1982-02-12

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to seek the permission of the House to move a motion on a subject of urgent and pressing necessity. It relates to the necessity that the government immediately implement the recommendations contained in a letter to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), dated February 3, 1982, signed by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) and the Minister of State (Mr. Joyal) and certain Members of Parliament, which urged the government to proceed with the immediate creation of two new programs to create employment in key sectors of the economy, by stimulating domestic housing construction and by launching a program to enable private enterprise to hire young Canadians.
I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen):
That the House strongly endorse the position of the authors of the Begin-Joyal letter when they wrote: "Mr. Prime Minister, we urge you to adopt these measures as soon as possible because we are convinced that they are necessary
right now."


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


POLITICAL PARTIES
Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Lethbridge-Foothills):: Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor):
That the New Democratic Party stand condemned for once again saving the Liberal government, including the ugly spectacle of the NDP leader consulting with the Liberals behind the curtain before saving them, and that all Canadians who are being hurt by the government know, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that the NDP saved the budget and the Liberals. Let Canadians beware!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Madam Speaker, yesterday, a day which shall live in infamy, the party to my left and the Liberal government connived in a reprehensible action which denied my party the right to our allotted day.


Mr. Waddell:: It was our allotted day!


Claude Girvin (Girve) Fretz: Moreover, their despicable deed denied the right of the hon. member for Kitchener (Mr. Lang) and eight of his Liberal colleagues to speak to our proposed motion, which urged the immediate creation of job programs for young Canadians and the stimulation of the housing industry, an idea favoured by another group of Liberal members and ministers.
In light of this denial of rights, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker):
That this House censure the President of the Privy Council for his deplorable lack of courage in not allowing the Progressive Conservative Party to have today as an opposition day, in clear contravention of the Standing Orders.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


HUMAN RIGHTS
[Stage Direction]
February 12, 1982

Mr. Bob Ogle (Saskatoon East):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise on [DOT] a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Recently Dr. Neil Agget died while being held by South African police. His so-called offence was simply that of organizing workers to obtain humane wages and working conditions. He was the forty-sixth person to die in detention since 1963, the most prominent recent example being that of Steve Biko in 1978. There are hundreds now being held without charge by South African police.
I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Heap):
That the government urge upon the South African government the immediate release of all those held without charge under various repressive laws in South Africa.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Madam Speaker, whereas yesterday hon. members of all parties in this House were the victims of a new form of cabinet-invented closure, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Fennell):
That this House condemn the government House leader who denied the people of Canada, through their elected Members of Parliament, the opportunity to express their confidence, or lack of it, in the Minister of Finance and his budget.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Bill Wright (Calgary North):: Madam Speaker, the Canadian Real Estate Association has stated that the budget discourages take-back mortgages thereby discriminating against the small Canadian investor. The shift in Canadian real estate ownership will be toward large corporations which
have pools of capital, or toward foreign investors who may apply interest expense against income in their own countries. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Huron-Bruce (Mr. Cardiff):
That the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the Minister of State urge the Minister of Finance to introduce further amendments to the budget as it affects real estate, and thereby make it more attractive to the small Canadian investor, both as an investment and as a provision for retirement years.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


MINES AND MINING
[Stage Direction]
5.0.	43
Mr. Thomas Siddon (Richmond-South Delta):: Madam Speaker, the Mining Association of Canada and many other experts have predicted that by 1985 there will be a severe shortage of several thousand skilled mine workers which will largely arise because of the major coal and oil sands projects slated for western Canada. However, Canadian mining companies are presently laying off hundreds of their youngest employees who are low on the seniority scale because of the current economic depression. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson):
That the Minister of State for Mines, in collaboration with her colleague, the Minister of Employment and Immigration, be requested to implement immediately an emergency training program so that, instead of sitting around with nothing to do, young mine workers might be placed in accelerated skills-training courses under the supervision of experienced mine workers at their present places of employment, and that UIC benefits normally payable to those young persons be used to finance the cost of such training.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

[DOT] (mo)


THE SENATE
[Stage Direction]
5.0.	43
Mr. Bill Yurko (Edmonton East):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of importance under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that February 14 is the fifty-second anniversary of the appointment of the first woman to the Senate, Mrs. Cairine Wilson, appointed February 14, 1930, and in view of the fact that only 18 other women have been appointed since then, or 2.7 per cent of the 702 Senators who
February 12, 1982

have been summoned to the Red Chamber since confederation, I move, I am sure seconded by all female members of this House:
That this House urge the Prime Minister to fill as many of the 14 vacancies in the other place as possible with women appointees.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE PRIME MINISTER
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, democracy has fled the Liberal government along with the right to speak out on behalf of constituents. It is now a Trudeau state. Trudeau has placed a zipper on the mouth of every Liberal Member of Parliament. Each is now forbidden to say anything that displeases Trudeau or he will not give them a reward which he pays for with taxpayers' money. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Cooper):
That Canadians rise up and take action before this country is forever lost to this would-be emperor dictator.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PUBLISHING
Mr. Lyle S. Kristiansen (Kootenay West):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and public importance, and hope that in view of the comments of the Solicitor General we might have unanimous consent. All Canada views with disgust and dismay the announcement by mass murderer Clifford Olson that the sensibilities of Canadians may soon again be abused by his demented memoirs in book and serial form, the object of which would be to further enrich this mass murderer and rapist for his crimes at the expense of the people of Canada. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. Rose):
That while this House will and must always uphold the principle of freedom of the press, we unanimously urge all Canadian book, magazine and newspaper publishers to act in accordance with their commensurate responsibility to the people of Canada and not engage in any publication or distribution of commer-
Oral Questions
cial material which would serve to further enrich Olson or his estate and indirectly encourage similar crimes.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. John Thomson (Calgary South):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Soviet Jewish dissident Anatoly Shcharansky has been unjustly held for over six months in solitary confinement and on low rations by the Soviet authorities in direct contravention of basic human rights and of Soviet obligations under the Helsinki Accord to respect the fundamental freedoms of conscience and religion. In view of this injustice and the plea of Mr. Shcharansky's wife that politicians in the west take up her husband's cause, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker):
That this House call on the Soviet Union to live up to its obligation under the Helsinki Accord and immediately release Anatoly Shcharansky from detention.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Peter Elzinga (Pembina):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In putting the question to the Prime Minister, I refer to an article which appeared in the Edmonton Journal. Will the Prime Minister give consideration to instructing his Solicitor General to release immediately the 33 documents which the RCMP defence counsel have requested and which are essential for a fair and full trial for the 17 officers who are charged in the Quebec courts?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, I am not aware of the documents to which the hon. member is referring. I will take notice of the question.

February 12, 1982
Oral Questions INCOME TAX


FILING OF RETURNS BY QUEBEC RESIDENTS
Blaine Allen Thacker: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue and, failing him, the Prime Minister.
I have been informed that there are a large number of people from the province of Quebec who are failing to file their federal income tax returns. It would appear that it is part of a strategy to avoid paying taxes, or a Parti Quebecois strategy to embarrass the central government. Can the Minister of National Revenue advise the House what the extent of this problem is and what he proposes to do about it?


Hon. William Rompkey (Minister of National Revenue):: Madam Speaker, I am not aware of the problem. The tax system in this country is a voluntary tax system. People are expected to pay their taxes. Nobody particularly likes to do it, but everybody must. I am not aware of any specific problems along the lines that the hon. member has indicated.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER CONDUCT INVESTIGATION
Blaine Allen Thacker: Madam Speaker, this is broadly known information. In view of the fact that the province of Quebec collects its own income tax separate from the rest of the provinces and the federal government, would the minister undertake to investigate this problem and report back to the House with a statement?


Bill Rompkey: Madam Speaker, I will certainly take notice of the hon. member's question.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. In March, 1981, the minister said, "The mobilization planning task force is expected to report later this year"-that is, later in 1981. In November, 1981, the minister said, "The work of the mobilization plan task force is not yet finalized."
At the January, 1982, Conference of the Defence Associations the minister referred to the mobilization plan and said, " ... a number of options and possibilities have been examined, and they are being examined even now, as I speak."
Would the minister tell the House exactly when Canadians can expect to see some results from this drawn-out, procrastinating process?
[ Translation]


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Minister of National Defence):: As the hon. member for Victoria has just pointed out, Madam
Speaker, the whole question of mobilization in Canada has been under review for about a year and a half now. A task force is still carrying out this study in an attempt to reach a conclusion. There are several options, of course, as the hon. member said. Whatever they may be there is a price tag on all those options and for the time being we are trying to refine upon-if I may use the word-the conclusions with respect to a mobilization plan which should be ready within a few weeks.


SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS- GOVERNMENT POSITION
Allan Bruce McKinnon: Madam Speaker, the problem is that the minister is using the lack of a mobilization plan as the reason for turning down every other initiative which is put to him.
The report of the Senate Sub-committee on National Defence which was tabled yesterday contained among its recommendations that the government begin production immediately of a new white paper on defence, that the number of regular force personnel be increased to 92,000 by 1987, and that the Canadian forces CAST commitment be reviewed. When will the government do anything about any of these recommendations?


J. Gilles Lamontagne: Madam Speaker, we are taking into consideration all proposals from the various well-known and respected groups, such as, of course, the Senate. We have taken some action on some of the resolutions which were made during the last Canadian Defence Association convention. Last year, the Standing Committee of the House of Commons on External Affairs and National Defence made several proposals on mobilization, unification, and the reserves. We have taken action on all these proposals. I can give the hon. member information on what has been done as a result of these recommendations, what has been implemented to date, and what will be implemented in the future.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Today is the third anniversary of the November 12 budget. In the past 90 days more than 168,000 Canadians have been laid off. During that same period of time Canadians representing every region of the country and virtually every occupation, and indeed finally Canadians in the back benches of the Liberal Party, have called for changes in the government's financial direction.
On Wednesday the minister indicated that he was prepared to consider "innovative projects intended to produce growth." Will the minister now tell us what those projects are?
February 12, 1982


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's interest in this subject. Obviously members of the House are concerned about unemployment levels and lay-offs. I have stated in the House that within the current fiscal framework the government will undertake specific projects, and I have replied to the Leader of the Opposition that when any decisions are taken on this matter I will ensure that the decisions are announced, but decisions have not yet been taken.


TIMING OF INTRODUCTION OF PROGRAMS
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, 33 per cent of the forestry workers in British Columbia are out of work. Fifty thousand auto workers are out of work. More than
480,000	young Canadians are out of work. How much longer do the people of this country-cumulatively almost a million and a half unemployed Canadians-have to wait before this government demonstrates some concern by bringing in new programs?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the hon. member believes a number of specific new programs would solve the problems of these particular groups. I believe he is misleading them into that belief because it is my view that unless we succeed in bringing down the level of prices in this country we will not be able to solve the problem of unemployment. That is why I believe we must assume a firm anti-inflationary posture in order to create the conditions for renewed growth and for employment creation in the country. That is the basic thrust of the budget, and that is the basic policy of the government.


REASONS FOR POSITION TAKEN BY GOVERNMENT
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, in the past the minister has been fond of drawing our attention to the international situation. I point out to him that even a conservative administration like that of Ronald Reagan in the United States indicated last week that it is no longer preoccupied with the level of budget deficits. In Europe some time ago the government of France, and just some ten days ago the government of West Germany, announced major new initiatives to stimulate their economies because they are concerned about the people in their countries. They will not stand back and watch millions more become unemployed.
Does the failure of the Government of Canada to act at this point really demonstrate that, in terms of its ideas, it is either intellectually bankrupt or, in terms of its concerns about the people of Canada, morally indifferent? Or, frankly, is it both?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, just to comment on the hon. member's reference to the policy of the United States government, what is causing great concern in the United
Oral Questions
States and elsewhere is the projected level of the deficit in that country. Everybody seems to understand that if that deficit is maintained and grows larger, it will limit or remove any possibility of bringing down interest rates in the United States. Why have short-term interest rates gone up in the United States in the last week? It is partly because of the concerns which have been expressed about the projected level of the budget deficit in the United States.
If the hon. member is serious about creating jobs in Canada he will be as dedicated as I am to doing everything possible to bring down interest rates. He ignores that problem in all his questions because he seems to believe we can reach solutions in Canada and forget about rising prices and rising inflation.
The hon. member talked about West Germany. I remind him that even with the recent changes made by the West German government it is still maintaining a firm anti-inflation policy-


John Edward Broadbent: And stimulating the economy.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -and a restrictive fiscal policy. I would remind the hon. member that unemployment in West Germany, now at 8.2 per cent, is much higher than it has ever been in comparison with historical levels in that country. Their unemployment problem is very deep, greater than it ever has been, and greater than Canada's current unemployment based on historical levels.
The hon. member has talked about action taken by the West German government. I have looked at that very carefully and I do not believe it represents any basic change in their current fiscal policy. The things we are doing in Canada, I think, if added together, would create as much of an impression, fiscally, as what is being done by the West German government.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Hon. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, my question is also addressed to the Minister of Finance. Yesterday a second significant fissure in the Liberal caucus was disclosed by the hon. member for Kitchener, who gave an interview to the Kitchener- Waterloo Record in which he disclosed that he had received some 1,000 letters from his constituents complaining about the government's budget and economic policies. In the interview he stated that he was a member of a group of seven or eight Liberal MPs who had been meeting with the Minister of Finance to urge him to change his policies.
Can the Minister of Finance confirm the statement of the hon. member for Kitchener that he has been meeting with a group of seven or eight Liberal MPs of whom the hon. member for Kitchener is one, and that they have counselled the minis-

February 12, 1982
OraI Questions
ter to change his policies along the lines of a short-term drop in the dollar, a short-term loosening of the money supply, greater long-term foreign investment, and a slowdown in the Canadianization program?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I meet frequently with members of the Liberal caucus and 1 intend to continue to meet with members of the Liberal caucus. I do not believe the affairs of the Liberal caucus are a matter for questioning at this particular time, however. That is a matter for the Liberal caucus. It is not a matter of government administration which is the normal subject of questioning on the orders of the day.


PROPOSALS PUT FORWARD BY MEMBERS OF LIBERAL CAUCUS
Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, perhaps the Prime Minister will be giving the same instructions to the hon. member for Kitchener as he gave to the rest of his colleagues earlier in the week.
I want to indicate to the minister that this was a public interview given by the member for Kitchener to the Kitchener-Waterloo Record. May I ask the minister whether, as a matter of government policy, he is prepared to consider representations from members of caucus calling for a short-term drop in the dollar, the loosening of the money supply, a slowdown on the Canadianization policy, and greater long-term foreign investment, as was indicated by the hon. member for Kitchener?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: If the hon. member really wants to know what is happening in our caucus, I invite him to join. It is a very happy place to be.


QUERY RESPECTING PROPOSALS MADE BY CABINET MINISTERS
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question. It is not necessary to join that caucus. We need only read the newspapers and the letters that the Minister of National Health and Welfare
sends.
The matter raised by my colleague indicates a second group of Liberal MPs have made public their disagreement with the government's economic policy. That explains why the Liberals and New Democratic Party yesterday ran away from the opportunity for Members of Parliament to vote on the budget in this House of Commons.
The minister has said he will not discuss representations he is receiving from backbenchers because his Prime Minister regards them as mere nobodies. Perhaps he would accept the distinction relating to representations from cabinet ministers. Is the Minister of Finance now considering any specific proposals from any colleagues in cabinet for change in the budget?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the answer to that specific question is no.


SPECIFIC PROPOSAL INQUIRY
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, since the Minister of Finance is unsure whether he is the Minister of Finance, perhaps I should have directed the question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Let me put my question in a different way. Has the Minister of Finance received any specific proposals for change in the budget from any of his colleagues in cabinet?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Madam Speaker.


LETTER SENT BY MINISTER OF NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Did she suffer severe indigestion when she swallowed her letter of recommendation to the Minister of Finance?


Mr. Cousineau:: Be serious.


