussion on questions that were raised during Question Period. If he wants to receive more information on that particular matter, he can ask questions tomorrow during Question Period, but he cannot debate this matter in the House now under a point of order. Unless he does have a point of order, I cannot allow the Hon. Member to continue.


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, 1 have a very specific point of order in terms of the authority with regard to Estimates and Appropriations Bills. I will get to that point of order as quickly as possible without making the whole discussion totally incomprehensible because of a tremendous leap being required from the start to the main point.
In response to a question that is highly relevant in this six and five age concerning the ex-Chief Secretary of the Privy Council Office receiving a much more substantial pension increase, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) indicated that authority was based erroneously. We have checked the Order in Council which has adjusted the former Principal Secretary's glorious renumeration and departure scheme. The authority for his recent appointment on December 10 as a special adviser under Order in Council was supposedly gained from Appropriations Bill 1981-82.


Madam Speaker:: Order. Does the Hon. Member really feel that it is reasonable to continue debating that question? 1 have just pointed out to him that a point of order is not to be used to continue to debate a question which the Hon. Member might wish to debate. While I hope he has an opportunity to debate it, he cannot, under a point of order, continue to discuss it. He has been doing so since the very beginning of his intervention.


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, Vote 1, Privy Council Estimates, 1981-82, contains this statement at the end of that vote: "-and the establishment of positions of senior adviser to which persons may be appointed by the Governor in Council to hold office during pleasure." That authority, through this Appropriations Act, was used by Order in Council to grant Mr. Pitfield this new position and high salary.
As you are aware, this question of legislating through Appropriations Bills has been a subject of debate on points of

December 15, 1982
Point of Order-Mr. Siddon
order in the House since 1969 when these new rules were imposed through closure. There have been continuous and ongoing discussions. Speaker after Speaker in his rulings, including yourself, Madam Speaker, has indicated that it is wrong and inappropriate to use Appropriations Bills to legislate.
The defence mechanism that has been available to protect Parliament in this regard has been in the form of the labours of some Members of Parliament, including myself, who have read through this enormous document Vote by Vote by Vote in an attempt to establish whether there is, in fact, an effort to sneak through legislation. We have been doing this for years.


David P. Smith: State your point of order.


Harvie Andre: My point of order is very simple. I will try to make it sufficiently simple for the Member to understand, which is difficult. At some point we have to establish some mechanism whereby this House can have better protection from that kind of abuse.


Madam Speaker:: Order. I am being very patient with the Hon. Member. He seems to be impatient with me. I must remind him that he is now debating a question which might be legitimate, but there is nothing before the House that allows him to discuss that particular matter just now.
The Estimates have been passed by both Houses. If the Hon. Member had a complaint concerning this particular matter, he should have debated it at that time. The matter he is raising is not a point of order. I cannot allow the Member to continue to debate that matter. 1 am afraid that I cannot hear him any longer.


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, this item was raised precisely because this morning the research staff associated with the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, after going through voluminous Orders in Council, discovered this point. 1 raise this matter today for that reason.


Madam Speaker:: That is fine. If the Hon. Member has just discovered something that he wishes to debate, he can try to debate it on other occassions. However, this has nothing to do with the Standing Orders, and therefore it is not a point of order. The Hon. Member may not continue to discuss it. If he has discovered that issue this morning, he may debate it and express his concern but not at this particular time.


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, I have been searching for a number of years for some mechanism whereby this institution can, in fact, have some ability to protect its rights. As you well know, this particular issue has been raised at the appropriate times, many times, yet there continues to be-


An Hon. Member:: What is your point of order?


Harvie Andre: The point of order is very simple. We have finally returned the Standing Committee on Procedures and Organizations to active use. If you share the view of others, which I hope you do, Madam Speaker, that it is, in fact, beholden upon this institution to show its mettle, if you will,
from time to time and to prevent this from happening, 1 humbly request that the Chair suggest that this subject be referred to the Committee on Procedure and Organization so that mechanisms can be put into place which will prevent this kind of abuse in the future. I would then not have to rise on points of order four times a year, every time the Government brings forward its Estimates.


Madam Speaker:: I know that the Hon. Member has been preoccupied by this very matter and has raised it at appropriate times in the House. The Hon. Member will remember that I have heard him for quite some length. He has been quite successful in obtaining some kind of redress for that particular situation. I would urge him to continue to proceed from one success to another with regard to this particular matter. However, he cannot do it now and I think he knows that. I will recognize another Member.


MR. SIDDON-CALL FOR STATEMENT FROM MINISTER ON TAXATION OF BENEFITS OF NORTHERN RESIDENTS
Thomas Edward Siddon: Madam Speaker, I wish to rise on a point of order on a matter relating to an announcement made outside of the House by the Hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) on December 2, 1982, in collaboration with the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Bussieres), the Minister of State for Mines (Mrs. Erola) and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro). This announcement and press release refer to a promise made by the Minister of Finance in the House of Commons on October 27 when he gave his economic statement at which time, quoting from the press release, he said, "The Minister had promised full details of his plan to the House of Commons". This important initiative which will lead to the taxation of the benefits of northern employees-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. What is the Hon. Member's point of order? He must know that statements made outside of the House do not constitute the basis for points of order. That goes without saying. Matters happening outside of the House are not covered by the Standing Orders. I do not see how the Hon. Member can rise on a point of order concerning this particular case.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Madam Speaker, reading from the Minister's own press release, I quote the relevant section which indicates that the Minister had promised full details of the plan in the House of Commons. Since the implications of this announcement are so devastating for Canada's mining industry, I think it is important that the Minister should come before the House of Commons to make such a statement and then grant opposition Members an opportunity to question him and seek further clarification of such an announcement. As is set out in his press release, he promised to do that. I am trying to make a point that the Minister should come before the House.


Madam Speaker:: That may be a legitimate complaint but it certainly is not a point of order.
December 15, 1982


MR. TAYLOR-PARLIAMENTARY LANGUAGE
Gordon Edward Taylor: Madam Speaker, I rise on a very innocent point of order. I come from Drumheller which is nestled in the Canyon of the Red Deer where the dinosaurs used to roam. I find nothing objectionable about the word dinosaur.


Madam Speaker:: I would simply ask the Elon. Member in what Standing Order we provide for innocent points of order.


MR. DANTZER-PROPER FORM OF ADDRESSING MADAM SPEAKER
Mr. Vince Dantzer (Okanagan North):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order which I believe concerns every Member of this Elouse and yourself. Your Elonour may recall that last week two Government Ministers, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Gray) and the Minister of State for Mines (Mrs. Erola), who is responsible for the status of women, announced a policy barring the use of sexist terms in and around the Elouse of Commons and the Government. I think 1 am correct in quoting the Ministers as saying that they did this because these terms perpetrated myths and stereotypes and created faulty perceptions and inappropriate behaviour. They said that women should be treated with equal respect and dignity, without reference to physical characteristics or reference to the female gender. I am sure that every Elon. Member wants to carry out what is a good policy. Elowever, every time Hon. Members speak in the House, they use the words "Madam Speaker'', and it seems to me that that title is a female gender word which might perpetuate myths and stereotypes and create faulty perceptions. I was wondering whether Your Honour would consider our use of the term "Speaker" or "Speakerperson" or, perhaps, in a friendly way, "Speak". Would Your Honour consider this and advise us as to what we should do in the future?


Madam Speaker:: I wish I could answer the Hon. Member in French concerning this particular point of order. In French, it is quite clear that there is no reference to gender in the way in which I am addressed-Madame le President. Le President- being a substantive, which is considered to describe the function. When the function is fulfilled by a woman, one says "Madam". When it is fulfilled by a man, one says "Mister", so the function itself is absolutely neutral. However, the English language does not allow for that kind of distinction. I would be pleased if Hon. Members called me "Madam Speaker".