Charles Joseph Clark: To put it in a more serious vein, the Minister of Finance has now denied receiving a letter which the Minister of National Health and Welfare had said publicly that she sent. How does the Minister of National Health and Welfare explain the difference between her word, given and published, and the word just given by the Minister of Finance?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Madam Speaker, as far as I understood the question, and in reply to the first part of it concerning indigestion, the answer is no, I never suffered from anything like that. The second part of the question had to do with the problem with the postal situation. I did not quite understand what letter to what minister he was talking about.


EXPLANATION SOUGHT OF LETTER'S FATE
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, we are all aware of the problems with the postal system. The Minister of National Health and Welfare showed temporary courage and acquired temporary notoriety when she deliberately published a letter to the Prime Minister containing recommendations to be considered by the Minister of Finance for changes in the budget. Since the Minister of Finance has now said that he has not received the recommendation, or indeed any recommendation for any change from any minister, will the Minister of National Health and Welfare explain to the House of Commons just what happened to her letter?
February 12, 1982



Hon. IVfonique Begin (Minister of National Health and
Welfare): Madam Speaker, I would be pleased to explain for the umpteenth time to the hon. Leader of the Opposition the work method we used, namely a letter which is, shall we say, public, easy to read, short and written by the ten members of east central Montreal who meet once a week to express the concerns of their respective ridings. The subject of this letter or of the topic selected is normally piloted by two members or one, depending on who is in charge. This one was indeed sponsored by two members. We all sign. In the future, of course, the two ministers will not sign! The group will continue its work and will select the mechanism of representation it deems the most appropriate.
Next Monday we will be in the port of Montreal but instead of writing a letter we will call a press conference after a public meeting. If the hon. member wants to see what east central Montreal is all about he is invited for a visit. In our caucus we do not muzzle people. I think that what matters is that the members expressed some concerns over an issue which perhaps happened to have national implications.
Oral Questions
months, but let us try to reach a negotiated agreement by the end of February. I am just telling you that if we cannot, we will certainly take a reference on our own. We have been trying for years to obtain a negotiated agreement with you or, alternatively, to obtain a joint reference. You have been unable to do either. Newfoundland did not want to join the other maritime provinces when we signed an agreement in 1977. Please let us try to do it before the end of February."
Now, three weeks before the deadline, Premier Peckford is apparently waking up to I do not know what new reality, but he sent a telegram which indicated what I have been saying for 14 years-let us reach an agreement without going to the courts. I am not saying that it is a matter that the courts will never determine. It may be determined, for all we know, in the SIU case. What we are saying is that if we negotiate in good faith we can reach an agreement without knowing who really is owner under the Constitution, because the courts will not have decided by the end of February.


REQUEST THAT COURT ACTION BE DELAYED
Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Madam Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. Could the Prime Minister tell the House why the government was not prepared to set aside its claim to the offshore and so instruct its representatives before the Federal Court, in order not to jeopardize the negotiations presently under way with the government of Newfoundland, and to create the proper climate for these negotiations?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I believe the hon. member is showing a misunderstanding of our position. For some 14 years now we have been setting aside the question of ownership and not referring the matter to the Supreme Court because we hoped to reach a political, negotiated solution which would be to the advantage of the people of Newfoundland and of the people of Canada. This has been our position since I have been in office, but years go by and the offshore is in a state of uncertainty as to the regulations which prevail. There was a case brought before the courts by the Seafarers' International Union. Apparently Newfoundland is still unable to reach a decision to negotiate with us in good faith while the ownership question is held in abeyance. This has been the situation for 12 or 14 years. The hon. member should not ask why we are not prepared to set ownership aside. We have done nothing but that in order to try to reach a negotiated agreement.
Sometime last July I wrote to the Premier of Newfoundland saying, "We cannot wait any longer, beyond the next six


James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister knows that a political settlement is a much better settlement in the spirit of confederation than a judicial one. Accordingly, I ask him why his government did not agree to delay these proceedings while the negotiations were under way, even if it meant laying aside for the time being the federal government's claim to the offshore? He knows full well that as long as the decision is hanging over these negotiations obviously they cannot be conducted in a spirit of good will.


Mr. Lalonde:: It is not our choice.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, if the hon. member is referring to the special SIU case, it was not taken by the federal government. It was a case taken as a result of a decision by a board of the Newfoundland government, which the SIU is contesting. We have no influence on whether or not that case should be pursued. I understand that even the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources gave instructions to his lawyers not to make any point when the delay was requested by Newfoundland.
But returning to the main substance of the matter, we have been saying for 14 years what the hon. member said we should be saying-a political settlement is better. I have tried dozens of times in meetings with the premiers and through negotiations by ministers to reach a negotiated settlement, but obviously Newfoundland does not want to play that game. Newfoundland wants to drag out this thing forever, not realizing that it is against the interests of the people of Newfoundland since the offshore will not be developed as long as there is uncertainty as to the administrative problems there.

February 12, 1982
Oral Questions


POSSIBILITY OF ELIMINATING QUEBEC DENTAL CARE PROGRAM FOR CHILDREN IN SPITE OF FEDERAL FIFTY PERCENT CONTRIBUTION
Mr. Alexandre Cyr (Gaspe):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Can the minister tell the House whether her Quebec counterpart sought her advice about the possibility of doing away with the dental care plan for young Quebecers and can she also tell us what the Canadian government contribution is to that Quebec health plan?


Monique Bégin: Madam Speaker, no unfortunately, of course I was neither consulted nor informed by my counterpart, Minister Pierre-Marc Johnson, about the possible suppression of the dental care plan. As a Quebecer, I find it most unfortunate because all children in Quebec under age 15 are now provided with dental care under the medicare program. Now, the monthly medicare payments transferred by the Canadian government to the province of Quebec-I apologize, I will later give the hon. member the exact figure-are, for the current year a little over $2 billion and this amount is slightly less than 50 per cent of all health costs in Quebec including, by the way, dental care for children. Unfortunately, we cannot tell the provinces, because this is their entire responsibility, how to spend those funds and I feel that the public should of course be involved in this debate.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Miss Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. From the news this morning I take it the minister is contemplating recommending to cabinet that there be sanctions imposed against Poland. Could the minister say what form these sanctions will take and, particularly, whether they will be accompanied by any positive action to help the people of Poland? I am thinking particularly about the matter of overcoming food shortages. For example, will the minister contemplate having Canada make up some of the corn feed which was formerly supplied by the United States and is absolutely essential to prevent the loss of the poultry industry in Poland?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, I do not believe that I made any statement about what my recommendation to cabinet would
be. I merely said that we would be considering the matter in the near future.
Canada has been doing a great deal to help the people of Poland. We are the principal suppliers of grains to Poland on a per capita basis, and shall continue doing that. We are not considering sanctions of that kind under foreseeable circumstances which would make it difficult for the people of Poland to maintain the minimum standards of life.


CORN FEED SANCTION IMPOSED BY UNITED STATES
Pauline Jewett: Madam Speaker, I would like the minister to answer specifically the question whether or not we contemplate making up the very serious shortfall caused by American action. 1 would be glad if the minister would do that. As the sanctions that are going to be imposed will most likely be diplomatic sanctions rather than economic sanctions, can the minister tell the House whether the government is also contemplating diplomatic sanctions or comparable sanctions against other countries which have repressive regimes that deny trade union rights and which often have a form of martial law? Are we contemplating sanctions against Chile, Turkey, the Philippines, South Africa?


An hon. Member:: Be consistent over there.


Mark R. MacGuigan: We have not hidden our opinion of repression wherever it occurs in the world.
With respect to the question of making up shortfalls of grains to Poland, 1 would remind the hon. member that we have a long-term arrangement with Poland to supply grains during this year, and I am sure that the Canadian Wheat Board will supply that grain as rapidly as it is requested and as rapidly as we are able to make the supplies available.


Mr. Jarvis:: What about corn feed?


Mark R. MacGuigan: I do not know whether that is a feed, Madam Speaker. That is not under my responsibility. It comes under the aegis of the Canadian Wheat Board. I assume that most grains do. I am sure that the Canadian Wheat Board will do its best to make available all the grains we have and which the Polish government wants.


FINANCE
Mr. Gordon Gilchrist (Scarborough East):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. In his reply today to questions posed by the leader of the New Democratic Party, he mentioned that measures in the budget would bring down unemployment and interest rates. What about bringing down taxes? I call to the minister's attention a report that the
February 12, 1982

raising of manufacturers' sales tax to the level imposed on wholesalers will add from 2 per cent to 6 per cent to the cost of living over and above the 12 per cent we are already experiencing. Will the minister now agree to hold back any actions in this regard until a white paper can be delivered on the subject and fully explored, so that the people of Canada will realize the tremendous implications of this tax grab?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, there is absolutely no tax grab suggested by the change in the sales tax. There is absolutely no increased revenue from that particular change. There is absolutely no additional revenue coming to the treasury. I can assure the hon. member of that.


William Herbert Jarvis: You should read your own budget then.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: With respect to the draft legislation, it will be made public, along with explanatory material, to give the public and interested parties ample opportunity to comment on the details of the proposed changes.


COST TO WHOLESALERS OF COLLECTING TAX
James Gordon Gilchrist: Madam Speaker, that is a remarkable answer. The increased level of sales tax will mean an automatic increase of 6 per cent in the first year alone. We have facts and figures from a number of reputable wholesalers to prove that. Inasmuch as there are
20,000	wholesalers that will now have to set up staffs and systems at great cost just to monitor the tax as well as having to remit it, how can the minister explain the fact that the cost to Canadians will not be dramatically increased? There will be a tax revenue generation of at least another 25 per cent plus the cost of collection, which will be passed on to the consumers and ail subject to normal dealer-type mark-ups. This will raise the actual 77-cent tax increase on a $10 item to $1.02. In other words, 25 per cent more than the tax increase itself will be the added cost burden of administration and mark-up.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, 1 do not agree with the hon. member's conclusions at all. The sales tax changes are intended to have an entirely neutral effect on revenues. Obviously as business grows in the country there will be increases in the tax collections but these will not result from any change in the tax. In fact it is intended to decrease the level of tax from 9 per cent to 8 per cent.


William Herbert Jarvis: You are going to grab millions.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The over-all effect in my view will neither be inflationary nor will it add to the cost of living.
As the hon. member may have noticed, 1 have replied to some comments in The Globe and Mail wherein 1 argued that case in some detail.


Charles Joseph Clark: Monique understands it better.
Oral Questions


FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
Hon. Walter Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Communications. There is a report today of a letter sent to the provincial deputy attorneys general requesting the federal government to drop Bill C-43 on freedom of information and to negotiate with the provinces a uniform freedom of information statute covering all governments. Is there any proposal that comes to the minister's mind that he can think of that could slow the process of freedom of information more than the one put forward by the Attorney General of Ontario, aided and abetted by the Attorney General of Saskatchewan? Will the minister tell the House now what his attitude is toward that ridiculous dinosaur-like proposal from the provincial attorneys general?


Hon. Francis Fox (Minister of Communications):: Madam Speaker, this is a proposal that was embodied in a letter sent to me by the Attorney General of Ontario, Mr. Roy McMurt-ry. It is also a proposal that was discussed at the official level at a recent meeting of deputy attorneys general. Obviously, if there were a uniform approach and this approach could be dealt with quickly and the provinces and the federal governments could come to terms with a uniform approach then all people in this country who are interested in greater access to information from governments at all levels will benefit and the whole process of access to information will be the winner.
I am waiting now for replies from the other provinces to see whether or not this is a proposal they would endorse. As I indicated to the hon. gentleman earlier, it would then be my intention to go back to my cabinet colleagues with the various comments and recommendations made to me by the attorneys general of just about all the provinces.


CROWN PRIVILEGE AND JUDICIAL REVIEW
Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, it is clear from the answer that my hon. friend has abandoned the determination with respect to freedom of information on the federal level.


An hon. Member:: Cut and run.


Walter David Baker: I think we ought to inquire what else the minister has abandoned. The bill contains a provision with respect to doing away with Crown privilege. It contains a privilege with respect to independent judicial review which the minister said he was adopting, endorsing and clutching to his bosom. Is he going to throw that away too?


Francis Fox: Madam Speaker, I think it is indicated quite clearly that that was the position adopted by the government in Bill C-43. However, we did have a request addressed to us by the attorneys general of the provinces. The request came, as the hon. member knows, from the Attorney General of Saskatchewan who endorsed

February 12, 1982
Oral Questions
completely the position of the Attorney General of Ontario. Subsequently, that position received general support from all of the attorneys general with the possible exception of the Attorney General of Manitoba. They have asked us to sit down with them to try to iron out some of the difficulties which they foresaw with our legislation. I think the hon. member will agree with me that when you have a group of responsible people, such as the attorneys general of the various provinces, we should do our utmost to try to come to terms with the very real concerns in their minds which they have raised with us.


Walter David Baker: Don't get sucked in; that is all.


Francis Fox: It seems to me that if we were simply to turn down a unanimous request from all of the attorneys general of the various provinces, the hon. member would be on his feet telling me that I was not acting in a way compatible with the true spirit of working federalism.


Walter David Baker: No, he would not.


An hon. Member:: McMurtry doesn't scare us.


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In his answer I sincerely hope he will not put pious diplomatic platitudes above Canadian jobs. My question has to do with the $4.35 billion trade deficit in auto parts, a great deal of which is attributed to our imbalance in trade in auto parts with Japan.
In view of the fact that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce just broke off talks with the Japanese because they were not bargaining in good faith, and in view of the fact that the Japanese will flood the Canadian market between now and March 1, when the present agreement expires, what will the Secretary of State do to ensure that these talks get back on track quickly before this calamitous situation develops any further?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, the hon. member has a version of the facts which I do not possess.


Mr. Deans:: He is probably right.


Mark R. MacGuigan: Conversations with the Japanese on the question of restraints for the new automotive year have been progressing. They have not yet come to completion, but we are satisfied with the talks at this stage, and we plan to continue them with the Japanese.
I would remind the hon. member that these talks take place in the context of trade with Japan, in which Canada has a heavy surplus with Japan.


CANADIAN CONTENT IN JAPANESE MANUFACTURED AUTOMOBILES
Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Madam Speaker, I am sure the Secretary of State for External Affairs is aware of the fact that this deficit in auto parts with Japan has cost Canada
10,000	jobs in the auto industry. In view of that, I would like to ask the Secretary of State if he will bring all possible pressures to bear on these negotiations to guarantee that Japan will allow 85 per cent Canadian content in Japanese automobiles sold in Canada, which is similar to the agreement between Canada and Germany with respect to Volkswagen Canada Limited.


Mark R. MacGuigan: We have a policy of allowing automotive companies from other countries to take advantage of certain tariff reductions in order to obtain the kind of arrangement about which the hon. gentleman speaks concerning Volkswagen. That arrangement is also open to the Japanese, and we are certainly in the process of encouraging them to take advantage of it. We will certainly be continuing talks with them to try to ensure the best possible arrangement for Canadians.


Ian Deans: What is stopping them from taking advantage?


EFFECT OF BUDGET ON DENTAL CARE PROGRAMS
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, one of the sad things about the budget is that the Minister of Finance does not seem to understand the implications of his tax measures as they affect real people. I would like to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare whether she is persuaded that the tax provisions relating to dental care and extended health care benefits are bad news for Canadians who want to protect their health. If she is persuaded that children will not get the same kind of dental care because of the added expense; is she taking steps to inform the Minister of Finance about this negative effect and, if so, could she tell us what steps she is taking?


Monique Bégin: Madam Speaker, the question of taxing contributions to dental and health care plans must be viewed in the context of equity. Most Canadians, whose employers do not offer to contribute to a dental care group plan or to an additional health plan, such as those providing for private or semi-private rooms, are not allowed to deduct their contributions to their private insurance plan for income tax purposes.
February 12, 1982

In his November budget, the Minister of Finance applied this general rule to those whose employers offered group insurance and who had enjoyed special taxation privileges for a very long time. As far as I am concerned, this is only fair.