MR. KILGOUR-UNPARLIAMENTARY LANGUAGE
David Kilgour: Madam
Speaker, 1 wish to raise a matter that was raised previously as a point of order. I appreciate the fact that Your Honour asked the Clerk if the word "dinosaur" was on the list of unparliamentary terms, and 1 think he replied, "no". I would simply say very quickly, because you have heard a lot this afternoon, that the word "animal" is on the list, the word "pig" is on the
Point of Order-Mr. Nielsen
list, and something else which bothers me is "black sheep", which is also on the list. This, of course, is a very serious matter. A dinosaur is defined as being any of an extinct group of saurian reptiles. Surely, if the furry dog and the squealy pig are unacceptable, it is far worse to call us dinosaurs, and I would respectfully ask that you enlarge the list to include the word "dinosaur".


Madam Speaker:: I will give it much consideration.


MR. NIELSEN-POINT OF ORDER RAISED PRIOR TO ADJOURNMENT OF HOUSE
Erik Nielsen: I rise on a point of order.


Jean-Jacques Blais: You should be ashamed for rejecting your-


Erik Nielsen: The Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Blais) is an expert at gross abuses of the Rules of the House, so 1 bow to him every time.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, 1 wish to raise two point of order at this time stemming from the proceedings in the House last night prior to and at the time of adjournment. I would like to deal with those points singly and in order reversed to that in which the irregularities took place.
My first point of order relates to the manner in which the House was adjourned last night. As you know, Madam Speaker, Standing Order 6(3) states:
At 10:00 o'clock p.m. on Mondays, Tuesdays and Thursdays, at 6:00 o'clock p.m. on Wednesdays and at 5:00 o'clock p.m. on Fridays, Mr. Speaker shall adjourn the House until the next sitting day.
Clearly, Standing Order 6(3) provides that the House will adjourn at 10:00 p.m. on Tuesday nights. Furthermore, Standing Order 7 states:
At the ordinary time of adjournment of the House, unless otherwise provided, the proceedings shall be interrupted and the business under consideration at the termination of the sitting shall stand over until the next sitting day when it will be taken up at the same stage where its progress was interrupted.
As Your Honour will note, Standing Order 7 states that unless otherwise provided, the proceedings then before the House shall be interrupted at the ordinary hour of adjournment and shall stand over until the next sitting of the House. This procedure is borne out by rulings such as the one to be found at page 3712 of Hansard for October 15, 1980, where the following exchange and ruling by the Acting Speaker are reported as follows:


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Collenette:: Do I understand, Mr. Speaker, that it is now six o'clock, or has the Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) called it six o'clock?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The Chair recognized that it was six o'clock and therefore cannot recognize another member from the floor.
I submit, however, that in this case there was just such a provision as referred to in Standing Order 7 which would have resulted in delaying the normal adjournment of the House and that provision was contained within Standing Order 34(1)

December 15, 1982
Point of Order-Mr. Nielsen
which stipulates that the proceedings of the House will be interrupted either by a call to order by the Speaker or on a point raised by another Member of the House. It is very brief and I will read that for the record as well. It states:
Any Member addressing the House, if called to order either by Mr. Speaker or on a point raised by another member, shall sit down while the point is being stated, after which he may explain. Mr. Speaker may permit debate on the point of order before giving his decision, but such debate must be strictly relevant to the point of order taken.
In this case, Your Honour recognized that I had risen before you had adjourned the House and I refer the Chair specifically to page 215-


Madam Speaker:: Order. Just for the record, no, I had not recognized that. I said, "The Hon. Member says that he has risen before. I had not seen him, but if he says that he has risen before, I will take his word for it". I had not recognized that, just for the record.


Erik Nielsen: I will be reading that excerpt from Hansard into the record to support my point of order, Madam Speaker, and the judgment can be made on the basis of the evidence which will be then available. I was referring to page 21588 of Hansard, where this exchange is reported in the right-hand column:


Madam Speaker:: I did not see the Hon. Member rise before I adjourned the House.


Erik Nielsen: Yes.


Madam Speaker:: But apparently he had risen. Will the House allow me-


Some Hon. Members:: No, no.
I think it appropriate, at this stage, to review the events of last night, commencing at page 21587 of Hansard. I specifically draw the attention of the Chair to that page where the time is noted, as it is in all of our issues of Hansard. From time to time, the time is noted by the Hansard reporters as they are recording our proceedings. Your Honour will note that immediately following the vote itself, the list of the Members having been recorded, the time is noted as being 22:05, which was, of course, five minutes past ten. That time bears direct relation to the Standing Orders which 1 have already cited for the Chair with respect to the hour of adjournment. Then the Hon. Member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) rose on a point of order, which was heard, and then Your Honour said:
The Motion is lost. The Hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) has the floor-
That specifically relates to a decision of the Chair when the then Acting Speaker, Mr. Ethier, was in the Chair, and when it was drawn to the Chair's attention by Mr. Collenette that that was an impossible procedure, and he certainly had the positive reaction and decision of the Chair on that point. Concerning the point at which I rose to take part in that exchange immediately following your statement from the chair, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) is recorded as making probably the most intelligent contribution to any debate that he has made in the House in his whole career when he said:
Madam Speaker-
That was the extent of his contribution. The exchange continued:


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, Madam Speaker-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An Hon. Member:: No way.


Madam Speaker:: -and it now being ten o'clock, the House is adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


Erik Nielsen: 1 rise on a point of order. Point of order. You cannot. Madam Speaker, with great respect-
Then on the following page we find the following:


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member-I am not sure whether the Hon. Member rose before I adjourned the House-


Some Hon. Members:: He did. He did.


Erik Nielsen: Yes.


An Hon. Member:: Yes, two of them did. Madam Speaker.


Madam Speaker:: -but it seems from the protest-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An Hon. Member:: No way.


Madam Speaker:: Therefore, if the Hon.-


Erik Nielsen: I cannot be heard until they turn the mike on.
That is another point of order that I would like to get into some day. It goes on to read.


Madam Speaker:: Let us not get excited.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker-


Madam Speaker:: I did not see the Hon. Member rise before I adjourned the House.


Erik Nielsen: Yes.


Madam Speaker:: But apparently he had risen. Will the House allow me-
There were some noes, and therefore the House rose.
As a result of my rising, prior to your statement that the House was adjourned-and the adjournment is recorded, incidentally, in Hansard at 10:08-the adjournment, in my submission, should not have taken place. Had you so directed the House, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), a debate on my point of order might have taken place before you delivered your opinion on that point. I will not burden the House with reading Standing Order 34(1) again; I have already placed it on the record.
Why was it important that my point of order be heard at that time? I would like to refer you, Madam Speaker, to the Fifth Edition of Beauchesne at pages 78 and 79, and specifically to Citations 233.(1), 235 and 237. Those Citations are as follows:
233. (1) Points of order are questions raised with the view of calling attention to any departure from the Standing Orders or the customary modes of proceeding in debate or in the conduct of legislative business and may be raised at virtually any time by any Member, whether he has previously spoken or not.


David P. Smith: How many of the points of order today did that?


Erik Nielsen: I cannot be blamed for the lack of comprehension of the candy-backed Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