QUERY RESPECTING MINISTER'S POSITION
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, could the Minister of National Health and Welfare explain to the House why she is concerned about the withdrawal of funds for dental care provided for children under the age of 15 in the province of Quebec, as she mentioned earlier, but she is not concerned that many millions of Canadians from all provinces will lose their dental care insurance provisions for children? Why is she concerned about the one situation and yet not concerned about the other?


Thomas Edward Siddon: How about the whole country?

Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and
Welfare): Madam Speaker, I believe that the hon. member, who is my official critic and who has not until now asked me very many questions, would have found it useful to be briefed by my department. 1 would be happy to organize such a briefing to explain to him how health care operates in Canada.
The Quebec health minister is now trying to do away with the public dental care program for all Quebec children under 1 5. This is what he is trying to do. This plan is paid for by all the taxpayers. The Canadian taxpayers pay about 50 per cent of the costs. This is unacceptable in view of the importance of dental health in one province, while on the other hand, in the proposals contained in the November budget, the Minister of Finance is correcting an injustice which allowed a few Canadians to deduct from their income tax the contributions paid by their employers to a group dental insurance plan. The two matters are not at all related. The other Canadians who could not join such a plan have had to pay the full cost. They will still have to pay the full cost. Nothing much will change in the health care system of Canada. This is a matter of equity.


THE ECONOMY
Hon. Sinclair Stevens (York-Peel):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance, who has undoubtedly noticed in his briefing book that the Canadian Press has been informed by one of his cabinet colleagues that the government is considering certain job-creation programs which could cost as much as $1 billion and may involve
100,000	jobs, and that his colleague, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, has confirmed that a wide range of possibilities are being considered, which the Minister of State
Oral Questions
for Mines has also confirmed. Would the Minister of Finance inform the House if this is correct? Is it true that such job-creation programs of a new nature are being considered by the government and, in particular, by his department; if so, when may we hear some details?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, earlier yesterday, I indicated to the Leader of the Opposition that when any decisions were made, they would be announced. I have also indicated that I am not prepared to disclose what is going on-


Charles Joseph Clark: That is not what you said.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -in the government. It is not customary to disclose the proceedings of the cabinet anywhere.


Charles Joseph Clark: That is not what you said.


CONSIDERATION OF NEW PROGRAMS
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, I am sure that upon reflection the Minister of Finance will realize that that is not exactly what he said earlier. Would he answer the simple question: is he considering new programs as a result of requests made by one or more of his cabinet colleagues?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The answer to that question is absolutely no. I have been listening to hon. members of the House of Commons, both here and in my own caucus, concerning various proposals. Obviously all of these ideas and possibilities are examined as a matter of course. Inasmuch as the hon. member has referred to the letter signed by a number of colleagues, I must say that so far as I am concerned, the letter is quite supportive-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: You better read it again.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, when the letter was first drawn to my attention 1 noticed that the members stated they were totally supportive of the necessity of overcoming price increases or the high level of prices in order to restore jobs and growth in the economy. That was the central thrust of the budget.
They also went on to say that they were not asking for excessive stimulus to the economy at the present time-


Mr. Nielsen:: They said now.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -and to suggest a number of specific programs which might be considered. I thought it was fully in accordance with the statement I made in Toronto at the Canadian Club, and I must say I have never been able to get myself excited as others have about this letter and its alleged difference with government policy.


Charles Joseph Clark: Why did you run away from the vote?

February 12, 1982
Petitions


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That is my answer to the letter and the hon. member's question. In my statements I have always held out-


Mr. Epp:: Is that what Pierre said in caucus?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -the situation that specific targeted programs had been and would continue to be launched by the Government of Canada. That is the policy before the letter, since the letter, and the policy that I will follow.


CHANGING OF ANNOUNCED OPPOSITION DAY
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, if that explanation is to be accepted seriously by members of this House, can the Minister of Finance on behalf of the government inform members why the government did not allow today's opposition day to proceed, which day was centred on the subject matter of that letter and which would have tested confidence in the government?


An hon. Member:: Because the NDP did not want it.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, it is nice to be slipping back for even a moment into my former job as House leader. I must say that if the hon. member believes that opposition day was postponed because we on this side thought we would lose support, that is absolutely wrong.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: Prove it, Allan.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Any time you want to bring on a non-confidence motion it will be defeated, as the two non-confidence motions against the budget were defeated in the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: If the hon. members opposite had learned to run the House as we have learned, they would not be in the opposition today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
 * *
[ Translation]


PETITIONS
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid on the Table the 180th report of the Clerk of Petitions stating that he has examined the petition presented by the hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Wise) on Thursday, February 11, 1982, and finds that it meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



POINTS OF ORDER


Mr. Pierre  Gimai@: Madam Speaker, it is with all due humility that I appeal to you on a point of order. During the presentation of motions under the provisions of Standing Order 43 at noon, the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) used the name Trudeau when referring to the Prime Minister of Canada. Citation 319(1) on page 104 of Beauchesne clearly states the following:
319. (1) It is the custom in the House that no member should refer to another by name.
I shall go even further, Madam Speaker. I find it increasingly disturbing to hear this designation or words such as "dictator" in motions introduced in the House by the opposition. This is simply part of a plot by people such as Mr. McDermott, from western unions and by opposition parties to try to put the blame for all the problems in Canada on the shoulders of one person.
I believe. Madam Speaker, that it is only fitting that I should point out to you that the Canadian people elected Pierre Elliott Trudeau Prime Minister of Canada, and that, as members of this House, we should therefore refer to the Right Hon. Prime Minister of Canada by stating the title the Canadian people have chosen to give him. He is the Prime Minister of our country. He is working for the welfare of Canadians, and I find it unacceptable for people whether they were elected or not, to break the rules of this assembly in an effort to criticize, discredit and misrepresent the Prime Minister. Madam Speaker, if such people want to break the rules of the House by calling the Prime Minister a "dictator", as Mr. McDermott and others in Canada are doing, they should do so outside this honourable assembly, which is governed by well-established rules.


Erik Nielsen: On the same point of order, Madam Speaker, I agree with the hon. member that it is not just the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) who is responsible for bringing wrack and ruin on this country; it is all those members who are supporting that government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: All of them! Particularly the ones who will not speak out on behalf of their own constituents.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: They are afraid of their constituents, they are afraid of the electorate-


René Cousineau: Order!


Erik Nielsen: -and now they are afraid to test the confidence in their own Prime Minister and government in the House.
February 12, 1982


René Cousineau: Order!


Some hon. Members:: Go get them, Erik.


Erik Nielsen: Don't let those sinners cast the first stone-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: -because I have heard those members over there launch organized attacks on the leadership of this party ever since the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker was that leader, and 1 have been here and listened to it since that time. Indeed, on one occasion the members across the way were audibly hissing and the right hon. gentleman stood up at the time and said, "There are only three species of the animal kingdom that I know can hiss,"-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order!


Erik Nielsen: -"geese, snakes and lizards. Will the hon. gentlemen please stand up and identify themselves?"
The point of order, Madam Speaker, has no merit whatsoever. We endeavour to stay within the rules in referring to the right hon. gentleman. I only wish that hon. members across the way would do the same thing when the Right Hon. Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition (Mr. Clark) stands to be heard in the House.


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


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member is quite right when he says that members of this House should be referred to in a certain way and not by their name. Things go so fast when a motion under Standing Order 43 is introduced that I was clearly under the impression that the hon. member used the word "Trudeau" as an adjective, such as in "the Trudeau administration" or "the Trudeau period." This is why I let it pass, but the comment of the hon. member has been acknowledged.



MR. HAWKES-DELAY IN DISTRIBUTION OF HANSARD COPIES TO CONSERVATIVE MEMBERS

Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, earlier today when motions under Standing Order 43 were being made, 1 rose and expressed my feeling that the procedure employed by the government House leader yesterday had in fact been a new form of closure which denied all members of the House the opportunity to express their views of the cabinet, that small group of members of the House who are in fact the executive branch. I intended today, either on a point of order or question of privilege, after I had the opportunity to read Hansard, to see whether or not that argument could be advanced based on the record as we were to find it in Hansard.
1 am wondering, in view of the fact we do not have Hansard today, if you might commit yourself to investigating and perhaps reporting later today to the House why, after a normal
Point of Order-Mr. Nielsen
Thursday sitting, we do not have Hansard available to enable us to pursue this argument with the necessary vigour, in light of the importance it has for democracy, so that all members, may express themselves as to their confidence in cabinet and its management of the financial affairs of the country.


Madam Speaker:: Well, the hon. member poses a few problems for me. I do not know whether he rises on a point of order or question of privilege. At any rate, 1 want to tell him that Hansard has been printed on time this morning, it seems.


Charles Joseph Clark: No, no.


An hon. Member:: Here it is.


Madam Speaker:: I will have to find out why some hon. members have not received it, but it seems that it was ready because I was able to consult it myself. However, if the hon. member wishes to bring up a question of privilege, 1 will hear him if he gives me notice. If, after he has consulted Hansard, he feels he has a question of privilege, he can present it.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, I saw that members on the other side had Hansard. The page just brought me one. I will proceed to look and see if I can find it. My original request was to examine why we did not receive it on time. If it was on the other side and not on this side, I wonder if you might look into that as well.


Madam Speaker:: I will certainly inquire into that. We usually distribute Hansard to everyone at the same time. I will see why the hon. member did not receive it.



MR. NIELSEN-PRINTING IN ORDER PAPER OF FILED OPPOSITION MOTION-CHANGES TO ORDER PAPER MADE BY GOVERNMENT

Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I rise on a very serious point of order. Before laying it before the Chair, let me say that I was seriously impeded in my preparation for this point of order by not having received Hansard for yesterday's proceedings. Obviously members on the government side have received it but it is not in my-the parliamentary secretary held up his copy. Mine is not here. Obviously there is a delay.
As the Chair knows, there has been an effort made by the government House leader, the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) on behalf of his party and by me to seek a meeting with the Chair to discuss this very subject because it is the observation of many of us that new stresses and strains and tensions are being imposed on Hansard and it has reached a very serious point in a deterioration of the morale. These tensions may have something to do with Hansard appearing late, so I would urge that that meeting be brought about as early as possible.
The point of order that 1 wish to raise concerns the official publications of the House and the treatment of the items that are placed in those publications for consideration as the busi-
14954

February 12, 1982
Point of Order-Mr. Nielsen
ness of the House. In order to present it in a logical fashion, I believe it would be of assistance if we were to backtrack for one week.
First, the business for the consideration of the House was announced a week ago last Thursday, February 4, by the government House leader. At that time he announced that Friday, February 12 would be set aside-designated, as the Standing Orders say-for the consideration of an allotted day.
Let me say at this stage that it may well be that during the presentation of the argument on this point, I may inadvertently reflect on part or parts of the ruling which you made yesterday, which I have not had the opportunity of reading in Hansard because I do not have Hansard. Let me assure you that it is not my intention in any manner whatsoever to reflect on the ruling of the Chair of yesterday, should I unintentionally transgress on that ground.
Let me read now the Order Paper following upon the announcement Thursday by the government House leader, the Order Paper and Notices for Friday, February 5, 1982. At page 2 the Chair will note that Friday, February 12, has been designated as (Allotted Day-Supply). That is in italics and in brackets. It follows the item Government Orders which in turn follows the item Questions on the Order Paper. In the same Order Paper and Notices for that date there appears at page vn the following entry:



NOTICES OF SUPPLY PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO STANDING ORDER

[Stage Direction]
58(4)(a)
Note: Friday, February 12, 1982-Third allotted day for the supply period ending March 26, 1982.
1 submit that from that moment on an opposition member could have filed a notice of motion under Standing Order 58.
The Order Paper for Monday, February 8, 1982 is exactly the same, save for the exception that the item "Friday, February 12, Questions on the Order Paper, Government Orders (Allotted Day-Supply)" has moved up one notch because, of course, Friday has disappeared, the business of that day having been disposed of. Again in that Order Paper of Monday, February 8, we find at page m at the back of the Order Paper the same notice given under 58(4)(a) under supply.
Again the next day of that week, Tuesday, February 9, 1982, the Order Paper carries the item on page 2, again having moved up one slot, the business of Monday having been disposed of. Again the designation (Allotted Day-Supply) appears there. Again on that Order Paper for Tuesday, February 9, at page v, we find the same notice of supply proceedings designating the allotted day for the following Friday.
On Wednesday, February 10, the Order Paper and Notices again carries the item on page 2. Again it has moved up one slot, but still it is there, designated as an allotted day. At page IX of the Order Paper for February 10, the same notice as has appeared on the preceding Order Papers appears again.
On Thursday, February 11, yesterday, on page 2 of the Order Paper we see that the top item, because the item has moved up day by day until it is at the top of the Order Paper
for Thursday, reads, "Friday, February 12, Questions on the Order Paper, Government Orders", and the next item in brackets and italics, is (Allotted Day-Supply).
Again at page xi there appears, and I will read it again because at this stage it becomes critical to my point of order:

[Stage Direction]
58(4)fa)
Note: Friday, February 12, 1982-Third allotted day for the supply period ending March 26, 1982.
I want to emphasize and underline the fact that that notice, which has been carried throughout the week and the preceding Friday, stipulated, following the word "Note", the date Friday, February 12, 1982. I underscore that.
As the Chair appreciates, under our Standing Orders there must be 24 hours' notice filed in order to set the allotted day down for debate. It is past history that notice of that motion was set down at 1.12 in the afternoon of Thursday, February 11. The motion that was set down first, I point out, bore no date. It was as follows:

[Stage Direction]
58(9)
That in the opinion of this House the government should immediately implement the recommendations contained in a letter to the Prime Minister, dated February 3, 1982, signed by the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the Minister of State (Mr. Joyal) and certain Members of Parliament, which urged the government to proceed with the "immediate creation" of two new programs to create employment in key sectors of the economy by stimulating domestic housing construction and by launching a program to enable private enterprise to hire young Canadians, and the House strongly endorses the position of the authors of the said letter when they wrote:
"Mr. Prime Minister, we urge you to adopt these measures as soon as possible,
because we are convinced that they are necessary right now ..."
1 underscore that that motion was set down by notice at 1.12 p.m. on Thursday, February 11, well within the time required by the Standing Orders to set it down. I should also add that I did place on the motion a restriction as to its release. I placed a restriction that it was to be released at 6 p.m. yesterday. However, that release does not stop the mechanics of the House of Commons from operating.
As I am sure the Chair appreciates, the motion is then normally passed to Journals where copies are no doubt made for the translators, the typists and whatever other procedures there are which require copies. My point is that the machinery is immediately set in motion so that the motion can appear on the next day's Order Paper, as indeed is the long-established practice and custom of the House of Commons.
I would now point out that on today's Order Paper- incidentally, I did receive today's Order Paper early this morning as well as the Votes and Proceedings, but not Hansard-we see a change on page 2, the last item, "Friday, February 19". It is no longer Friday, February 12. Then there is Questions on Order Paper. Government Orders is the next item, and the next item in italics is (Allotted Day-Supply).
February 12, 1982
[Stage Direction]
At the back of the Order Paper on page XXXV we see this notice, "Notices of Supply Proceedings Pursuant to Standing Order 58(4)(a). Note: Friday, February 19, 1982-Third allotted day for the supply period ending March 26, 1982." Again, a change from February 12 to February 19.
At this point may I depart in support of my submission to you, Madam Speaker, that that change is not in accordance with proper practice and indeed with past practice. The example of this Order Paper which I will deal with has been repeated all the way back in the treatment of allotted days since they first came into practice in the Flouse, which I believe was in 1969 or 1970. For example, in the Order Paper for Monday, January 25, 1982, there appears on page 2 at the top of the order for Tuesday, January 26, the following day. Questions on Order Paper, Government Orders and then the next order, (Allotted Day-Supply). At the back of the Order Paper for January 25, 1982, there appears the standard form of notice, "Notices of Supply Proceedings Pursuant to Standing Order 58(4)(a). Note: Tuesday, January 26, 1982-First allotted day for the supply period ending March 26, 1982."
Now, the next day's Order Paper for Tuesday, January 26, 1982, sets out at page 2 the next week's business. But the important part to be observed in the Order Paper for January 26 is that at the back of it where notices normally appear we see at page xxv:

[Stage Direction]
58(4)(tf)
Business of Supply-First no-confidence motion for the supply period ending March 26, 1982.
January 25, 1982-That in the opinion of this House the opposition of Canadians from all walks of life, as expressed to the Members of Parliament of all three parties, proves conclusively that the budget of November 12, as amended by the statement in this House by the Minister of Finance on December 18, should be withdrawn and immediately replaced by a new budget.-The Leader of the Opposition.
Note: Not later than 9.45 o'clock p.m, every question necessary to dispose of
proceedings shall be put forthwith in accordance with Standing Order
58(9).
January 25 is the date that has been placed on it by the Table. My point here is that the Order Paper contained a verbatim text of the motion that was filed. Here is where there has been a departure. I looked at today's Order Paper when 1 received it in my office and found that the text of the motion which 1 filed yesterday did not appear.
Now, I did not withdraw it. 1 did not give any indication that 1 was going to withdraw the motion that was standing in the name of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition. 1 fully expected to see that motion on the Order Paper, but it is absent. 1 submit that the proper practice would have been to print, verbatim, the text of that motion. To be fair to the Table officers, it may well have been assumed that, as a result of yesterday's proceedings, I wanted to leave the door open for changing or substituting a different motion. However, with great respect to the professionalism of the Table officers, they were not entitled to make that assumption. 1 submit that our Standing Orders and practices require that the text of that motion should have been printed today and that it was indeed
Point of Order-Mr. Nielsen
an innocent oversight in not having it so printed. Indeed, it might be my selection on the advice of my colleagues that I want the motion to remain there, now that it is public, for consideration on the allotted day that the government has altered to next Friday. There is nothing to prevent me, or any other opposition member, as soon as the notice appears in the back of the Order Paper, from filing with the Table a notice of motion immediately following the first appearance of that notice on the Order Paper.
For instance, in the case of this allotted day, it started appearing on the Order Paper a week ago today. On that Friday, any opposition member could have Filed a notice of motion with the Table, and it seems to me our past practices would have compelled the printing of that motion on the following Monday, and on Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday. Naturally, it is not printed the day before. Normal circumstances are that notice of the text of the motion on an allotted day is filed some time the day before, sometimes at noon or two o'clock or three o'clock, but as soon as it is filed, it is sent down and it appears on the next day's Order Paper.
I believe that the verbatim text of that motion was omitted, and it should be the ruling of the Chair, together with an order of the Chair, that it be printed until I choose to withdraw it, if
1	so choose between now and next Friday.
There is a further associated point to this whole matter. It relates to the Order Paper. That is, the right of the government, merely by verbal announcement, to alter an item appearing on the Order Paper.
In this case the government House leader made an announcement yesterday that today would not be an allotted day because there was more important legislation to be considered and that Bill C-78 was so important and urgent it had to replace our allotted day. By that announcement, today's Order Paper reflects two changes. It reflects a change on page
2	where the item of business is given a different date, and it is changed at the back of the Order Paper where notices normally appear, again changing the date.
I submit that the government has no right to take that unilateral action, and 1 submit again-with my own personal respect for the professional capabilities of the Table-that the Table has no right unilaterally to substitute one date for another. I say that with respect, but indeed that is what has happened.
In order to found my argument that neither the government House leader nor the Table has that right I will have to refer to the standing orders. The Chair referred to one of the Standing Orders yesterday, namely Standing Order 18. It reads:
All items standing on the orders of the day, except government orders, shall be taken up according to the precedence assigned to each on the Order Paper.
That is the purpose, of course, of having page 2 of the Order Paper set the business out day by day and under each day setting it out item by item. Standing Order 18(2) provides:
[Stage Direction]
February 12, 1982
Point'Xff Order-Mr. Nielsen
Government orders shall bc\called and considered in such sequence as the government determines.
I underscore the words ^"government orders". The government is only entitled to call in such sequence as the government determines government orders. The government is not entitled to apply that Standing Order to any other order of business.
1 refer now to Beauchesne's fifth edition as it deals with the business of supply at page 167 Under "The' Business of Supply" Citation 475 states:
The business of supply consists of the consideration of main, or supplementary estimates, including motions to restore or reinstate any item in the estimates, interim supply, the passage at all stages of any bill based thereon, and opposition motions considered on allotted days.
Citation 476 reads:
I'he action taken by the House of Commons, upon the request for aids and supply for the public service made in the Speech from the Throne, is for the appointment, pursuant to S.O. 58(1), of a continuing order of the day for the consideration of the business of supply.
Citation 477:
The estimates of a department or agency of the government are referred to and considered in the various standing committees, where the members have an opportunity to agree to, negative, withdraw, reduce or supersede each vote of the estimates.
Let me submit at this point of my argument that if the House has received the report of estimates from committee, notice of concurrence normally appears at the back of the Order Paper in the same place that allotted days appear. Once received, they stand there day after day after day until concurrence is moved by a member. Then they drop off the Order Paper. That again is in support of my contention that notice is there. An allotted day should be treated in a similar fashion. More important. Citation 478(1) at page 167 of Beauchesne slates:
Under the terms of SO 58(5), twenty-five days arc allotted to the business of supply in each year. Although technically the business under discussion is government business, motions given precedence on these allotted days may be moved only by members in opposition to the government.
Here appears the important sentence:
To this extent, there is a distinction between the business of supply and other government business with respect to SO 18.
There is a clear distinction. This perhaps comes close to touching on the ruling of the Chair yesterday, but I am focusing my argument on my right as an opposition member in the name of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition to have that motion on the Order Paper.
Citation 478 goes on to spell out, in subparagraph (2), the supply periods and the limitation of the number of votes on the allotted days during each supply period. Subparagraph (3) is irrelevant for the purposes of my argument. Citation 479(1) is relevant. It reads:
The choice of subjects to be raised on allotted days rests with the opposition; hence, the interchangeable terminology "allotted'1 or "opposition" day.
Citation 479(2) reads:
The opposition prerogative is very broad in the use of the allotted day and ought not to be interfered with except on the clearest and most certain procedural grounds.
The authority for that is cited as Journals, November 14, 1975 at pages 861 to 862. I advance that citation in support of my argument that no one has the right to refuse to publish in the orders of the day the text of the motion filed yesterday, and certainly not on the mere oral fiat of the government House leader. It must not be interfered with "except on the clearest and most certain procedural grounds." If there were clear and certain procedural grounds as to why the text of that motion did not appear on the Order Paper. I would have thought that not only would I have been extended the courtesy of an explanation why it was not there, by telephone or otherwise, but also that some kind of explanation would have been forthcoming as to what kind of clear and certain procedural grounds justified the elimination of the printing of the text of that motion.
Citation 480 reads:
On an opposition day, when a non-confidence motion may be proposed on a subject to be chosen by the mover, the Speaker should not intervene to prevent debate unless the motion is clearly and undoubtedly irregular. When the procedural aspect is open to reasonable argument, it is the duty of the Speaker to accept the motion and to allow the House to make a decision on the question of confidence.
A Journals citation appears as authority.
There follows Citation 481, which is not relevant.
Citation 482 reads:
On an allotted day, during consideration of the business of Supply, an amendment must not provide the basis for an entirely different debate than that proposed in the original motion.
That does not apply either.
The substance of the argument I am advancing for the retention on the Order Paper of the text of the motion filed yesterday in the name of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition applies equally, in my submission, to the text of the motion filed during question period yesterday by a member of the New Democratic Party. I am not aware of the name of the hon. member in whose name that motion stands, but, in my submission, that too should appear subsequent to-since it was filed subsequently-the text of the motion of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition on the back of the Order Paper. The importance of that rests in Standing Order 58(4)(b) where an onus arises that must be discharged by the Chair. I will just read that for the record:
(b) When notice has been given of two or more motions by members in opposition to the government for consideration on an allotted day, Mr. Speaker shall have power to select which of the proposed motions shall have precedence in that sitting.
If my contention is correct, I strongly urge it upon the Chair that the text of those motions should have appeared on today's Order Paper, and then it would be at the election of the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans), or myself, on the advice of our respective leaders or of caucus members, to see that it remains there and is dealt with next Friday. That is our decision; it is not the decision of the government House leader or of the Table. Then that onus rests on your Honour which must be discharged by you in selecting which of the
February 12, 1982
[Stage Direction]
motions will be debated next Friday, assuming, of course, that the government House leader does not change his mind again and put the allotted day somewhere else.
That brings me to the last point that 1 want to make. Because the Standing Orders are silent on this point and because of the uniqueness of yesterday's occurrence-I cannot recall an instance in my time here when the government has, at the eleventh hour, as it were, changed the allotted day. That course was followed and then the question arises of what is the proper method of doing that. It is my submission that logically our practices and procedures here would dictate that before a notice standing on the Order Paper can be altered in any respect-and this is a very important respect, namely the change in the date-and before any addition or omission to the Order Paper in the order of business can be made, if for no other reason because of the citation in Beauchesne's in support of the opposition having this right, a motion has to be made by the government if it intends to change the Order Paper.
Once that allotted day is designated, past practices indicate that the date does not change. The question has never arisen before. I suggest to the Chair, however, that on the proper action of the government under Standing Order 32(1 )(p) relating to the conduct of the business of the House, the motion could have been made to change the date in the item that normally appears on page 2 of the Order Paper and to change the date at the back of the Order Paper where it logically and traditionally appears.
There is one further submission in support of which is Citation 478(1) of Beauchesne's fifth edition which appears at page 167 and reads as follows:
To this extent, there is a distinction between the business of supply and other government business with respect to SO 18.
That is the Standing Order which permits the government, in its discretion, to alter the sequence of the consideration of government business. If that distinction did not exist and if it had not been recognized all this time, then we would not see on page 2 of the Order Paper in every single instance, in my submission, although I have not checked them all, the order of business set out as it regularly has been. For instance, on January 25, 1982, the first item set out was "Questions on the Order Paper"; the second item was "Government Orders", and indeed the next item appears in italics. Simply because the item appears in italics does not afford it the kind of distinction that Beauchesne is talking about and that our Standing Orders are talking about. My submission is that there appears (Allotted Day-Supply) on a separate line. That is because it is a separate item and not because it is part of government orders, which I submit it is not. That is in support of my argument that the text must appear on the Order Paper, not wishing to reflect upon your ruling of yesterday.
I have already pointed out that there is no date on the motion that was filed. I want to cite one more Standing Order for your consideration before taking my seat. This may well give rise to another point that I may wish to make later today or perhaps on Monday. Standing Order 58(12) reads as follows:
Point of Order-Mr. Nielsen
On any day or days appointed for the consideration of any business under the provisions of this Standing Order,
The words "any day or days appointed for the consideration of any business under the provisions of this Standing Order deal with the whole spectrum of supply, Madam Speaker. It goes on:
-that order of business shall have precedence over all other government business in such sitting or sittings.
Nothing could be more explicit; nothing could be clearer than Standing Order 58(12).
1 say that, Madam Speaker, because it bears on a point of order or a question of privilege which I intend to raise if not today, then certainly on Monday. Thank you for your patience in hearing me out, Madam Speaker. The argument has necessarily been long because of its complexity and because yesterday was the first time this has happened. It is of crucial importance to the House that this kind of procedure be cleared up in a way that is fair to all members of the House, but particularly to all members of the opposition.
Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: Just before I hear other members who want to speak on the point raised by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) could I ask him to help me with a question which came to my mind as he was giving his references and developing his argument. I refer to page 167 of Beauchesne, Citation 478( I) where the following appears:
Although technically the business under discussion is government business, motions given precedence on these allotted days may be moved only by members in opposition-
That explains that usually government business is brought in by the government, and technically this is government business. but members of the opposition may move the motion. It goes on to say, and this is the quotation which the hon. member emphasized to me, as follows: "To this extent, there is a distinction between the business of supply and other government business-Does the hon. member take the words "To this extent" to apply to more than the fact that "motions given precedence on these allotted days may be moved only by members in opposition."? "To this extent" to me explains "motions given precedence on these allotted days may be moved only by members in opposition to the government." Could the hon. member answer that question for me?


Erik Nielsen: Yes, 1 see the point that you raise, Madam Speaker. I do not believe the interpretation of that sentence should be limited to its application only to the right of opposition members to move under supply. There is a distinction between the business of supply and other government business in Standing Order 18. Citation 478(1) reads as follows:
Under the terms of Standing Order 58(5) twenty-five days are allotted to the business of supply in each year. Although technically the business under discussion is government business-

February 12, 1982
Point of Order-Mr. Nielsen
Why "technically?" It is because supply is government business. Why "technically?" Because technically the government can deal with the item under supply. It is my submission that this is the very reason for the existence of Standing Order 58(2), which reads:
For the purposes of this order, the business of supply shall consist of motions to concur in interim supply, main estimates and supplementary or final estimates; motions to restore or reinstate any item in the estimates; motions to introduce or pass at all stages any bill or bills based thereon; and opposition motions that under this order may be considered on allotted days.
The only reason that sentence is there is to permit the opposition to test the government on its supply, to the extent there is a distinction between the business of supply, which is government business, and Standing Order 18. That is the distinction, as I see it. It is not limited, it is not there for the purposes of saying that government members cannot move motions on allotted days; that is not its purpose. The purpose is to distinguish it from the government business of supply, in my submission.


Mr. David Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council);: Madam Speaker, I should like to make a couple of brief observations to the point raised by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). First, I point out that in opening his argument he made repeated references to the fact that on the notice paper for the last few days reference had been made to today as being an allotted day. It is important to remember that while the notice paper is appended to the Order Paper for the sake of convenience, we are still talking about notice. Something which is notice is not an order, it is not a motion, and because of this it can be removed without a motion or does not require consent since the House is not yet seized of it. There is no obligation to proceed with a notice.
I thank the hon. member for his frequent references to Citation 478 of Beauchesne's on page 167, which reads:
Although technically the business under discussion is government business-
It is government business. Once it is government business, it falls under the purview of Standing Order 18(2), which reads:
Government orders shall be called and considered in such sequence as the government determines.
As to the sequence of events which led up to the events of yesterday, it is interesting to read Hansard and the version given by the hon. member for Yukon. Also it is interesting to read the version of the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broad-bent). Members are free to make their choice as to whichever version they prefer. But I do not think anything that has been said about the sequence of events gets away from the fact that we are still talking about a day of government business and that it is up to the government to call it, when it sees fit, pursuant to Standing Order 18(2).
There were also some references to the professionalism of the Table with regard to that. I am sure the hon. member for Yukon was not implying that there was a leak of the subject matter prior to the hour. If there was, certainly I am not aware of it. I do not think he was implying that, but if he was not I am not quite sure why there were so many frequent references to it.
The only other point I should like to make is in regard to whether or not the wording of the motion should have been placed on the notice paper. On that point I have some sympathy with the hon. member for Yukon. I would not agree with him if the notice had been dated, but he advised the House, if I understood him correctly, that it was not dated. I do not know whether or not the notice filed by the New Democratic Party was dated. If it was not dated then I, for one, think he has a valid point and I do not dispute anything he said with regard to that item.