December 15, 1982


Erik Nielsen: Citation 235 of Beauchesne says:
235. Any Member is entitled, even bound, to bring to the Speaker's immediate notice any instance of what he considers a breach of order. He may interrupt and lay the point in question concisely before the Speaker. He should do so as soon as he perceives an irregularity in the proceedings which are engaging the attention of the House.
This is what I attempted to do last night. It goes on:
The Speaker's attention must be directed to a breach of order at the proper moment, namely the moment it occurred.
Again this is what I attempted to do last night. It goes on:
A point of order may be taken after a debate is concluded and the Speaker is about to put the question to a vote or after the vote has been taken-in fact, at any time, but not so as to interrupt the Speaker when he is addressing the House. Even the provisions in Standing Orders that action must be taken "forthwith" or "forthwith without debate" with respect to certain proceedings do not bar a Member from raising a point of order when a serious irregularity occurs.
The last Citation from Beauchesne which I mentioned, No. 237 on page 79 reads:
A point of order against procedure must be raised promptly and before the question has passed to a stage at which the objection would be out of place.
I have one last submission in that regard, Madam Speaker, one last precedent. You will note that Beauchesne stipulates that a Member is:
-entitled, even bound, to bring to the Speaker's immediate notice any instance of what he considers a breach of order. He may interrupt and lay the point in question precisely before the Speaker.
Those are the words of Beauchesne. Furthermore:
-a point of order must be raised promptly and before the question has passed to a stage at which the objection would be out of place.
That very valid ruling was established on February 20, 1911, and will be found at page 190 of the Journals for that date. I will quote briefly from that precedent. This is the Speaker rendering a ruling with respect to certain Senate amendments to a Bill to amend the Inspection and Sale Act, which was then before the Commons. He said, amongst other things:
At that time I stated to the Honourable Member that his objection was taken too late; also, that the Bill itself was not before the House but only the Senate amendments.
At the suggestion of some Honourable Member I allowed the matter to stand until to-day.
Here is the relevent portion of it:
After careful consideration of the subject, I see no reason to change my opinion. The time at which an objection is taken to any procedure of the House has always been considered as of importance, and some objections which might have very fairly prevailed, had they been taken at the proper time, have failed on account of delay. There is no special precedent upon this particular case, but there are abundant precedents to the effect that an objection to procedure must be taken promptly and before the matter has passed to a stage at which the objection would be out of place. This, I consider, to have been the case in the present instance, the Bill having passed its three readings and Committee of the Whole in the House of Commons before this point was raised. Any other ruling would lead to very undesirable complications.
I rose last night, Madam Speaker, to draw your attention to what 1 considered to be a breach of the procedures of this House, in accordance with this Standing Orders, the Citations in Beauchesne to which I have referred, and generally in accordance with the long-standing practices and procedures of this House. You recognized that I had risen before you
Point of Order-Mr. Nielsen
adjourned the House, that is my position, that is my interpretation of the evidence that 1 have placed on the record. 1 mean no disrespect in taking that position, because I can obviously see from your expression that you do not agree with me. In any event, that is my position, that I was recognized before you adjourned the House. The House was nonetheless adjourned before you heard the point of order. Certainly my point of order that I wished to draw to your attention was not heard. As a result the proceedings may have passed beyond a point at which my point of order might have been in place.
I submit to you, Madam Speaker, that this particular breach of procedure may not simply be grounds for a point of order, but for a question of privilege, my personal privilege, since 1 was prevented from performing from what 1 consider to be my bounden duty and obligation, as a Member of Parliament, in drawing what I considered to be a breach of the procedures of this House, immediately to the attention of the Chair.
I am not laying blame at any doorstep. Procedures are often breached in innocence around this place by many like the Parliamentary Secretary (Mr. Smith), from a lack of knowledge of our practices and procedures and the legitimate traditions of this place.


An Hon. Member:: From ignorance, in short.


Erik Nielsen: In any event I submit that there was no recognition, no authority, with respect, at the point where you said at page on 21587 of Hansard:
The Hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) has the floor-
I suggest to the Chair that that statement, to have any effect, goes beyond the authority of the Chair at that moment. Certainly the time, in Hansard, and the application of our Standing Orders would make that abundantly so.
If it were any other way, it would result in serious complications because the process which is open to all Hon. Members on this side when the Chair attempts to recognize someone is taken away from them. The Standing Orders provide, for instance, that such a motion as was moved yesterday can be moved by any Member, and the processes that were followed last night denied the right of Members to exercise that particular right under the Standing Orders.
At the very least, we start at square one with respect to the determination of that vote. I suggest that had I had the opportunity to do so, I would have suggested to the Chair last night that the adjournment would have occurred after the Chair properly heard the point of order raised by the Hon. Member for Calgary South, and that was it.


MR. NIELSEN-ANNOUNCEMENT OF VOTE TALLY BY CLERK
Erik Nielsen: The other point of order I have to address to the Chair concerns the vote itself. I believe it to be a serious one. It is the first time I have seen a departure

December 15, 1982
Point of Order-Mr. Nielsen
from the practices in this place. Perhaps it was because of the absence of the Clerk or for whatever reason, nonetheless it happened. Again, 1 lay no chastisement or blame at any doorstep. 1 simply feel it is my obligation to address the point to the Chair, and for the Chair to take note of it for whatever action may be deemed necessary.
1 want to refer the Chair to Citation 233 of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition:
Points of order are questions raised with the view of calling attention to any departure-
That Citation is already on the record. 1 have already drawn the attention of the Chair to it. In this particular instance, my point of order was related to the method in which the result of the division was announced to the House. I would like to draw your attention to Citation 217 of Beauchesne's, pages 74 and 75 of the Fifth Edition where it is set forth. 1 will not read it all as it is rather lengthy. It reads in part:
217. When the debate on a question is closed, and the House is ready to decide thereon, the Speaker says: "Is the House ready for the question?" If it is evident that no Member claims the right of speaking, the Speaker proceeds to put the question by reading the main motion, and then the amendment or amendments in their proper order. He then takes the sense of the Members of the last of these by saying: "Those who are in favour of the motion (or amendment) will say 'yea'. Those who are opposed to the motion will say 'nay'." When the supporters and opponents of the question have given their voices for and against, the Speaker says: "In my opinion, th yeas (or nays) have it." Should five or more Members rise to request a recorded vote, the Speaker says: "Call in the Members." The Sergeant-at-Arms ensures that the bells are rung; the Whips take steps to assemble their Members. Except under S.O. 9(2) there is no special time fixed for calling in the Members. It generally takes at least ten to fifteen minutes to get them, the Speaker remaining in the Chair, although order is not strictly maintained. The signal for taking the division is the return of the Government Whip and the Opposition Whip. The Whips march up the aisle and bow to the Speaker before returning to their seats. The Sergeant-at-Arms remains by the Bar, also bowing to the Speaker before resuming his seat. The Speaker then calls the House to order, rises and reads the question, adding: "The question is on the main motion (or amendment as the case may be). Those who are in favour of the motion (or amendment) will please rise." Led by the Party Leaders, Members starting from the front benches rise separately and a Clerk Assistant, standing, calls out their names. The Clerk records their votes on a printed list, repeating each name as he places a mark against it. The Members should sit down after they have heard their names distinctly repeated by the Clerk. Members are taken, by Party, in rows with the Party Leaders called out first as a matter of courtesy. When all the "yeas" have voted, the Speaker says: "Those who are opposed to the motion (or amendment) will please rise", and the votes are recorded as above. When the "yeas" and "nays" are taken down and counted, the Clerk rises, bows to the Speaker and declares the votes in both languages, saying: "Yeas, pour... ; nays, contre ..." The Speaker then says: "I declare the motion (or amendment) carried (or lost, as the case may be)."
1 would point out at this stage that we have to be concerned with our procedures last night in this specific regard. It goes on:
If a division takes place on an amendment to an amendment, the Speaker will immediately put the question on the first amendment,-
The rest of the Citation is not relevant. I draw your attention in particular to the words of that citation which read:
When the "yeas" and "nays" are taken down and counted, the Clerk rises, bows to the Speaker and declares the votes in both official languages, saying "Yeas, pour ...; nays, contre ..."
It is at that point that the Speaker then declares the motion to have carried or to have been lost.
Hon. Members on this side of the House, including myself, did not hear the announcement of the tally of the vote by the Clerk and are therefore in some confusion as to whether or not the division was properly concluded and, therefore, whether the House was able to adjourn at the time it did last night.
If I might have your attention for just a moment. Madam Speaker, may I point out that in my responsibilities now I have a habit of watching the Chair, listening to everything that is said and watching very carefully. I must admit that I did not see, let alone hear, the Clerk read the results of the vote last night.


Mr. Cousineau:: Horseshit.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Cousineau behind the curtain just used a very obscene word. I hope it did not get in Hansard.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame.


Erik Nielsen: I would, except for the fact that Beauchesne's clearly states that the vote is declared in both official languages, be of the opinion that the declaration of the Clerk is merely for the purpose of informing the Speaker. However, the fact that the Clerk is obliged to announce the vote tally in both official languages and the fact that ordinarily the Clerk would make his announcement into a microphone so that his announcement is audible to all Members of the House both indicate to me that the purpose of the declaration goes beyond that of merely informing the Chair.
In my submission it is important that Members of this House be aware of the tally as communicated by the Clerk in order to ensure that the vote has been properly tallied and that no error is made in announcing the results of the division. Indeed, I remember an occasion when the House Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) rose on a point of order to draw the attention of the Chair to the fact that he was tallied twice in a vote, a privilege that some of us would like to have on occasions from time to time in this House. Indeed, the decision rendered by the then Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier) on the point of order raised by the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Collenette) is another analogy. In our proceedings last night, the Hon. Member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) rose to put the record straight.
The proper time for bringing such an error to the attention of the Speaker is at the time the error occurs. That is at the time that the breach of proceedings takes place. Because Members on this side did not hear the vote tally, they could not ensure that an error had not been made. Although I had risen to draw this matter to your attention, the House was adjourned and thus this is the first opportunity I have had to question the validity of the proceedings that took place last night. I submit, Madam Speaker, that I should have been given that opportunity last night. Although I do not question the accuracy of the tally conducted by the Clerk, I am led to ask whether or not the division was validly completed, given, if the Chair so finds, that this departure from custom was a fact, and whether it was possible to adjourn at all last night.
December 15, 1982

One last citation which I should like to quote from Beau-chesne, Fifth Edition, at page 76, Citation 223(2), reads:
A Member must be in his own seat should he wish to vote and should remain in his seat until the division is complete and the result announced.
1 did not hear the result, and there are many Members on this side who did not hear the result. Citation 223(2) of Beauchesne refers to Hansard for February 16, 1976, page 10986, where the following exchange took place, and that was the occasion which 1 have already mentioned where the Hon. Member for Grenville-Carleton, as he was then, drew the attention of the Chair to the fact that he thought-well, 1 will read his words:
Mr. Speaker, I think that inadvertently I was counted twice. I do not want to overdo my welcome among my colleagues. I think that 1 was counted twice because 1 shifted from my seat. The first vote only should be counted.
I do not know why he did not want the second vote counted. In any event, that Citation is there for the reference of the Chair. Clearly, Madam Speaker, it is not only necessary for a Member to be in his seat to give the question, but he must also be in his seat to hear the result of a division announced, and I question whether a division is complete before Members have heard the results announced and have had the opportunity to question those results. Secondly, if a division is incomplete, until such time as the results have been announced to the Members, it is my submission that it is contrary to the rules and practices of this House to adjourn the House. Those are the two points of order.
1 have tried to be as brief as possible, but unlike the "candy-backed" Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Smith), I believe they are points of order which are of substance and deserving of very careful consideration by the Chair, particularly in view of the next order of business to which we will be moving immediately following the Chair's decision on the first point of order which 1 raised.
With respect to the first point of order, the effect of that, if accepted, would be that, after your declaration that the motion had been lost, that was as far as the Chair could go. The hour of adjournment had been reached and passed. The Chair, I submit, at that point, was functus. It had no further power to make any further decisions such as the one which was raised last night, thus denying Members their undeniable right of access to certain actions under the Standing Orders, of which they may still wish to avail themselves today.


Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, I had absolutely no intention of rising on this point of order, but having listened to the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), I feel there are two things I want to say with regard to his comments. First, it is true, I think, that the count was not audible to the House of Commons last evening. I, in fact, noticed that myself at the time and would have perhaps raised it had it not been for the fact that there was a sufficient amount of turmoil and I felt we probably required no more at the time.
Point of Order-Mr. Nielsen
With regard to the question of whether the Clerk did in fact rise and read the count, although I could not hear it-and I make that point-there is no doubt in my mind as I watched that the Clerk not only rose, but he stood to the right as I am facing the Speaker, to the right of the Speaker, to speak to the Speaker.


Erik Nielsen: This way?


Ian Deans: No, no, below the dais, but to the right of the Speaker. The Clerk who did it is sitting at the Table at the moment. 1 did in fact see the Clerk rise, but I did not hear the count. Therefore, on the one part of the point of order, if it is indeed out of order for the count not to be heard, then, quite clearly, the point of order is valid. That is a question, of course, on which I cannot make judgment since 1 am not the Speaker.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, I have not entered into the debate on all of these points of order and privilege this afternoon because 1 did not want to lend them any credence because they are obviously a filibuster. But with regard to this point, 1 think it raises a question of the actions of the Table officers, and I think the Table must be supported. 1 had trouble hearing what the count was, but I certainly observed the Clerk turn toward you, Madam Speaker, and 1 could see his lips moving.


An Hon. Member:: Did you hear the count?


David P. Smith: I think it is a safe and reasonable assumption that he was giving you the count. There is an old rule of law, Madam Speaker, which says that those who seek equity must approach the court with clean hands.


An Hon. Member:: Like the Citizenship Court.


David P. Smith: If the Clerk could not be heard it was because Members opposite were raising such a fuss that he could not be heard. I would submit, Madam Speaker, that this is one of the most spurious points of order 1 have ever heard in my time in Parliament, and I regret it has cast reflections on the carrying out of the duties of an officer of the Table in whose ability and integrity I have the utmost confidence. I am sure I speak for all Members on this side on that point.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arnold John Malone: Madam Speaker, I would just like to take a moment or two to share with you my opinion of what happened last night. The sound system was not functioning. We did not hear the vote. In fact, what happened is that it was not really until we saw Hansard today that we factually knew who won or lost the vote last night.
With respect to the position taken by the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), I would like to underscore the theme of what he was making reference to, and that is that we need in this parliamentary concept the utmost concern for process, and that process, in its very definition, becomes the standard by

December 15, 1982
Point of Order-Mr. Nielsen
which a Parliament should be able to function. What happened last night is a question essentially of whether or not a Parliament can move to some other business while there is a question about its order. That question was being raised last night, and I put this to you, Madam Speaker, because you will be giving this some consideration: how could we move to any other form of business, be it adjournment or be it unanimous consent to move from one Bill to another, when in fact there is a question of order.
It would seem to me, as long as there is on the floor of the House some question about the process by which that House is conducting itself, namely, the rules by which it chooses to operate, that if there is a question about that process, then, by the nature of our Standing Orders, attention must be given to the fact of whether or not we are in order.
To be outside of order and then to move to some other activity is simply, I believe, a defiance of the rules of order themselves. Therefore, the specific question of the events of last night are in question, as is also the hypothetical event of moving to any other state of order than the one which might be before us.
With that in mind, Madam Speaker, I would also find it necessary to bring to the attention of the House, through you, that while we had before us last night a question of order at the time of adjournment, what has happened now is that nearly four hours of business have passed since that question of order was before us. I say this to underscore the necessity of considering points of order or questions of privilege at the time when they are submitted rather than putting them aside to some later period of time. As was indicated earlier, and 1 will not recite the Standing Order, we have a duty and obligation, when we believe there is a question of order, to bring that question of order to the attention of Madam Speaker or Mr. Speaker, depending on what the case may be.
I have extended the argument of the Hon. Member for Yukon because I think there is not only the question of the specifics which face you now, but the whole general hypothetical question of whether or not the House can shift from any form of business to some other form of business while there is on the floor of the House a question of whether or not it is in a state of order.


Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Madam Speaker, in my riding today there are 15 per cent unemployed and one in 13 workers in British Columbia will soon be going on welfare. My people want this House of Commons to deal with some real business and to get some Government action.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Let us get moving. This is ridiculous. I saw the vote last night. We did not hear the vote back here, it is true, as the Hon. Member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone) said. But as the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) said, we saw the vote being put by the Clerk, we saw it read,
and we all know that the Government was not defeated. If it had been, we are sure it would have raised hell and we would have got that vote recorded. So let us move on. We know what the vote was, we know what is happening, and there is a big need in the country to get going.


Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Madam Speaker, we are no longer operating with privacy in this Chamber and no longer can we conceal from the public what takes place in this Chamber.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Don't you have any unemployed at home?


An Hon. Member:: Canagrex will not solve unemployment.