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, I will be very brief because I think much of the ground which can be covered has been covered. I begin by saying that I see the issue as two distinctly different matters. In the first instance we are dealing with whether or not the motions as filed should have appeared on the notice paper. If it were to be Madam Speaker's decision that the key question was the matter of dating or not dating, then it is my recollection with regard to the motion we put down for debate today that in fact we dated it. If that were to be key to Your Honour's decision, then of course we dated it for today's discussion and I would submit that by dating it we, therefore, priorized it. In so doing, had the question of the opposition allotted day not arisen yesterday, by virtue of the fact that we dated our motion for today, and by virtue of the fact that the official opposition motion was undated, our motion would have, could have and should have taken precedence.
However, given that that may not be a factor, I want to say-and I think the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) put it well-that it is entirely appropriate to have on the notice paper more than one motion for debate on a particular allotted day, and that it is entirely appropriate to have the motion filed immediately after the allotted day has been designated. Thus we could have quite easily filed our motion, as could the official opposition have filed its motion, some four or five days prior to yesterday. Therefore, that would have necessitated those motions appearing on the notice paper. If one were to look at it from a purely technical point of view, which I think is important and imperative in making a decision such as this,
I think it is true that the motions filed should have appeared on today's notice paper, albeit today, as it turned out, is not to be an allotted day. That is really not a factor to be taken into consideration.
Now I want to turn to my second point concerning the argument that once the opposition has been given notice of the decision to allot a day for consideration of an opposition motion, the allotted day cannot be altered without a motion. While I would like to support the argument, I find great difficulty in doing so since the practice, as I understand it, and having had an opportunity to review it during the discourse of the hon. member for Yukon, has always been that allotted days are not put down by motion but simply announced. Therefore, the announcement of the government House leader that there would be an allotted day was acceptable, and the announcement of the government House leader that there would not be an allotted day must also be acceptable.

February 12, 1982
If we are to change the Standing Orders and make it necessary to have a motion put, then we should have that discussion at another time. It may well be that we in this party would want to have a motion in future which ties down the allotted day and which sets out quite clearly by motion of the House that a particular day has been agreed upon as an allotted day and therefore is to stand subject only to any amendment which may subsequently be offered and accepted by the House. But this would be a departure from the practice we have used up to this point.
May I call it one o'clock?


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, I will not be too long, I just want to finalize the remarks I began to make just before we broke for lunch.
As I see it what you have before you, Madam Speaker, are two questions. One is whether or not the text of a proposed motion to be dealt with on an allotted day should appear on the Order Paper and Notices. I think there is sufficient argument before you now to enable you to make a decision on that without too much difficulty.
The second question is probably more important, both in terms of the immediate problem which has confronted us over the past two days, but also in terms of how we might deal with matters such as this in the future. I think it requires a considerable amount of thought. I know you will do that, and I hope other members will do likewise because this question is of vital importance.
As I see it, having thought about the matter over lunch, the question is whether an allotted day is in fact government business and therefore subject to the normal ordering of government business within the latitude given to the House leader for the government or whether the House leader has to deal technically in a different way with the calling of House business for an allotted day than he would for any other day.
I would submit there is no question that an allotted day is different from a normal government business day. The primary difference is the difference which my colleague, the hon. member for Yukon indicated, about which he was questioned by you. In other words, the difference is simply that an opposition member on that particular day is given the primary responsibility for moving a motion, but on all other counts the day remains a government day.
I want to say to you that what my wishes might be are of little consequence. How I might like it to be does not matter
Point of Order-Mr. Nielsen
very much. It is how it is that makes the difference in a situation such as this, and whether we want to change it.
It is quite clear, if one looks at issues of Order Paper and Notices going back as far as one might want to look, that even an allotted day appears under government orders. I would suggest, by virtue of that and given the references in Beau-chesne to allotted days-albeit allotted days are referred to in the technical sense as a government order-it would appear historically that they have been treated as a government order for the purpose of ordering business of the House. Therefore, it must be decided whether the government has to do anything specific in order to change the government orders.
I looked very carefully at that over lunch and I came to the conclusion that, although I would prefer the government being required to move motions to alter the orders of the day as it would want to alter them from time to time-and I want to differentiate between orders of the day as they are set out in the Standing Orders and the orders to be called within any specific order-by virtue of that fact, orders to be called within any specific order are at the discretion of the government House leader and that the government House leader may, if he wishes, or may not if he so desires, call any order that appears legitimately on the Order Paper and Notices.
Therefore, I come to the conclusion somewhat reluctantly that the method of determining whether an allotted day would be called or set off to another time remains within the purview of the government House leader.
What does not remain within the purview of the government House leader is whether there will be allotted days. That is quite clear. It is set out in the Standing Orders that there will be a certain number of allotted days to be called during a specific period of the sittings of the House, and that can be altered only with unanimous consent.
So I suggest that on the one hand we have it quite clearly before us that allotted days in the specified number must be made available to the opposition, but the determination of which days will be allotted remains the purview of the government. If it is to be considered that the allocation of that allotted day is government business, then the government House leader can either call that on the day he designates or he can change the day. In this instance I think he chose the latter, for whatever reason, and however much I would like to argue he cannot, I think he can and I know he did.
Therefore, I submit that on the first question, yes, I agree wholeheartedly with the House leader for the official opposition, the motion should have appeared with the one caveat mentioned earlier, that is, whether or not the dating of the motion is to be given consideration. I would urge that it not be found to be of importance in terms of whether the motion should appear on the Order Paper, but by the same token I would argue that for the balance, undesirable though the procedure might be, it would appear to me to be consistent with practice and with the laws as they pertain to the running of Parliament.

February 12, 1982
Point of Order-Mr. Nielsen


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to the NDP House leader in what I take to be some support for the position taken by the government House leader yesterday. I think it exemplifies some things which have bothered me, as a new Member of Parliament, about the functioning of Parliament and a certain lack of precision, and the possibilities arising out of that for the philosophy we hold to sort of take over and take us to a particular perspective.
I think the counterargument to the NDP House leader is really found in pages 3 to 7 of Beauchesne where it clearly tells us that the rules of the House are to protect us from the tyranny of a majority. We have used that phrase on many occasions in debate related to orders, but yesterday we faced a government decision to change the orders of the day, and there has been some argument presented in relation to that. However, the perspective presented by the NDP House leader, and I think by the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) relates to the use of Standing Order 18(2), which says that:
Government orders shall be called and considered in such sequence as the government determines.
I suggest to you, Madam Speaker, on first reading that looks like a fairly precise paragraph, but its interpretation hinges on the word "determines." If we consider that the cabinet has an untrammelled right, then it is conceivable the government House leader can rise on a point of order in the middle of a debate and change the orders of the day, and move abruptly from debate for which members have prepared themselves to one for which they have not. That is the principle upon which the government and NDP House leaders have essentially based their argument, that a small group of people in cabinet have an untrammelled right to step on the remaining 250 members' rights to advance their arguments.
Yesterday, Madam Speaker, the government acted on that principle, that they had the right to take away an allotted day, not a day given to an opposition party, but in principle a day which had been determined in advance by the government as being available to any and all members who were or might be opposed to government policies, or who might like the opportunity to indicate whether or not they were so opposed.
Members of this House who had arranged their schedules, put their notes together and had their arguments ready were denied by that move the opportunity to express their collective will. As a member of the Conservative Party of Canada standing here today, Madam Speaker, I would have liked that allotted day to have occurred, I would have liked to have had at five o'clock that vote in which the government, the 30 or 35 members of cabinet, sought the approval of the House for their economic policy, and I would have liked those who were opposed to have had the opportunity to stand up and so indicate. If the government had fallen, Madam Speaker, we would have been in a general election and the voters of this country could have determined whether or not they were in accord with government policy.


Madam Speaker:: I would like to ask the hon. member to keep to the point of order brought up by the hon. member for Yukon. Some of the points he is now discussing have been dealt with, and he is also arguing a point as if the debate had been allowed to take place. I urge him to speak to the point of order. I think when we listen to points of order, relevance has to be observed.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, I read that part of the rules about relevance this morning and I am sorry if I have strayed a bit. The point of order which the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) raises is based on the very nature of our rules of order in which there is some imprecision, and when faced with that imprecision it is then the job of the Speaker of the House to rule on its interpretation. We have the opportunity, when allowed, to stand in this chamber and try to provide you with our sense of wisdom about how you should rule in such cases.
My support for the hon. member for Yukon, my intervention, is essentially based on what I think are the principles which should guide you in making those very close decisions. I suggest the point of order raised by the hon. member is one of those close decisions where the rules are somewhat imprecise and are, to some extent, in conflict, as different speakers have indicated, and therefore that very difficult decision falls on your shoulders.
I would like to indicate that what we are dealing with here is the power of ordinary members of the House, those 250 who do not serve in cabinet, to hold that cabinet accountable to this chamber. I said I would like a result which led to a general election, but that was never likely. Possible, but not likely. What was more realistic and more likely was that government members who normally supported that cabinet were to be given an opportunity, in the 24 hours preceding that vote, to indicate to the government that unless it changed those things of importance to them which would have been in the motion, they might withhold their support.


David P. Smith: You are dreaming.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: They could have made the government change the policy in a manner which should be obvious to everyone, in a manner the Canadian people and the majority of the hon. members in the chamber would want.


David P. Smith: Dream on.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: That is why these opportunities exist in our rules. That is what lies behind the principle of a vote of confidence, and that is what lies behind the need for hon. members to be aware, some time in advance, of the existence of such a day so that they can arrange their affairs on behalf of the people they represent, so that they can be here in this chamber at that allotted time, on that allotted day, to fulfil their obligation to the people who sent them to this chamber.
When we consider the right of government to determine the order of business to be untramelled in its ultimate sense, and if we take it to its logical conclusion, the government could
February 12, 1982

determine an order of business every five minutes, an order which was different than the order five minutes before.


David P. Smith: Wrong.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: The decision must rest on Your Honour's shoulders, and you must indicate to us, as clearly as you can, your sense of the words "government determines" in the Standing Orders. When has the government determined? At what point in time can there be any sense of certitude felt by any hon. member in this chamber that the order of business is determined? When can we be sure of that so that we can fulfil our obligations to the people who sent us to this chamber? I respectfully suggest that perhaps the word "determines" is a more important word, and the criterion which makes that known to us is more important when it relates to the business of supply, particularly to the business of supply which is handed over those few days each year to those who oppose the government's method of supply. The determination of that should not be the untramelled right of a cabinet or a small group in this chamber comprising some 30 people out of 282. The 250 hon. members must fulfil their obligation to hold that group of 30 accountable to the taxpayers and voters of this nation.
I suggest to Your Honour that the lack of precision in the direction we were moving yesterday was a serious violation of the responsibility of hon. members to hold the government and the cabinet accountable to the Canadian people for their actions and to force the cabinet to change some things. I am sure cabinet ministers would not do things out of malice; however, the job of cabinet ministers is different from that of ordinary hon. members. Perhaps they have more to do. They meet with different people. They have less time to spend in their ridings, and they have less time in which to experience what is happening to ordinary Canadians as a consequence of the policies they propose.
If we do not have a system in this chamber and if we do not alter the nuances of rulings toward favouring the 250 backbenchers and their job of holding the government accountable, then I think we run the long-term risk of making the House of Commons and the Parliament of Canada much less than it could be and may be some day, and it will be insufficient for the Canadian people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. D. M. Collenette (York East):: Madam Speaker, I want to say a few words about this particular problem. I should say that I am somewhat surprised that the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) spoke at such length about the ruling which was given by Your Honour yesterday, but he did perhaps bring in a new element with which I would like to deal in a moment.
I am grateful to the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) for bringing this matter to our attention, because I think he made a point, to some degree, concerning the question of the Order Paper. It would be my view that the hon. member for Yukon is correct in stating that there has been an oversight
Point of Order-Mr. Nielsen
with respect to the motion which was laid down yesterday by the official opposition. The hon. member for Yukon assures us that that motion was undated and could, therefore, have no application to a supply day which was originally designated for today.
With respect to the motion of the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans), I would submit that because the motion he put down was specifically dated for February 12, it was then superseded by the actions of the government House leader yesterday when he redesignated the orders of the day and redesignated the supply day for some time next week. Therefore, the Hansard staff were quite within their right in not showing this on the Order Paper.


Erik Nielsen: Journals staff.


David Michael Collenette: I am sorry, the Journals staff. The question as to which motion would have been recognized is really irrelevant, and that would have been Your Honour's decision, had February 12 indeed been an allotted day. However, I think the point has been well taken by the hon. member for Yukon. Perhaps Your Honour could look into the matter to ensure that this kind of oversight does not occur again because it could be misleading. In summary, because the motion laid down in the name of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) was supposedly undated, I would think it has applicability to the supply day which has been redesignated to February 19.
In terms of the other aspect of the hon. member's point, I welcome the chance to comment, because we do not have these kinds of discussions very often. With respect, I think that the hon. member for Yukon has been inadvertantly misleading the House in his interpretation of those sections of Beauchesne relating to the question of allotted days. Indeed, I noted that Your Honour sought clarification before the recess as to the interpretation of Citation 478(1) given by the hon. member for Yukon. In the second sentence of that citation it is clear that the business of supply is the business of the government. It very boldly states:
Although technically the business under discussion is government business, motions given precedence on these allotted days may be moved only by members in opposition to the government.
The fact that an opposition motion is attached to the vehicle of supply in no way makes that business, that supply day, any less then government business. It is government business. I suppose we could go back to Erskine May who outlined this at page 285 when he discussed the supply period. As Your Honour stated, you questioned the hon. member with regard to the last sentence of Beauchesne's Citation 478(1), which reads:
To this extent, there is a distinction between the business of supply and other government business with respect to SO 18.
It goes only to this extent, the extent being that the opposition has the right to append the motion to a particular allotted supply day, but the government does not.
The other point which I think bears some discussion relates to Beauchesne's Citation 479(2). We agree that subsection (1) states that the choice of subjects is the opposition's choice, and

February 12, 1982
Point of Order-Mr. Nielsen
it is the prerogative of the opposition to raise such subjects. Perhaps I should read Citation 479(2), which states:
The opposition prerogative is very broad in the use of the allotted day and ought not to be interfered with except on the clearest and most certain procedural grounds.
I draw attention to the words "on the clearest and most certain procedural grounds." 1 am not referring to the substance of the motion at all. If the Speaker has a right to make any decision changing the allotted day, the change cannot deal with the procedure but must really deal with the substance of that particular motion, unless the procedural grounds are extremely severe, perhaps involving the form of the motion.
I remember a case a number of years ago involving a supply motion which anticipated some other business than that which was before the House, and this raised a question. There was the prerogative of the Speaker to clarify the situation. 1 submit that in the case of Beauchesne Citation 479(2) the only thing the Speaker can do is perhaps to interfere on very extreme grounds. I do not think the case can be made that the Speaker has interfered with the right of the opposition to proceed with the supply motion today.


Erik Nielsen: Will the hon. member permit an interjection at this point? I think I can assist him.


David Michael Collenette: Perhaps at the end, Madam Speaker, 1 will leave that up to Madam Speaker. I would like a minute.


Madam Speaker:: Yes. We are on a point of order. We cannot have a point of order on a point of order.


Erik Nielsen: I just thought I could assist the hon. member.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member will not permit a question at this time, will he?


David Michael Collenette: If you will permit a question after I have finished, Madam Speaker, that is your decision. I am in your hands. As hon. members know, I am very obliging. I would not want to not help the opposition.


Madam Speaker:: Does the hon. member want to accept a question?


David Michael Collenette: No, Madam Speaker, I have just about finished.
It is my contention, when we talk about allotted days, that these are indeed government days. The only difference is that a motion is attached to supply days which is designated by the opposition. There is no hesitation there.
On the question of the hon. member for Calgary West, the point I really wanted to make was that he was suggesting that the government could, in some way, arbitrarily, in the middle of debate, cut off that debate. Subject to correction, the only way that could be done and the only way to change the order of the day would be with consent. I perhaps could be advised as to whether you could move Standing Order 24 to move the
orders of the day when indeed orders of the day were in the process of being debated. The fact is that any order of the day is a motion. I believe that Standing Order 24 says that a motion for reaching the orders of the day shall have preference over any motion before the House.
That is really a side point here. We should not mislead the public into thinking that, just because the government has the right to set the agenda for Parliament, it can arbitrarily play with Members of Parliament and stop and change the subjects in mid-course without taking a very extreme step. Those are the points I wanted to make. I think it is a subject that is well worth examining. It is a question that really has not been examined too often.
In summary, I would say that the reading of Beauchesne's Citation 479(2) by the hon. member for Yukon is perhaps causing misapprehension, or his reading of that citation is misleading the House.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Yukon on a short point.