Fred Alward McCain: 1 think what I have just said, Madam Speaker, should caution those who are treating the procedures of this House so lightly, frivolously and so carelessly to mend their ways and be responsible to their constituents in the performance of their duties.
1 did not hear, Madam Speaker, nor did 1 see any lips move for the presentation of that vote to this House in the traditional way. When 1 left this House last night the first person I met had been watching the proceedings on television. The first question asked of me was: "Don't they announce the vote in the House of Commons? What kind of a procedure do you have? Did you win it or did you lose it?" No one made any remarks as to the results of that vote, and I have never seen that happen before.


Madam Speaker:: Excuse me. Just for the record, and you will see it in Hansard, the Speaker said "the motion is lost".


Fred Alward McCain: Madam Speaker, I am not quarelling with that, but I am told by a viewer that there was no awareness as to who won or lost the vote. Perhaps in the noise your voice did not carry through the audio system. But I do think we have to give some consideration to conformity with good manners and the rules of this House.
I would just like to say in closing, Madam Speaker, that when the Hon. Member from Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell), perhaps most notorious for his filibustering and time-wasting speeches, rises in this House in the frivolous manner in which he just did, this House does not gain in stature or in reputation with those who know it.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, all I said when I got up was that there are 15 per cent unemployed in my riding and there are going to be one in 13 workers in British Columbia on welfare next year. It is about time the Conservative Party paid some attention to that, and I wish the Member would shut up!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Fred Alward McCain: Madam Speaker, no Member of this House is entitled to tell any other Member, from his position in his seat, to shut up. I submit to you, Madam Speaker, that that should be retracted forthwith, without comment.


Madam Speaker:: Well, Hon. Members in the course of debate often use expressions which are a bit extreme. We have
December 15, 1982

heard them before in the House. Even if Members do use such expressions, the Speaker does not stop them. Members have their freedom of expression. The Hon. Member has had his say and 1 will allow him to have his say to the end.


Fred Alward McCain: Madam Speaker, perhaps it is not uncommon to hear interjections from Members sitting in their seat to go back and forth, some of which I deplore and very few of which I have been responsible for. But when a person in this House is recognized by the Speaker, and when in his official position as a Member he is speaking in this House and tells another Member to shut up, 1 submit to you, Madam Speaker, that that in fact is a question of privilege, and I am within my rights to suggest that that Member should retract that statement and apologize to this House.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: 1 have heard that very often in the House. Perhaps it is not the best way to continue debate, but I have heard it several times in the House and despite any opinion which the Hon. Member might have on its propriety, it has been accepted in the House. The Hon. Member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields).


Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Madam Speaker, just to assist you in your ruling on this point of order, you will recognize that 1 sit very close to the Chair and I was unable to hear the Table deliver the numbers to you. Usually, if I sharpen my ears, I can hear Madam Speaker speaking to the Table officer with the microphones off, so we are in very close proximity. I did not hear Madam Speaker say that the motion was lost, and 1 hope you will give the position taken by the Hon. House Leader your due consideration.


Denis Éthier: Madam Speaker, it seems to me that this whole debate evolves around the doubt that we have in each other. 1 think the House should operate, and always has, under the assumption that everyone speaks the truth and no one intends to mislead the House. Today we have heard Members speak of irregularities, others on points of order, and others on questions of privilege. Now 1 have heard my friend, the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), talk of the ignorance of some of his colleagues concerning the rules and procedures. Certainly no one could accuse our good friend, the Hon. Member for Yukon, of being ignorant of the rules.


Erik Nielsen: The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) always does.


Denis Éthier: On the contrary, 1 would like to compliment him on his knowledge of the rules and procedures. But I might touch on one point that was not mentioned this afternoon. It was totally omitted by the Hon. Member for Yukon and, as a matter of fact, by all Members of his party. That, Madam Speaker, is abuse. I am referring to the abuse of the rules, the abuse of the privileges of Hon. Members, the abuse of the position and the titles that certain people hold, such as Leaders of Opposition, House leaders.
Point of Order-Mr. Nielsen


Erik Nielsen: Ministers of Agriculture.


Denis Éthier: And again the abuse of the confidence and trust that Members have in each other. On this, Madam Speaker, I bring you back to the motion before the House yesterday which the Hon. Member for Yukon is complaining about. I submit to you that this motion was moved, perhaps in good faith-1 am sorry to see my friend from Yukon leave the House because it concerns him.


Mr. Jarvis:: I will tell him. I am taking notes.


Denis Éthier: When the Hon. Member for Yukon moved under Standing Order 29 that the Hon. Member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) be recognized, it was an error. To do that the Hon. Member for Calgary Centre had to have been rising in his seat. I can tell you that he was not in his seat, and 1 am sure the Hon. Member for Yukon did not want to mislead the House. I know he is too much of a gentleman for that. I am certain he would want to correct that wrong.
At the time you recognized the Hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan), Madam Speaker, I was sitting in my seat listening quite attentively to what the Hon. Member for Yukon was saying because he mentioned me on a couple of occasions with reference to the time when I was occupying the Chair. I know very well that the Hon. Member for Calgary Centre was not seeking the floor. It was a mistake that the Hon. Member for Yukon made, and all 1 ask is for him to correct yesterday's wrong. That is all I have to say.


Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Madam Speaker, I am sure the Hon. Member would not want to leave misinformation on the record. The Hon. Member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) was rising to speak to the question of privilege which I had raised, and I saw him rising in his place at the point when the House Leader was raising Standing Order 29.
I just want to correct the record in terms of what the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Ethier) raised. The Hon. Member for Calgary South was in his place.


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, in spite of the words used, I am sure the Hon. Member was referring to myself, the Hon. Member for Calgary Centre, rather than the Hon. Member for Calgary South.
1 was most certainly in my seat. I was most certainly trying to be recognized. I was recognized by Madam Speaker. It was at that point, after that occasion, that the House Leader for the Progressive Conservative Party moved under Standing Order 29. I am sorry, but the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Ethier) is simply erroneous in his observation that I was not properly in my place at that point in time.


Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Madam Speaker, I too would like to say a few words in this regard. It was unfortunate last night that we could not hear it. As you are aware, I

December 15, 1982
Point of Order-Mr. Nielsen
think I am close enough to you that I can hear, usually. Actually, it is the first time in my ten years' experience in the House of Commons that I have not heard the vote.
There is one point which should be made, that is, who was contributing to the noise at the time so that it could not be heard? Madam Speaker, you should not be criticized, nor should the people at the Table. Another point which cannot be overlooked is that when our House Leader was standing and tried two or three times to get your attention and the attention of the House of Commons, you were prepared to give your attention to that. You tried, you did everything in your power, but the Members of the Government would not allow you; they shouted you down. Let it be recorded that it was Government Members. Why would we shout down our own House Leader when he was trying to get the attention of the House of Commons?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Gordon Towers: I do not know whether Hon. Members opposite were supported by the New Democratic Party-they care less for democracy anyway; we have seen it happen before-but it certainly was not us on this side who did not want our House Leader heard. It was Hon. Members opposite. They would not allow you, Madam Speaker, to adjudicate the proceedings in the House of Commons, as usually happens. This has to be recorded fairly and squarely.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, I had hoped that you would soon conclude that you have heard enough on this point to rule because what is going on here today is quite disgusting. We are talking about the reputation of a very devoted servant of the Table. It is fine to have tricks up their sleeves to try to prevent the House from dealing with the business with which it should be dealing; that is one thing. But they should not drag into disrepute the ability of a very devoted servant of the Table to carry out his functions. They all know that he announced the vote, and I think they should drop this and quit these gutter tactics.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, Members of the Official Opposition admitted very clearly today that they have a hearing problem. I would like to ask through you, Madam Speaker, whether they have learned to read, because in Hansard the yeas and nays are recorded.


Madam Speaker:: Hon. Members have had a chance to express their views on the last two points of orders raised by the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). I listened very carefully to his presentation and to that of other Members. I had the feeling last night that I carried out the procedure as it should have been done. It happens very often that we see the clock at a certain time and we do not see it when it strikes exactly ten o'clock. I know that I acted according to that practice.
As for giving the floor to the Hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan), I felt-and I think Members will feel the same way-that I was carrying out an order of the House; we had just voted on that particular motion. There are other considerations. There was another point of order raised about Hon. Members not hearing the Clerk calling out the count of the vote. I will look at that too, to see whether there is any irregularity in that particular instance.
But I think it happens very, very often in the House that Members do not hear the count because often when the count is given there is considerable noise in the House. It seems to me that it is probably sufficient for the Speaker to announce whether the motion has been defeated or adopted, and I certainly did that last night.
I will take the Hon. Member's points of orders under advisement because I want to look at all his arguments and review all the procedure to ascertain whether all procedures have been followed according to our rules.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


A. Daniel McKenzie: for leave to introduce Bill C-666, an Act to amend the Official Languages Act.


Some Hon. Members:: Explain.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Madam Speaker, the purpose of this Bill is to extend in legislation the spirit of paragraph 7 of the House of Commons resolution of June 6, 1973 on official languages by ensuring that a public servant or employee of a Crown corporation, hired prior to the day of the coming into force of the Official Languages Act and still employed without being rehired since that day, is able to continue to occupy his position or compete for any other position without his ability to perform in his second official language being taken into consideration as a criterion of merit.
Also this Bill would restore the merit system in the Public Service, Armed Forces, RCMP and the 480 Crown corporations. It would stop the dead-ending of qualified public servants in their positions because of their lack of aptitude to learn the French language. It would run counter to the Bill of the Secretary of State (Mr. Joyal), Bill C-398, which is intended to force bilingualism on the private sector by the imposition of fines and jail sentences for non-compliance.
Clause 2 would prevent the Government from forcing compliance of the Official Languages Act on the private sector without first seeking enabling legislation to that effect by way of a full parliamentary debate in the House of Commons,
December 15, 1982

rather than employing the Liberal practice of resorting to Orders in Council and secret directives.
Also this Bill would correct the discriminatory aspects of the Liberal Government's bilingual policies which are now under investigation by the Canadian Human Rights Commission.


Madam Speaker:: I remind the Hon. Member that statements at this particular stage of presentation of a Bill should be kept very short. It does not allow for a full explanation of the Bill, only of the purpose of it.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Madam Speaker:: First reading of Senate Public Bills, Government Notices of Motions, Motions.


POINT OF ORDER
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. Yesterday if you look at the record, the Chair called Government Notices of Motions, at which time the Minister rose and my motion was dealt with, and so on. Today the process was reversed. There might be something that happened between last night and today of which I am unaware that would cause that reversal. But it seems to me the debate arises in the same place today as it did yesterday, namely, on Government Notices of Motions. That is where it started yesterday. That is the stage at which the Standing Orders tell us we should be at today.


Madam Speaker:: This debate has now been transferred under Government Orders, and the debate will take place when we reach Orders of the Day.


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, I would like some clarification. Quite clearly, the debate commenced on Government Notices of Motion yesterday. We never got to Motions at all Today there has been a change. Perhaps there was an inadvertency either today or yesterday, but it is important. Other Members on this side of the House would like to know what is the proper procedure.


Madam Speaker:: I will read to Hon. Members the Standing Order to which I am referring. It is Standing Order 45(2). It reads:
When a debate on any motion made prior to the reading of the Orders of the Day is adjourned or interrupted, the order for resumption of the same shall be transferred to and considered under Government Orders.
This is the Standing Order I feel applies in this particular circumstance.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, may I submit another Standing Order for the Chair's consideration. 1 quoted it earlier today, namely Standing Order 7. But before reading it,
Point of Order-Mr. Nielsen
let me just refresh our memories as to what occurred last night. The item was called under Government Notices, at which time the Minister and the Hon. Member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) rose at the same time, at which time I presented my motion that the Hon. Member for Calgary Centre be heard. The bells rang. The vote was taken and the House was adjourned, as I have already described.
Standing Order 7 stipulates:
At the ordinary time of adjournment of the House, unless otherwise provided, the proceedings shall be interrupted and the business under consideration at the termination of the sitting shall stand over until the next sitting day-
That is exactly what happened last night. The proceedings were interrupted by the Chair declaring the adjournment of the House. The Standing Order goes on to state just how it will be dealt with the next sitting day as follows:
-when it will be taken up at the same stage where its progress was interrupted.
It seems to me that is where we are at now, and we should be taking up discussion of the Bill at the same stage at which we were yesterday. In effect, we were frozen, zap, at the time when the Minister rose. That is where he should have been recognized under Government Notices, in my submission.


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: Madam Speaker, last evening when the House adjourned you had recognized the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan). You made the comment at that time that you had recognized him for the purposes of giving him precedence when the Government Orders of the Day would be called under Standing Order 45(2).
Standing Order 7 must be read with Standing Order 45(2), and Standing Order 45(2) must take precedence. It is very explicit that when a matter is dealt with prior to the Orders of the Day on the first day, once it is reached and the debate has been called upon that particular motion, if that motion is not completed and the vote has not been reached on it, then that motion has to be transferred under Standing Order 45(2) to Government Orders. That is a standing practice. For the hon. gentleman from the Yukon to advance any contrary argument indicates that either he is not serious or he is still using dilatory tactics.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, to re-emphasize the point which the Hon. Minister has just made, if you look at page 21583 of yesterday's Hansard, you will see that the Minister moved his motion. His motion is there. It does not say he tried to move it. The motion has been moved. The question has been put. The matter barely got started but it did get started and it has been transferred, quite properly, to Government Orders and will be called as Government business.


Madam Speaker:: I have to agree with the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister that the rule to be applied is Standing Order 45(2). The one quoted by the Hon. Member for Yukon applies to the stage of a Bill in a motion that only has one stage. Therefore, the Standing Order that applies is

December 15, 1982
Order Paper Questions
Standing Order 45(2). The Minister will have the floor when we reach the Orders of the Day.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 4,276 and 4,474.


Mr. Hovdebo: 1.	Did a company known as Econ Consulting Limited receive a grain dealer's licence on April 26, 1978 or thereabouts from the Canadian Grain Commission?
2.	Did the Commission subsequently become aware that the company had been dealing in grain prior to April 26, 1978 and subsequent to its incorporation on May 25, 1973 and, if so, what action did the Commission take?
3.	Subsequent to April 26, 1978, on how many occasions did the Commission renew the grain dealing licence of the company and, on each occasion, what financial tests did the Commission apply to ensure that the company complied with Section 38(1) of the Canada Grain Act which requires security "sufficient to ensure that all obligations to holders of documents for the payment of money or delivery of grain issued by the licensee will be met"?
4.	(a) Was the company required by the Commission to furnish an audited annual statement of its financial position and, if so, on how many occasions did it do so (b) did the company fail to provide a required audited annual statement and, if so, what action did the Commission take?
5.	(a) Was the company required to make monthly statements on its financial position to the Commission (b) did the company fail to do so and, if so (i) on how many occasions (ii) what action did the Commission take?
6.	(a) In 1981, did the Commission set a security requirement of $700,000 by letter of credit from the company and, if so, on what date (b) what amount of security requirement had the Commission set for the company previous to this date (c) was the security requirement reduced and, if so, what reasons did the Commission give for reducing it?
7.	Did the Commission engage the services of one Clay Blackwell of Winnipeg to investigate certain aspects of the private grain trade in Canada and, if so (a) on what date (b) was the engagement subsequent to the Commission or any of its commissioners learning formally or informally of possible financial difficulties in the private grain trade or of explicit financial difficulties with Econ Consulting?
8.	(a) Were actions taken by the Commission explicitly in regulating the private grain trade in Canada after receiving Mr. Blackwell's report and, if so, what were the actions and the date on which they were taken (b) did any action apply to Econ Consulting and, if so, in what way?
9.	(a) Did the Canadian Wheat Board formally decide to terminate its business relationship with the company following the 1980-81 crop year and, if so, on what date (b) was the Commision advised, either formally or informally, of the reasons for the actions taken by the Board and, if so, what action did the Commission take?
10.	On what date was the Minister of Agriculture advised of the financial difficulties of the company in his capacity as Minister responsible for the Commission and what actions did he take in regard to either the policies or the personnel of the Commission?
11.	(a) Has the Minister met with the representatives of the creditors of Econ Consulting (b) has the Minister given any undertaking to reimburse the creditors of the company for proven losses and, if so, what levels of financial compensation has the Minister discussed with the elected representatives of the creditors?
12.	Subsequent to the suspension on February 8, 1982 of the grain dealer's licence of Econ Consulting by the Commission, what actions did the Commission take to restore public confidence in the private grain trade n Canada?
13.	Is the Commission considering holding public hearings on the subject of the Econ Consulting bankruptcy, as is permitted under Section 80(1 )(b) of the Canada Grain Act?