Erik Nielsen: If I might, Madam Speaker. I recall the incident that the hon. member for York East (Mr. Collenette) adverted to. It might be of some assistance to the Chair. I believe it was in 1973 when, standing on the notice paper section of the Order Paper, there were two motions to concur in government estimates. An allotted day was also on the same notice paper. The question arose as to whether the two items standing as motions to concur in estimates or the allotted day was to take precedence.
The example cited is a clear case in support of my submission because on that occasion the Speaker held that the allotted day took precedence under Standing Order 58(12) over the two items of government business. It also bears out my submission with respect to the distinction in Citation 478 and my interpretation of it in response to the question put by you, Madam Speaker. That precedent is indeed extremely valuable.


James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, it seems that what you have to determine from the arguments you have heard is whether an allotted day is, in the strict sense of the word, government business. Up to a point I can agree with the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Smith) and the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans), but only up to a point.
Once there is agreement by the three House leaders as to when the allotted day will occur and once that is followed up by the notice required under the Standing Order on the Order Paper, from that moment it ceases to be government business. It is from that moment out of the control of the government. The opposition determines what the subject matter of the debate will be and, pursuant to the provision of the Standing Order, notice of the motion is filed on the day prior to the debate taking place at specifically 6 p.m.
It is my submission that once the agreement has been reached by the House leaders and the notice has appeared on
February 12, 1982

the Order Paper, as it did yesterday, and the motion has been filed as it was yesterday-it was filed at 1.12 p.m. yesterday- that triggered off a procedure which at that point could not be stopped. It could only be stopped, in my submission, by unanimous consent. That speaks to the further point which I do not want to dwell on. It is the other part of the question, that the motion could only be removed from the Order Paper with unanimous consent. Of course, there was not unanimous consent.
It is well to put this debate into the context of what the House intended by allotted days. It is important to bear in mind what exactly the Standing Order had intended by these allotted days. Anyone who was here prior to 1965 when these Standing Orders were brought in on a provisional basis will know that we had at that time the committee of supply. The committee of supply was a committee of the whole House before which all the estimates were examined without regard to time. The estimates were brought before the committee of supply, the committee of the whole House, and it was the opposition which determined when the estimates would be passed by the committee of supply and returned back to the House.
I agree that was not an entirely satisfactory procedure because it sometimes caused serious problems. I remember one occasion when it resulted in the government not being able to meet the public service payroll and having to resort to Governor General's warrants. Everybody realized something had to be done to replace that procedure.
The procedure which replaced it, allotted days under the provision of Standing Order 58, is not entirely satisfactory. It is well for the House and the Chair to note that these Standing Orders we are now operating under were in fact passed by the invocation of closure in 1968. The reason the government had to invoke closure to bring in these Standing Orders in 1968 was that many members of the House at that time were very concerned with what would happen to the right of the House to hold the government accountable, particularly on the way it managed the budget.
If you look at Standing Order 58(14), you will find, I think, that it makes the point very well which I am trying to make. All estimates are now referred to a committee. Standing Order 58(14) says:
Each such committee shall consider and shall report, or shall be deemed to have reported, the same back to the House not later than May 31 in the then current fiscal year.
That is why these 25 allotted days are critically important to the House. The 25 days were not picked out of a hat. It was based upon the experience of the House and the number of days that the committee of supply dealt with estimates. In other words, in place of the estimates being referred to the Committee of the Whole House, we were given the 25 allotted days.
Of course, within the 25 allotted days, provision was made for a number of these days to be used for non-confidence
Point of Order-Mr. Nielsen
motions. These non-confidence motions replaced the motions that were brought in previously under the old supply procedure whereby no notice was required and no notice was given. When the opposition stood up to bring in a motion under supply which was non-confidence in the government, all the ministers had to sit there wondering which one would be the target of that particular motion. That was the procedure. There was some dissatisfaction and the government felt that it was not really the way to run the House. There was agreement that there had to be another procedure to replace that one.
The hon. member for York East (Mr. Collenette) said it is worth examining this whole question. I also think it is worth examining. I think, Madam Speaker, that you would be well advised to urge the government House leader to convene a meeting or make a reference to the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization so that the House can be officially seized of this question and thereby enable us to examine the Standing Orders in the context of the experience that we have had since the present Standing Orders were adopted.
I repeat that it is my submission that agreement was reached on the allocation of an allotted day, and once agreement was reached, that allotted day would be a votable motion, one of the motions of non-confidence provided for in the 25 allotted days, and once the motion in accordance with our agreement was tabled, it then ceased to be government business. At that point in time it was out of the control of the government. It could only be changed by unaninous consent of the House.
I respectfully submit to you that that is the crux of the argument. The government House leader stood in his place yesterday at three o'clock and unilaterally did what he did not have the right to do under the Standing Orders: to change what had been unanimously agreed to by his colleagues. The process was already in play by virtue of the required notice appearing on the Order Paper and the motion, which should have been the subject of debate today, already having been filed by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark).


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I think I can be very brief in speaking to this point of order. There are one or two matters which have been raised and require some response.
If I understood the position being put forward by the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader correctly, part of his argument, which was technical and perhaps not central to what he was arguing, was that since the references to allotted days appeared in the Order Paper section known as notices, that made it somehow less compelling than if it had appeared elsewhere in the Order Paper. I am sure it was only momentarily overlooked by the parliamentary secretary but I think it is important that the House understand and recall that motions for concurrence on estimates are also listed in the same place and stay in their same place until they are called. That part of the Order Paper is an integral part of the Order Paper.

February 12. 1982
Point of Order-Mr. Nielsen
If that suggestion was indeed made by the parliamentary secretary, that the language relating to the allotted day on that part of the Order Paper might be somewhat less compelling than if it had appeared elsewhere, I would contest that. That part of the Order Paper is unquestionably an integral part of the Order Paper. It is there to fulfil the requirements of the Standing Orders which require notice in matters relating to supply, whether it has to do with a motion for concurrence in estimates or whether it has to do with acts related to allotted days.
The second matter to which I want to turn my attention deals with the very alarming precedent which we may be establishing here. The events of the last two days, the matter which was raised yesterday and the matter which was raised by my colleague today, create a very real danger of censorship, which is something that runs against the very grain of the rights of an opposition, and consequently, the rights of Parliament. One serious result of a continuation of the events that occurred yesterday would be that once a government became aware of the nature of a notice that had been filed for an allotted day, if it took exception to that particular notice or was fearful of not being able to carry the House on a motion of that kind-which we suspect was the case yesterday-it could be in a position to act in a way which would deny the opposition the right that had been established for it to proceed with that motion or action. That is clearly censorship and an addition to the limitations put upon the capacity of the whole Parliament generally and specifically of the official opposition, of other opposition parties and any other Members of Parliament who might disagree with a particular item of government business. This is another limitation upon the capacity of members of the House of Commons to control the actions and decisions of the government. As these limitations continue to accumulate, we will have no parliamentary system left in any honest sense of the word.
The point which was raised by my seatmate and colleague, the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), again speaks to the question of (potential censorship. If the practice which occurred today, whfah was probably inadvertent, continues, not only is there tntf capacity of censorship on the right of an opposition to raise a question, there is the censorship of the very right of that opposition to have the language of the motions that it intends to have introduced stand on the Order Paper of the House of Commons.
The more important matter which 1 would like to deal with was raised explicitly by the hon. member for York East (Mr. Collenette). He raised the critical and fundamental question freshly today in the argument of this point of order and it concerns the question of to whom the allotted days belong. Do they belong to the government? Are they subject to absolute control by the government, or do they belong to the official opposition whose primary responsibility is to keep control of the government and stop it from excess? I noted what the hon. member for York East said, and if I heard him correctly, I believe he said that allotted days "are indeed government days." The hon. member nods that that is his view. I disagree
with that view strenuously. Not only does it run against all the traditions and understanding we have had in the House, it very clearly runs against what is spelled out in Beauchesne and what is spelled out in the Standing Orders of the House of Commons. To accept the view that allotted days are indeed government days is to extend even more the control of the government of the day over the House of Commons.
All of us who have been students of this place and believe in the importance of parliamentary democracy know that one of the grave dangers which has developedTtver the years is that the power of individual Members of Parliament has diminished and the power of the government has increased. We now have virtually no means to control a government which is pursuing a policy which is unpopular with the majority of members of the House and bad for the country. Powers which used to exist here and used to reside with oppositions here have been stripped away one by one. As my colleague, the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) has indicated, one of the most dramatic changes in the powers of individual Members of Parliament was enforced by closure, because Parliament would not willingly have accepted that. The extraordinary recourse to closure had to be used. We may very well be on the brink of even one more major limitation upon the capacity of Parliament to do our basic job, which is to control, in the name of the people of Canada, the executive members of the government.
My colleague, the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes), made a very important point. It was not simply members on the opposition side of the House of Commons who were interested in being heard on the matter which would have been debated today. Undoubtedly there were members on the government side who wanted to be heard, some of whom may well have wanted to vote with the opposition against the government. Indeed, I believe it was for that reason the matter was withdrawn.
However, the point is not limited to what was denied Parliament today. The point has to do with what might be denied Parliament permanently, and what might be denied Parliament permanently is the opportunity to use this instrument to assert control of the executive by individual members of the House of Commons on any side of the House and of any party.
The hon. member for York East has quoted Beauchesne Citation 478( 1). He quoted it for a third time. The relevant part is the following:
Although technically the business under discussion is government business, motions given precedence on these allotted days may be moved only by members in opposition to the government. To this extent, there is a distinction between the business of supply and other government business with respect to S.O. 18.
The important word here is "technically", and what the language of Citation 478( I) makes abundantly clear is that for a technical reason it might be grouped under government business, but the reality is that it belongs not to the government but to the opposition. That is why the word "technically" is there. There is no other explanation for the presence of that
February 12, 1982

word, and the use of the word "technically" is designed explicitly to underline the fact that the control of allotted days rests not with the government, which controls everything else, but with the opposition, which controls little more than this ability to hold the government to account through the use of allotted days.
Your Honour will be aware of Standing Order 58(12), which reads as follows:
On any day or days appointed for the consideration of any business under the provisions of this Standing Order, that order of business shall have precedence over all other government business in such sitting or sittings.
There can be no doubt that today had been appointed. The argument has been put that not only was the day appointed, but also that by the filing of the notice it was consummated. There can be no question about that. There can be no question of the meaning of Standing Order 58(12), but the matter I wanted to address directly had to do with the question of to whom does an allotted day belong. Does it belong to the opposition, as all our practices and Beauchesne make clear, or does it belong to the government to be dismissed at the government's whim?
I will repeat myself in closing. The word "technically" makes it abundantly clear that while for some small technical reason it might be grouped under the heading of government business, the clear purport and the clear reason for having the provision here at all is to provide the opposition with an instrument to control the government, and if that were to be denied, that would be one more stripping away of the powers of the opposition and one more reduction of the ability of the people of Canada through their Parliament to control the government.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker-


Madam Speaker:: I have already heard the parliamentary secretary. Unless his point is a short one like the one I allowed the hon. member for Yukon to make, 1 do not want to listen to it. It is not usual to allow hon. members to speak twice on a point of order.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, my point is just a short one. I think a regrettable inference could be drawn from the remarks of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark)-and I think it is important to clarify it-and that is that if anyone is under the mistaken impression that the government was informed of the substance of the motion which was filed by the Conservative Party, I want to assure the House it was not. 1 think everyone can reasonably conclude there was a fair bit of speculation as to what it might be, but we should be fair to the Table officers. Certain conclusions might be drawn if one were to drag the argument about government censorship to its logical conclusion, but I think it is very important to clarify that the government was not informed of the substance of the Conservative motion.


James Aloysius McGrath: Why did you change the date?
Point of Order-Mr. Nielsen


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, after that intervention I am compelled to say on behalf of all members of the official opposition that we have the utmost confidence in the Table officers, and I assure the parliamentary secretary that we are absolutely convinced the government did not become aware of our motion through the Table officers.


Mr. Albert Cooper (Peace River):: Madam Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. It is obvious that what we are entering into here and what we are concerned with is something which is considered very valuable and important not just to the opposition but to all Members of Parliament in terms of our ability to make Parliament function in a manner which would allow it to pass good legislation. We are involved in a very fine balance. That balance is made up of both government members and opposition members, and anything that would detract from that balance may well have a very serious effect on the ability of Parliament to function.
I think it is important that we look at a few of the things which relate to this particular issue and particularly the one we are talking about here, the orders of the day. 1 refer to Citation 275 of Beauchesne at page 89 which talks about the Order Paper and Notices. It says this:
The paper known as Order Paper and Notices is the official agenda printed on the responsibility of the Clerk of the House, containing all the proposed questions set out in accordance with the Standing Orders. All the proposed proceedings of the House are recorded in abbreviated form in that paper. To add to, or suppress from it. any proposal which the House has ordered would constitute a serious infringement on the priveleges of the House of Commons.
I think that is a large part of what we are concerned about here today. Perhaps, in fact, what is happening is that the opposition is losing its ability to participate in a particular opportunity which has, by precedent and by history, been provided to it.
Our concern is that if we cannot work within this particular framework and have this type of opportunity made available to us, we will end up with a serious loss of our opportunity to serve this House and our constituents as well.
In order to look at that breach of privilege referred to in Beauchesne one must look back at the very foundation of privilege, and again I refer to Beauchesne. According to Beauchesne, the privileges of Parliament afe rights which are absolutely necessary for the due execution of its powers, and they are enjoyed by individual members because the House cannot perform its functions without unimpeded use of the services of its members. We can see that the balance 1 referred to earlier is a fine balance based on the privileges of the House. It is based on the format the House has laid out for itself and the rules and guidelines under which it must perform. We obviously feel that balance was changed yesterday by an unusual procedure employed by the government House leader.
The final point that 1 want to make was raised earlier by my colleague, the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) who talked about the principles of parliamentary law. These

February 12, 1982
Point of Order-Mr. Nielsen
are set out on page 3 of Beauchesne's fifth edition in part as follows:
To protect a minority and restrain the improvidence or tyranny of a majority; to secure the transaction of public business in an orderly manner; to enable every Member to express his opinions within limits necessary to preserve decorum-
That sets out the guidelines, certain rules and regulations that are designed to allow Parliament and Members of Parliament to function in a real and positive way.
When we have such things as allotted days set out on the Order Paper, it is for a certain purpose, that purpose being that the opposition can organize its debate, its methods, and its approach to various levels of government business. It is a very serious and important opportunity for the opposition to criticize the government.
In regard to this point of order I think it is essential that we look at how important these provisions are and how necessary they are to the opposition and, in fact, to all members of the House of Commons in order that they may perform their duties and make certain that the laws and legislation passed by the House are passed in accordance with certain procedures and forms.


Mr. Doug Lewis (Simcoe North):: Madam Speaker, I should like to add a word or two in response to the remarks of the acting House leader for the New Democratic Party and my colleague the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Cooper). It has been the practice in this House for the government House leader to announce the business of the House for some period of time and for that to be recorded in the orders of the day. Yesterday we came to something which was unprecedented, a change made in the orders of the day by the government House leader.
I would ask you to address yourself, Madam Speaker, to the way in which the orders of the day were changed-not that they were changed but the way in which they were changed. I would like to refer you to page 89 of Beauchesne's fifth edition, Citation 276 which reads as follows:
A motion to proceed to another government order may be moved only by the government House leader (or a member acting on his behalf).
Yesterday an unprecedented change in government business was made by the government because of a certain fear of a vote. That change was not made by any motion offered by the government House leader or anyone acting on his behalf, but simply by the government House leader making the comment that he was changing it.
I think what we on this side are after is some finality. People ask us how we conduct the business of government, what we do day in, day out, how we organize our weeks and our months. We have to be able to tell the people who send us here that there is some certainty in this House. The certainty that we on this side are looking for is the certainty of government orders.
When government orders which have already been set into the orders of the day by the government House leader, by his statement-and until now we have taken his word for it- those words are set in stone, set in the Journals or set in Hansard, and surely we are owed the courtesy of a motion
which is part of the business of the House, rather than an offhand comment such as we got yesterday from the government House leader, if there is to be a change.
Citation 276 of Beauchesne's says "A motion to proceed to another government order may be moved-," and it seems to me that infers that there will be a motion to change the business of the day; something which can be considered, which is in writing, which has formality to it and would be voted upon. Perhaps we would not have won the vote on the motion, but at least it should have been moved by the government House leader or by the deputy government House leader. Neither of those events occurred, Madam Speaker.
In your ruling, Madam Speaker, I would ask you to address the question of whether it was done properly by just announcing it in an offhand manner and whether, when we reach government orders today or any other day, we are to be subjected to such a comment in the middle of the business of the day. When the government House leader has set the business for the day, is he going to be forced-and I say, forced-by the rules which govern this House, forced by tradition, by Beauchesne, by the Standing Orders and orders of the day, to bring in a motion. It is like any motion and the mover and seconder lose control over it once it is within the purview of the House. I suggest that when the orders of the day come within the purview of the House, then a motion must be introduced, seconded and debated.


Madam Speaker:: Just before I tell the House that I will reserve on this point of order and examine all the presentations that have been made, for which 1 thank hon. members, and that I will rule on it later, I want to reply to the hon. member for Yukon concerning a meeting which was requested between the House leaders and myself. All of my agenda was open to the House leaders and the reason the meeting has not taken place until now is that 1 could not get the three House leaders to agree on the same day. My agenda is still open and anytime they can agree on the same day I will slash out anything on my agenda in order to accommodate them.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, your situation and mine are exactly the same. I will make time, at any time to hold this meeting because of the seriousness of the situation.



POINT OF ORDER


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, this is a different point of order not related in any way to the point we have been discussing for some time.
It is my understanding that when we get to the orders of the day it is the intention of the government House leader or the person acting on his behalf, to call Bill C-78. You are probably not aware that the bill was not available to anyone prior to five o'clock last evening; in fact, we had to go and get a copy that had not yet been filed for distribution purposes, in order to see
February 12, 1982_________________________ COMMONS DEBATES
what was contained in the bill that was to be reported back from the committee for consideration under the order for report stage.
As a result of that dilemma we were unable to file the amendments we wished to file with the Journals branch since we had not seen the bill in advance of six o'clock last evening. As a result the amendments could not appear as notice on the Order Paper. That creates a dilemma, Madam Speaker.
We consider the amendments that we wished to file to be of extreme importance. I personally asked the government whip last evening if the government would be prepared to give unanimous consent for the hour for filing to be extended until some time today so that we could file our proposed amendments-we thought there could be an extension until five o'clock today-for consideration on Monday next. Unfortunately at that point unanimous consent was not forthcoming, although it may well be forthcoming now.
In the circumstances, the only opportunity for anyone in the House to move amendments to the clauses of the bill that will ultimately be debated at both report stage and third reading, is right now. Since there is no other opportunity to move and debate those amendments, I suggest one of two things might occur.
First, I would ask whether the government House leader or the acting government House leader might consider requesting the unanimous consent of the House to do what was requested yesterday; that we should file the amendments up to and including five o'clock this evening for consideration on Monday. Failing that, would the government House leader consider not proceeding with that order, given that we would only have 40 or 45 minutes today to deal with it, in order that we could file within the Standing Orders today, for Monday's consideration. This is not a trivial matter; it is of vital importance and speaks to the concerns of large numbers of employees all across the country. We assumed that we would be able to fulfil the responsibility of placing important amendments before the House.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, with regard to the first point of the House leader of the NDP, we are prepared to agree to a House order which would extend the time for filing amendments to five o'clock today. Rather than becoming involved in a debate as to what we do if we cannot obtain such agreement, perhaps we could first determine whether or not the agreement is forthcoming from all parties. We are agreeable to it.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, this is beyond belief.


Some hon. Members:: That is correct.


Erik Nielsen: We have had the spectacle of the government House leader rising in his place yesterday and saying, as reported on page 14896 of Hansard which I now have:
-considering the urgency of Bill C-78, we will debate it tomorrow.
Point of Order-Mr. Deans
Further on he is reported as saying:
Considering the urgency, we have decided to proceed with the report stage of Bill C-78 tomorrow.
Bill C-78 was so urgent at three o'clock yesterday that we did not even have a printed copy of it available. Indeed, it was not even in the mail to hon. members until this morning. Our critic received it this morning. What shallow deception, considering the urgency of Bill C-78 which had not even been printed. Under the circumstances I think the government would be well advised to move a motion that the time for filing amendments be extended, in all fairness to the disposition of this day, to when the bill comes up on Monday, if it is so urgent that it might come up on Monday. I would support such a motion.


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, I have one point. I must confess that I am not particularly worried whether we do it by unanimous consent, by motion or by any other means. My concern simply is that we have urgent amendments and we would like an opportunity to file them this afternoon. They are already there; we simply have to give Journals authorization to have them printed for Monday.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, ordinarily we would have no hesitation in giving unanimous consent, but we want to point out dramatically the hypocrisy and downright deception of the government. On two separate occasions yesterday, the government House leader said that the bill was so urgent it had to be proceeded with today, a bill which was not even printed. The government should bring in a motion to extend the time. We would be very happy to support it, to focus the spotlight on their hypocrisy, where it belongs.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, one could be left to draw the conclusion that somehow there is a conspiracy on the part of the government to deny hon. members of the opposition a copy of the bill as amended in committee. It should be pointed out that printing of the bill is not the responsibility of the government. It is the responsibility of the law clerk. If the Conservative Party had members at the committee, they would have followed the amendments made in committee and would have all necessary information in order to file amendments, and perhaps might have required line changes when it came out. If in fact there was a problem in getting the reprinted version to members as quickly as possible, it had nothing to do with the government; it is the responsibility of the law clerk.
If we look at Standing Order 75(3), it is quite clear that we have complied with what is necessary in order for report stage of any bill to be reported by a standing committee. It indicates that it "shall not be taken into consideration prior to 48 hours following the presentation of the said report, unless otherwise ordered by the House". It was several days ago, in excess of 48 hours, that in fact it was reported. It should be pointed out that the House leader of the NDP requested this last night and that this side was agreeable. I think the House leader of the Conservative Party wished to consult with his critic, the hon.

February 12, 1982
Point of Order-Mr. Deans
member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie), before making a decision. He has certainly had that opportunity now. In the spirit of accommodating the NDP, because I believe that party wishes to move amendments, we will agree to a unanimous order extending the deadline to five o'clock. I think it is quite unreasonable if the official opposition is not prepared to go along with the spirit of co-operation.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, this becomes more bizarre with every utterance of spokesmen of the government. Since the parliamentary secretary is not accepting responsibility himself or for the government for the failure of the bill to be printed-he is blaming it on the printers, the premiers, the provinces, the weather or someone else-is he telling us that at the moment the government House leader rose yesterday at three o'clock to declare the urgency of the bill, he did not even know whether or not the bill was printed? Is he telling us that not only did he mislead the House on the question of urgency, but that the government House leader did not know the matter which he declared was so urgent had not even been printed? Is that what he is telling us?


David P. Smith: If Madam Speaker wishes me to take that as a question, I am in your hands. I am not blaming anybody. I am simply pointing out what are the facts. The facts are that responsibility for printing of a bill after it has gone to committee and returned is in the hands of the law clerk. Certainly the government knows what took place at committee, because government members were on the committee and were familiar with what in fact took place. Any party which is on its toes certainly would have its members at committee and would in fact know what occurred. It would not need the latest version to draw whatever amendments it felt were necessary, because it would have the original version and its members would have been at committee to know what in fact took place there. We are prepared to co-operate with members of the NDP and to accommodate them because they wish in good faith to move amendments to the bill. We will agree to an order extending the deadline to five o'clock today.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, I have a short interjection which I think relates to the previous argument in the sense that each of us in the house is equal and that independents, and perhaps even government backbenchers, would like to move amendments to the bill. Under the Standing Orders of the House they would have the right, but if in fact they received copies of the bill this morning and the filing deadline for amendments was five o'clock last evening, surely the government is acting in a manner which is totally inconsistent with the ability of members of the House to meet their responsibilities to the electorate. If all hon. members of the House have not seen the bill before the deadline for filing, surely it is a misuse of the Standing Orders of the House; surely it is a misuse.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Madam Speaker, I cannot sit here and allow the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Smith) to say that the government is not responsible. The government is responsible for every aspect of presenting a bill, right from the beginning to the end. If the government is not responsible, who is? Is it the opposition? We had nothing to do with it. The man is in such a jam that he is ignoring things which are elementary. It is elementary that government has responsibility for every phase of a bill. This is the practice in every parliament throughout the British Empire. The government is responsible for ensuring that those matters are co-ordinated. The truth of the matter is that the government was in such ungodly haste yesterday to ensure it cancelled the opposition day for its own purposes that it simply blundered everything. It did not even take the time to see if the bill was printed. This is a mockery of Parliament. The government should be thrown out.


Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Madam Speaker, I rise on the same point of order and in response to the comments of the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes). Individual members on the government side have the opportunity, the right and the privilege to bring in amendments. We had that right in the standing committee, just as individual members of the official opposition had the right in committee. The hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie) and other hon. members of the Conservative Party brought in excellent amendments which improved the bill. Hon. members from the New Democratic Party brought in excellent amendments. We have a very strong bill because of all of these amendments. It is a bill with these amendments that I am sure all three parties want passed as quickly as possible. We should not waste time with this kind of nonsense. Let us get on with the business of the House.


Charles Joseph Clark: Try martial law first.


Madam Speaker:: Hon. members cannot speak twice on the same point of order. I will put the question to the House. I am in the hands of the House. 1 do have to inform the House that there were delays in the printing of the bill. I have all the details of the route sheet of the bill. I do not think I need spell it out to the House. There were delays. The parliamentary secretary mentioned that members had a working copy of the bill but they did not have the final text until some time late this morning or last night. At any rate, I am in the hands of the House. 1 will put the question to the House. Does the House give unanimous consent to waive the hour at which amendments ought to have been brought in for them to be included in the debate? Is there unanimous consent of the House?


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, the government should have known, given the urgency it attached to the bill yesterday at three o'clock, that the bill was not even printed yesterday at three o'clock. Under those circumstances, because its actions betray its hyprocrisy, we insist the government bring in a motion to extend the time, whfch we will support.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Madam Speaker, I have a labour constituency.
I am not a member of that particular committee. Surely as a
February 12, 1982

member of this House I should have a right to see this bill and have time to think about it to see if there are any amendments that I might wish to make. My constituents are just as important as the constituents of members who sit on that committee. This is the most hypocritical thing 1 have ever seen in parliament.


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, 1 rise on a different point of order. I am now seeking guidance, since unanimous consent appears not to be forthcoming. 1 do not care who moves the motion. I want your guidance. Does it require a motion from the government or can we have unanimous consent to have the motion moved by someone else, and 1 will move it?


Erik Nielsen: It has to be the government.


Ian Deans: Can I ask for unanimous consent to move the motion in order that the amendments that we consider to be vital to the bill be put before the House. I am asking the House for that unanimous consent, and 1 will move an appropriate motion at the right time.


Madam Speaker:: In answer to the hon. member, I cannot force anyone in this House to move a motion.


David P. Smith: I move that the hour be extended to Five o'clock for the filing of amendments.


An hon. Member:: It has to be in writing.


Ian Deans: This has to be done under motions.


Madam Speaker:: I need the motion in writing and I need unanimous consent to move it without notice. Do 1 have the unanimous consent of the House to have a motion moved with notice?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Erik Nielsen: 
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
[Stage Direction]
MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S.O. 32(l)(p)
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, I rise to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 32(l)(p), seconded by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen):
That in the opinion of this House, the observance of the proprieties of the House, the maintenance of its authority and the management of its business, require that once an allotted day has been designated by the government House
Motion-S.O. 32(1 )(p)
leader, and the House has entered upon the notice period preceding the allotted day, the designated allotted day must be proceeded with
Standing Order 32(1 )(p) is a rule that is not used all that much in this House, but it takes away from the necessity which Standing Order 26 brings to the floor of the House. Under Standing Order 26 we have to have an emergency. We have to demonstrate to you, the Chair, that we have an emergency situation. We also have to give the government two hours notice prior to the sitting of the House that a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 26 will be moved. We have found recently that the government never gives us much notice. Therefore, rather than moving a motion under Standing Order 26 we decided to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 32 which allows us, under Citation 300 of Beauchesne, to deal with the business of the House. 1 would draw your attention to page 98, Citation 300(2) which reads:
Examples of motions which come under SO 32(1 )(p) and are debatable are motions:
(a) relating to the time of sitting-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I interrupt the hon. member now that 1 have looked into the Standing Orders under which he is presenting this motion.
First, the hon. member is already debating the motion. It is debatable but he cannot debate it at this time. It is a substantive motion and I would need a notice of that motion. Therefore, I cannot accept it at this time.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I rise to seek the ruling of the Chair to raise a matter regarding which I would have given the required notice had Hansard been available. It relates directly to the exchanges that occurred yesterday in the House of Commons, in particular, I regret to say, Madam Speaker, between yourself and myself, having to do most particularly with the right of any Member of Parliament-although I was the one who raised the issue-to adduce arguments to a case before Your Honour has made a ruling. I now have Hansard at hand. At page 14,900, the following is found:


Madam Speaker:: I must explain to hon. members that while the Speaker is speaking, I do not think a point of order can be brought up. I will hear hon. members when I finish saying what I have begun to say.


Charles Joseph Clark: Are you going to rule?


Madam Speaker:: 1 have not ruled yet. I think at this point I have heard sufficient argument and the Standing Orders are sufficiently-


Charles Joseph Clark: No, Madam Speaker.


Erik Nielsen: There is a point that has not been made. We have a right.


Charles Joseph Clark: That is precisely the point I wish to address.
The debate carried on. Then we find the following:


Madam Speaker:: Order. I will be grateful if the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition will let me finish what I have to say.


Charles Joseph Clark: Is it a ruling? Is it a ruling?


Madam Speaker:: I am sorry, I would like to finish what I have to say.


Charles Joseph Clark: I have the right to be heard-

February 12, 1982
Motion-S O. 32(1 )(p)


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Could I interrupt the hon. member? He is doing everything he can to confuse me. I do not really know for what reason he is rising. We have just dealt with a motion put forward by the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis) with which I have dealt. Now the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition is not telling me whether he is rising on a point of order or a question of privilege or just to read Hansard to me. Just before the right hon. member gets up again, I might indicate to him that I have read Hansard also. I was applying the rule, as I told him yesterday, that when the Speaker is standing and speaking the Speaker cannot accept any points of order or have anyone else interrupt the Speaker. That was the rule I was applying.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I rise to move:
That in the opinion of this House the observance of the proprieties of the House and the management of its business require that before interrupting a procedural argument for the purpose of giving a ruling, the Speaker announce to the House that a ruling will be given unless further relevant arguments are placed before the Chair.
I move that motion pursuant to Standing Order 32(1 )(p). You have just indicated that there is a requirement of notice to move a motion. I would prefer to proceed with it immediately. Indeed, if the government's spokesman is prepared to waive notice in this case, given the fundamental urgency and importance of the matter I am raising, I will proceed with argument on it now. If not, I wanted to take the first available opportunity to indicate that I think a very dangerous precedent has been established here and I seek to argue that. If you rule me out of order at this time, then I now, by the words I have just uttered in this House, give you notice of my intention to raise this matter 24 hours hence.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, not three minutes ago the opposition refused to waive the requirement for notice. I see no reason why we should do so. It is going to be tit for tat. Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) can raise it as a question of privilege, and if he does I will be happy to argue it right now.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, I listened to the remarks of the government deputy House leader. He just stated that the opposition refused unanimous consent. Unless you poll the whole House he has no right to make that statement.