David P. Smith: I am informed by the Department of Agriculture and the Canadian Wheat Board as follows: 1. Yes.
2.	No, but the Canadian Grain Commission was aware that the President of Econ Consulting Limited had shipped grain produced on his own farm and had also provided advice to other producers on how to ship producer cars.
3.	Econ Consulting Limited's licence was renewed four times; i.e., for the 1978-79, 1979-80, 1980-81 and 1981-82 crop years. The Commission considered the proposed operations of the firm, reviewed financial information provided by the firm and available from other sources such as Dun and Bradstreet reports, the liability reports of the firm during previous years, the absence of producer complaints and the ability of the firm to post the required security when determining whether to renew the licence of Econ Consulting Limited.
4.	(a) No. Grain dealers are not required to submit audited financial statements. Econ Consulting Limited was required to submit annual financial statements prepared by chartered accountants, (b) Not required as indicated in 4(a) above. However, Econ Consulting Limited did provide monthly grain liability reports as indicated in part 5(b).
5.	(a) Econ Consulting Limited was required to submit monthly grain liability reports, (b) (i) (ii) Monthly grain liability reports were received for every month that Econ Consulting Limited held a grain dealer's licence until December, 1981. Thereafter, Commission officials were reviewing Econ Consulting Limited's grain liabilities on a more frequent basis until Econ Consulting Limited's licence was revoked February 8, 1982.
6.	(a) The Commission set a security requirement of
S700,000	on September 17, 1981. (b) $900,000. (c) The security requirement was reduced on the basis of reduced grain liabilities reported by Econ Consulting Limited and assurances given by the firm that liabilities would not increase beyond $700,000. Econ Consulting Limited reported grain liabilities of $511,000 as of September 30, 1981.
7.	(a) Clay Blackwell of Winnipeg was engaged in November, 1980 to review and prepare a report entitled "A Study of Surety Arrangements of Licensees", (b) The engagement of Clay Blackwell was not related explicitly to financial difficulties of Econ Consulting Limited but to general concerns of the Commission about the financial position and surety arrangements of all licensees.
8.	(a) For the 1981 crop year, the Commission increased its surety requirements of grain dealers, increased its own inspection program, developed formal liability audits of selected licensees by the Audit Services Bureau, Department of Supply and Services and strengthened its procedures and capabilities for testing the financial liability of licensed grain dealers, (b)
December 15, 1982

All of the above measures applied to Econ Consulting Limited, and all grain dealers.
9.	(a) Econ Consulting Limited was advised by letter from the Canadian Wheat Board on July 15, 1981 that its handling agreement with the Board, which was to expire October 1, 1981, would not be renewed for the 1981-82 crop year, (b) The Commission was informed by the Canadian Wheat Board on September 9, 1981 that Econ Consulting Limited's handling agreement with the Board would expire October 1, 1981. There was no suggestion this termination was based on any concern for the financial soundness of Econ Consulting Limited. The Board and Econ Consulting Limited were involved in a number of administrative and legal disputes which were widely believed to be the reason for this development. Econ Consulting Limited had been the only non-primary elevator licensee to receive a modified Class A handling agreement so it appeared this experiment had not worked.
10.	The Minister was informed in December, 1981 of the Commission's concern about Econ Consulting Limited and was advised of the efforts the Commission was making to get the level of surety increased.
11.	(a) Yes. (b) No.
12.	The Commission has worked with the trustee to clarify the situation for creditors and to establish the identity of those creditors with valid claims under the Canada Grain Act. It continues to monitor the financial position of other licensees.
Order Paper Questions
(b)
(c)
(d)
4 Begg, A. Robert
Edwards Crystal Ann Montbourquette Pigeon, Marcel
Robert, Michel Joseph Georges
10 Bond, Michael James Excel Quartz Inc.
Glover, Darrell Roland Hyde, Robert Joseph Intercoast Resources Corp. Morrill, Leonard Leo Pavey, Neil Kenneth Schneider, Philip David Spencer, Terrance Robert Yava Mines Limited
14 Big Horn Chemical Processing Ltd.
Bridge, Daniel Wyatt Buchanan, Ronald Alan Cadieux, Leo Clifford D.A.M. Cat Service Ltd. Faiber, Stanley Edward Jones, Floyd Edward Kenny, James Anthony Needham, Gordon Robert Nordell Drilling Ltd.
Primus Resources Ltd.
Source Oil & Gas (Western) Ltd.
Wescom Services Ltd.
99932 Canada Inc.
270,000	270,000
63,000	69,000
1,500	29,000
23,000	31,000
150	105,000
250,000	750,000
1,500	17,500
4,500	23,000
not available	not available
1,500	17,500
2,500	23,000
2,500	25,000
85,000	105,000
1,500,000	6,000,000
950,000	6,000,000
105,000	135,000
not available	not available
1,000	38,000
270,000	430,000
3,000	13,000
63,000	97,000
4,500	21,000
63,000	57,000
125,000	410,000
330,000	350,000
not available	not available
210,000	290,000
15,500	27,000
** The information is not available due to the bankruptcies having resulted from a petition by creditors.
13. No.
BANKRUPTCIES/RECEIVERSHIPS IN OIL AND GAS INDUSTRY


Mr. Mazankowski: In (a) 1979 (b) 1980 (c) 1981 (d) 1982 to date, how many companies in the oil and gas industry, including drilling firms, rig servicing companies and trucking firms, declared bankruptcy or went into receivership and, in each case (i) what was the name of the firm (ii) what were the declared assets at the time of filing (iii) what were its outstanding debts?


David Berger: The following is the list of bankrupts identified in departmental records as having operated in the oil and gas industry. Please note that the statistical system is such that it is impossible to separate tankers from other trucking firms.
(a)
Number
(i)
Anderson, William Eric Kami Management & Consultants Ltd.
L.R. Gallant Gas Test Operating Ltd.
Larsen Oilfield Services Ltd. Lucien Mainville Inc.
Puckett, Jerrold Jean Rand Resources Ltd.
Smith, Donald Edward Terrdon Oilfield Services Ltd. Vinegar, Barney
(ii)	(Hi)
$ 150	$ 750,000
not available	not available
not available	not available
33,000	350,000
750	29,000
9,500	23,000
2,500	190,000
not available	not available
43,000	69,000
950	135,000
Information on receiverships is not available from departmental records since receiverships are outside the purview of the present Bankruptcy Act.
Note: It is to be noted also that the assets and liabilities are taken from the initial Statement of Affairs, declared and estimated by the bankrupt and are therefore frequently unreliable.


David P. Smith: 1 ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered.


Arnold John Malone: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Can the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Smith) tell me why it is that Questions Nos. 4,411 and 4,465 have not yet been answered? I would ask him specifically in terms of Question No. 4,411 whether that one has not been answered because of the sensitivity of the question which asked whether or not the Minister of Finance had used income tax documents in order to secure the favours of a group of business people, to whom he submitted a letter? Is that the reason why that is being held back, that there was a breach of income tax confidentiality?

December 15, 1982
Order Paper Questions
As far as Question No. 4,465 is concerned which contains some very plain, simple questions dealing with the value of Petro-Canada's assets at the present time, the number of persons working with the company and in particular the amount of dollars which Petro-Canada is spending in advertising. All of these are simple questions, the answers to which could be compiled in a month or two. Question No. 4,465 has been on the Order Paper in excess of half a year. Why has that group of questions not been answered within Question No. 4,465?


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, I am not in a position to advise the Hon. Member exactly why they have not been answered. We on this side of the House are not afraid of answering sensitive questions. We have answered over 82.6 per cent of all the questions put on the Order Paper during this session. But based on the representation made by my good friend and colleague, the Hon. Member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone), 1 will be delighted to look into the matter and do the best I can on his behalf. It will be a pleasure.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Madam Speaker, I heard the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Smith) say the same thing three times to me. 1 wonder whether he is still delighted and still trying to find happiness in giving me the answer to Question No. 2,329 which has been on the Order Paper for more than a year and a half. I cannot understand it. The question is not that difficult. It refers to President Reagan's visit to Canada. Surely all of those records are complete now unless defeated Liberal candidates were invited and no other defeated candidates. 1 do not know why the Government is holding up the answer.
Second, there is Question No. 4,542 which has been on the Order Paper for a month only. That is not very long. A CRTC hearing was held in Edmonton. All the records are available. What is holding up the answer?


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased that the Hon. Member has drawn this matter to my attention. I will be very pleased to look into it with holy haste.


Mr. Mazankowski:: Madam Speaker, as the Parliamentary Secretary is so receptive and responsive to questions on the Order Paper that have been there for some time, would he look into Question Nos. 4,429, 4,430, 4,431? They have to do with Petro-Canada's activities in looking for oil in foreign countries.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, needless to say, I will be very happy to look into this matter on behalf of my friend, the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski).


Mr. Crouse:: Madam Speaker, as the Hon. Member is in such an amiable mood, I would like to ask him why it has not been possible for me to get an answer to Question No. 4515 which deals with an incident which happened in a place called Cherry Hill, Lunenberg County, Nova Scotia. The question spells it all out. The Government went to work and built a skidway on a piece of land without even getting clearance to
the title of that land. When the man who owned that land came back from a holiday, he found that the Government of Canada had built a skidway on the land. The Government said to him, "It seems we have made a mistake." If the Parliamentary Secretary is checking, it is question No. 4,515.
The Government then offered this man $2,000 or $3,000 for his land. He then pointed out that he did not only have land to sell. He said that when someone builds something on another person's land without their permission, that person not only has the land to sell but the land upon which the facility has been constructed as well. This man was asking for approximately $50,000 from the federal Government.
For this reason, my constituents are rather anxious to find out whether, when they seek a loan from Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, everything has to be cut and dried or else they are refused the loan. This is a case where, without bothering to check to see who owned the land, the Government moved in and built a skidway. My taxpayers work hard for their money. Fishing is not particularly good in Atlantic Canada, especially in Nova Scotia. They are worried when they see tax money spent in this fashion which does nothing to benefit them.
In the long run, the Government said that it would solve the problem by tearing up the skidway. 1 would like to know what happened. It is a very simple matter to which I would like to have an answer.
While the Parliamentary Secretary is checking into that particular question, I would like to inquire about a question I asked over a year ago of the Minister about the situation that exists in a place called Woods Harbour in Shelburne County. Under Question No. 4,518, I asked what the Government will do about dredging in that area. It is a very important matter because if one were to visit Woods Harbour, one would see a large fleet there of well over 100 ships. When the tide is at the halfway mark, those draggers and long liners are sitting on the bottom. If a fire breaks out in one of the inner draggers, it is impossible to move the fleet out of the harbour. Millions of dollars of valuable inshore draggers and long liners would be completely destroyed. The Government of Canada should dredge that area. When will I get an answer?


Madam Speaker:: Order. I do not think there are any specific rules about how long one can take to ask for information on a question on the Order Paper, but common sense says that it should be short.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, I would like to say that it would be a pleasure for me to pursue this matter on behalf of my good friend, the Hon. Member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse). I have held him in esteem for many years. I attended university with his daughter.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David P. Smith: I would be happy to look into the matter for him.
December 15, 1982


A. Daniel McKenzie: Madam Speaker, I have two questions, one of which was asked over a year ago. I have raised this on two other occasions. It concerns Question No. 3,441 which was placed on the Order Paper in November of 1981. The question is:
Did the Minister of Supply and Services, Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development take a JetStar flight to Winnipeg for the official opening of General Aluminum Forgings Incorporated on October 30, 1981, and, if so, in each case, other than the Minister and the aircraft crew, who was on the flight?
This information is readily available. I have raised it on two other occasions. I would like to get a commitment from the Parliamentary Secretary by next week.
Also, Question No. 4,175, which was placed on the Order Paper on March 24 of this year, regarded the Government's hiring teams that are going into universities and schools across Canada. It is quite an important question. I want to know when these hiring teams are going to the University of Winnipeg and the University of Manitoba and just exactly who they will be hiring there. 1 would appreciate it if the Parliamentary Secretary would make inquiries and come back with some kind of an answer next week.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, I will be happy to look into this matter on behalf of the Hon. Member. Sometimes questions which may appear quite simple and straightforward at first glance turn out to be somewhat complicated because the answer involves several Departments. I will certainly pursue this question with great dispatch and see what I can do to come up with an answer.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Madam Speaker, in the spirit of co-operation shown by the Parliamentary Secretary, I have inquiries regarding Questions 2,107, 2,108 and 2,109. These questions go back to February, 1981, and regard the transportation of grain and some conflict in statements between the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) and his assistant in the other place. In the spirit shown by the Parliamentary Secretary today, 1 look forward to receiving those answers.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, 1 would be very happy to look into that matter on behalf of the Hon. Member. So as to expedite the time of the House, I will assure Members opposite that all outstanding questions on the Order Paper will be looked into.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David P. Smith: I say this in the spirit of Christmas and I trust that they will reciprocate in the spirit of Christmas the remaining three or four minutes that we have today.


John William Bosley: Madam Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary, who has indicated his relationship to everyone on this side of the House, is doing an extraordinary job. Since I go back
Order Paper Questions
almost as long with him as he does with the daughter of the Hon. Member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse)-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Explain.


John William Bosley: I would like to ask two specific questions of my old friend, the Parliamentary Secretary. Would he consider answering Question No. 3,340 which is dated November 6, 1981 ? It concerns the Canadian subsidization of wheat sales to Russia which is still an issue of some concern.
As well, perhaps on behalf of a Member who is no longer able to ask his question since he is in the ministry, it might be appreciated if question No. 2,157, which is in the name of the Hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Caccia), which still has not been answered and for which he can no longer request an answer, could be answered also.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased that the Hon. Member for Don Valley West (Mr. Bosley), with whom I had the pleasure of working for many years as a fellow aider-man on Toronto City Council, has brought these matters to my attention. I will be very happy to look into the first question. It may take me a few hours to do so. As soon as we are able to leave the House in a couple of minutes, I will immediately see what I can do to deal with that.
With regard to the other question which he raised, it is a little more complicated in nature. I believe that inquiries have been made by our office in regard to it. I will have to look into it to see whether or not I can do something to expedite the compilation of that answer.
As I said a few moments ago, sometimes these answers involve several different Departments. When they do involve several different Departments, it can be very frustrating when you have an answer from one Department on your desk and sometimes the answer from a second Department will arrive on your desk, and sometimes the answer from a third Department will arrive on your desk, and sometimes the answer from a fourth Department will arrive on your desk.


Some Hon. Members:: Filibuster.


David P. Smith: Sometimes these answers involve as many as 25 different Departments.


An Hon. Member:: Which ones?


David P. Smith: Sometimes it involves the Department of Defence when the question involves use of aircraft. Sometimes it involves the Department of Transport when the question involves the use of aircraft. When a variety of different Departments are involved in forming an answer, it takes quite a while to do so. I am not quite sure which Department it is in this particular case.
21628

December 15, 1982
Order Paper Questions


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: Order. Perhaps this little interruption will allow the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to find out which Department it is.
It being six o'clock, 1 do now leave the chair until 2 p.m. tomorrow.
At 6 p.m., the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, December 16, 1982