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, I hope the tit for tat will not continue any longer so that we might get this done. I would hope I can get unanimous consent to waive the customary requirement for notice and to move, notwithstanding any Standing Order, that the time for accepting amendments to Bill C-78-


Madam Speaker:: Order. We already have another motion which was proposed by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) and has not been disposed of. I can hear another motion but not at the same time.
Now, the Leader of the Opposition has expressed his intention of proposing a motion, but, of course, under the section
under which he proposes it he needs to give notice but that notice can be waived if the consent of the House is given. I know the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Smith) has indicated what he would say, but I do have to put the question to the House. Does the Leader of the Opposition have the unanimous consent-


David P. Smith: No.


Madam Speaker:: He does not.


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, as 1 began to say, please let us stop the feud for five minutes. I have a few amendments I would like to see placed before the House if and when Bill C-78 is called. Unfortunately, circumstances beyond anyone's control, at least at the moment, have made it impossible for those amendments to be placed. They were given to the Journals office last evening a few minutes after six. They quite appropriately refused to accept them because they had to be there a few minutes before six.
However, I would ask the House, in the interests of the many people affected by this bill, that we stop feuding on this for five minutes-we can go back to it if you want-and waive the necessity for notice in order that I can move a motion. If that necessity for notice is waived, I would move, notwithstanding any Standing Order, that the time for accepting amendments to Bill C-78 be extended to 5 p.m., Friday, February 12, 1982.


Madam Speaker:: Well, we have just disposed of a quite similar question, but I will again put the question to the House. Does the House give its unanimous consent to waive the requirement of a notice for this motion to be put before the House?


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, our answer is still the same. The government House leader urged upon us yesterday the urgency of Bill C-78 which he did not even know was not printed. In order to focus attention on this shallow hypocrisy of the government in their haste, tripping over their heels, to duck a test of confidence by stealing an allotted day from us, by in effect politically mugging us, they are going to have to suffer the consequences of bringing in a motion in the regular way, a motion to extend the time to bring in amendments, a motion which we will support.


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. 2,807 (Revised), 3,063, 3,137, 3,301, 3,378, 3,443, 3,546, 3,569 and 3,699.
February 12, 1982



GRANTS TO REDUCE RACIAL TENSIONS Question No. 2,807 (Revised)-Mr. Flis:
1.	From 1976 to date, were moneys made available by departments to reduce racial tensions and, if so, which departments?
2.	In each case, what was the amount and to whom was it given?


David P. Smith: I am informed by the Secretary of State and Multiculturalism Canada as follows:
1 and 2. Grants and contribution records are not presently kept in such a way as to allow us to provide a complete list of grants and contributions given for the purpose of reducing of racial tensions. However, following is a list of contracts entered into by the Department of the Secretary of State since 1976, which relate to projects aimed at addressing racial tensions:
Program Services March, 1976 $13,250-Dennis Adair and Janet Rosenstock. To produce a written report and tapes of classroom discussion on racism and discrimination in consultation with voluntary groups working in the area of human rights in Ontario and with the ministry of education.
Group Understanding and Human Rights April, 1976-Consultant Fees:
$1,150-Edward D. Parnell $300-Noel Kinsella $625-Thomas Symons $325-Tom McMillan $575-Errol Young $680-John W. Kehoe $275-Bruce Cook $300-Seymour Tregeir
For consultation to explore new measures for implementation to forward the objectives of the Decade for Action to combat Racism and Racial Discrimination along the lines of the measures suggested in the United Nations Decade program itself.
May, 1976 $4,090-Dr. John W. Kehoe. To conduct a two-day workshop in various schools located in the three western provinces. The purpose of the workshop was to provide specific attitude-change and values-education strategies designed to improve group understanding.
Citizens' Participation Program
July, 1977 $25,000-Dr. Frances Henry. To write a report on "The Dynamics of Racism in Toronto", published February, 1978.
September, 1977
$400-Fred Dunbar

Paul Robinson
$125-Fred E. Whitworth
For consultation on Human Rights and Education.
Order Paper Questions
Multiculturalism Canada:
1 and 2. Since the inception of the multiculturalism program a great number of projects have been funded that promote better understanding, greater tolerance and acceptance of all ethnocultural groups and thus reduce racial tensions. It is difficult to categorize and analyse the many projects which would fit within this broad parameter but it is possible to give details of specific new initiatives.
In 1980, the Minister of State for Multiculturalism initiated a joint pilot project with metropolitan Toronto specifically aimed at reducing racial tensions in that municipality. A budget of $100,000 was allotted. Under the over-all scheme of the pilot project the following groups were funded:
Black Community Advisory Board	-$16,000
Scarborough Ad Hoc Coalition Committee on Intercultural Initiative	-$24,500
Y MCA of Metro Toronto	-$ 10,020
YMCA of Metro Toronto North York	-$14,940
West End Coalition on Youth Employment	-$34,000
On June 10, 1981, the Minister of State for Multiculturalism announced three new initiatives within the Multiculturalism Directorate specifically designated to combat racism and reduce racial tensions, with an additional budget of $1.5 million for the balance of this fiscal year:
(a)	A national symposium to investigate legal solutions to problems on race relations in Canada. This symposium will be designed to seek recommendations of ways in which the legal framework of Canada can be made more responsive to incidents of racial discrimination.
(b)	Research unit. Responsible for collecting and reviewing information on research already undertaken on the subject of racism in Canada, the U.S.A., and other countries. The findings will lead to the implementation of programs designed to deal with the problem areas identified.
(c)	Public awareness. An integrated media campaign involving majority radio, television and press, a direct mail campaign, and resource kits for teachers, police and other frontline community workers will be developed to reflect the positive contributions which Canada's many cultural minorities have made to our society. Developmental and financial assistance will be made available for seminars on race relations organized by community groups, service clubs, religious organizations, unions, businesses and educational institutions.
Note: Applications have already been received from various groups.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did the Minister of National Health and Welfare recently purchase a new car from public funds in Montreal and, if so (a) what type of car was it (b) what was the total cost, including a list of all "extras" (c) what was the name and address of the automobile dealer from which the car was purchased and the constituency in which his/her business is located (d) was the minister accom-

February 12, 1982
Order Paper Questions
panied by her government chauffeur at the time of purchase and was a trade-in made towards the new vehicle?
2.	(a) Did the minister's previous government car have Ontario licence plates (b) does her new car have Quebec licence plates and, if so, was the reason for the change that the minister did not want Ontario licence plates?


Monique Bégin: 1. Yes.
(a)	1981 Oldsmobilc 98 Regency.
(b)	The car was a demonstrator available at $15,750.
No extras were ordered.
(c)	Park Avenue,
Chevrolet Inc.,
5000 Jean Talon East,
Montreal, Quebec Constituency: St. Leonard-Anjou
(d)	Yes.
No.
2. (a) No.
(b) Yes.
The rest of the question is not applicable.


Mr. Murphy: 1.	What are the present known "proven" reserves in the Sydney, Nova Scotia coal field and what are the "indicated" reserves up to a five mile limit?
2.	What are the "proven" reserves for the (a) Lingan, Nova Scotia Colliery (b) Prince Mine working (c) Donkin mine?
3.	What are the "proven" reserves for the (a) No. 26 Colliery (b) No. 26 Colliery working?
4.	What was the average wage of the coal miners when the Cape Breton Development Corporation (Devco) took over the mines in parts 2 and 3 (a) in 1968 (b) as of 1980 expressed in (i) money wages (ii) real wage terms corrected for inflation as measured by the consumer price index?
5.	What was the pithead cost of a ton of coal in (a) 1968 (b) 1980?
6.	What was the price received for one ton of "steam coal" sold by Devco in (a) 1968 (b) 1980?
7.	What was the price received by Devco for one ton of "coking coal" in (a) 1968 (b) 1980?
8.	What was the average age of the coal mine employee in 1968 and what is the average age at present?
9.	What amount was put into capital expenditures at the No. 26 mine per annum since 1976 and what was the corresponding output per mine shaft?
10.	What amount was put into improvements in the coal cleaning in Victoria Junction since 1978 and what increase in productivity resulted?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: I am
informed by the Cape Breton Development Corporation as follows:
1. The corporation does not itemize coal under the "proven" category. The most frequently used nomenclature is "demonstrated". Similarly, the extent to which demonstrated reserves are measured is to a point where the seam reaches to 4,000 feet below sea level; this is not necessarily the Five-mile
offshore limit. The demonstrated "in situ" reserve for the Sydney, Nova Scotia coalfield is 2,366,000,000 tons.
2.	The demonstrated "in situ" reserves at (a) Lingan are estimated as 66 million tons, (b) at Prince Mine as 69 million tons (c) at Donkin as 1,314,000,000 tons.
3.	(a) and (b) The demonstrated reserve for No. 26 Colliery is estimated as 75 million tons.
4.	The average wage for coal miners in the Cape Breton Development Corporation (a) in 1968 was $19.71 per shift (b) (i) and (ii) this wage adjusted for inflation by the consumer price index in 1980 was $47.78. The actual wage in 1980 was $73.42.
5.	The pithead cost of a ton of coal in (a) 1968 was $16.89 and (b) 1980 was $54.14.
6.	The price received for a ton of steam coal in (a) 1968 was $11.17 and (b) 1980 was $43.05.
7.	The price received for a ton of coking coal in (a) 1968- we did not produce or sell coking coal and (b) 1980 was $58.51.
8.	The average age for a coal mine employee is not obtainable for 1968. However for 1967 the average age was 45.5 years. The average age at present is 39.4 years.
9.	The amount put into capital expenditures at No. 26 Colliery since 1976 is shown below. The output per mine shaft is not a normal method of measurement, and the output per mine is shown next to the capital expenditures in each year. Another method of measuring productivity is in output per manshift (QMS) and these figures are also included.
No. 26	Capital	Output, Net Tons	OMS1976	$ 2.459,254	741,492	2.8 tons1977	1,318,387	740,451	2.9 tons1978	14,903,619	764,134	3.2 tons1979	4,417,775	675,061	2.9 tons1980	3,689,626	909,177	4.0 tons10.	The amount put into improvements in the coal cleaning at Victoria Junction since 1978 and the saleable product in net tons is shown below.Victoria Junction	Capital	Saleable Product, Net Tons1978	S217,569	1,666.5661979	783,803	1.531.1951980	305,034	1,608,618


Mr. Cossitt: 1. Was a stereo system ordered by the Millhaven Institution near Kingston on July 30, 1981 at a cost of $600 from Amesbury Distributors Limited, 1611 Liverpool Court, Ottawa and, if so (a) did the demand issue voucher ordering this unit state that it was required for educational purposes and for a music
February 12, 1982

course (b) is there a music course given to the inmates at Millhaven and, if not, for what reason was the unit ordered?
2.	Did Mr. C. W Greaves sign the voucher as the originator and did he also sign in a second place under the heading "authorized signature" and is the unit now installed in his office?
3.	Did the signature of Mr. D. Hart dated August 5, 1981 also appear on the form under the heading "fund committed by" and, if so, what is Mr. Hart's connection with this matter?
4.	What is a complete record of the employment in the government of Mr. C. W. Greaves and Mr. D. Hart?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):: In so far as the
Correctional Service of Canada is concerned:
1.	Yes, the Education and Training Division of Millhaven Institution ordered by demand issue voucher and has received from Amesbury Distributors Limited, 1611 Liverpool Court, Ottawa, Ontario, the following stereo system costing $469.00:
1	Radio System, Technics-SA-203
2	Speakers, Technics-SBL-30
(a)	Yes.
(b)	The equipment was to be and will be used with regard to a non-credit music course which the institutional school department had planned and is planning to implement. Its initial implementation has been postponed due to the sudden resignation of the teacher. A high school "credit" course in music has also been planned for the near future.
2.	Mr. C. W. Greaves is the supervisor of academic education. Since March, 1981, he has been appointed to the acting position of assistant warden, education and training. As assistant warden, he is the budget manager for the education and training division hence authorizes all expenditures. As supervisor of academic education he is the originator of the demand issue voucher. This accounts for his two signatures on the demand issue voucher.
The unit is currently being stored in the container as received in the office of the assistant warden, education and training. It is not and has never been out of its container.
3.	Mrs. D. Hart is the funds control officer in the institution's finance department. Her signature indicated that there were sufficient funds to cover the purchase of the item and as of that date those funds were committed toward that purchase.
4.	Mr. C. W. Greaves has been employed by the government for 16'/2 years. His record of employment with CSC is as follows:
6 years, 6 months-Teacher at Collins Bay Institution 1 year-Teacher at Millhaven Institution
8 years, 4 months- Supervisor of academic education at Millhaven Institution
8 months Acting assistant warden, education and training, Millhaven Institution
Mrs. D. Hart has been employed by the government for six years.
Her record of employment with CSC is as follows:
6 months-Finance clerk at Collins Bay Institution
Order Paper Questions
4	months-Clerk, inmate pay at regional headquarters,
Ontario
2 months-Audit clerk at regional headquarters,
Ontario
5	years-Funds control officer at Millhaven Institution


Mr. Beatty: 1.	Does Petro-Canada require social insurance numbers on applications for its credit cards and, if so, for what reason?
2.	Is the government concerned about the proliferation of the use of SINs by departments?


David P. Smith: 1 am informed by the Department of Justice and Petro-Canada as follows:
1.	No. Petro-Canada is presently revising its application forms for credit cards and will not require that social insurance numbers be supplied by applicants.
2.	In response to public concern about the use of the social insurance number within the federal government, the Minister of Justice, on May 23, 1980, extended the terms of reference of a study into the use of the social insurance number, being conducted by the Privacy Commissioner, to include the use of the number by those federal government departments and institutions which are subject to the provisions of Part IV of the Canadian Human Rights Act. This includes all departments and 62 agencies of the federal government.
The Privacy Commissioner's report on the use of the social insurance number in Canada, tabled in the House of Commons on March 31, 1981, by the Minister of Justice, thoroughly documents the use of the number by the federal government. The report indicates that the SIN is used most often by departments and agencies when there is a legal requirement to provide it, such as under the Unemployment Insurance Act, the Canada Pension Plan and the Income Tax Act. It is also used to identify individuals involved in financial assistance programs administered by the federal government and as an employee identification number.
While the report indicates that there is fairly widespread use of the SIN by federal government departments and agencies, it concludes that this is not a matter which should cause concern. This conclusion is based on the primary finding of the report: that the use of the social insurance number does not, in and of itself, pose a threat to the privacy of individuals. The major perceived problem associated with widespread use of the social insurance number is its potential for use as a data-linkage device. The Privacy Commissioner found no evidence that the SIN has been misused as a data-linkage device. Moreover, as data-linkage can now be accomplished by the use of other identifiers, such as name, address and birth date, reducing the use of the SIN would not be an effective method of combating the problems associated with this practice.
Finally, the report points out that there are positive factors associated with the use of a single identifying number. These

February 12, 1982
Order Paper Questions
are primarily related to cost and efficiency. Therefore, while restricting the use of the number within the federal government would do nothing to increase protection for the privacy of individuals, it would result in considerable additional costs to the government.


Mr. Cossitt: Was the decision to transfer foreign service officers of the Department of Employment and Immigration from that jurisdiction to the jurisdiction of the Department of External Affairs made primarily by the Prime Minister and, if so (a) was it discussed and approved by cabinet and, if not, for what reason (b) what were all the reasons that justified such a decision?


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: The
transfer of foreign service officers from the Canadian Employment and Immigration Commission to the Department of External Affairs was made as part of the consolidation of the foreign service, which was announced on March 21, 1980. Providing advice to the Crown on the allocation of responsibilities to ministers is a constitutional responsibility of the Prime Minister. The reasons for consolidation were outlined in the Prime Minister's press release on March 21, 1980, announcing the decision.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Was a contract awarded by the Department of Supply and Services on behalf of the Department of National Defence to Louis Fischl Glove Co. Ltd. of Prescott, Ontario in the constituency of Leeds-Grenville for the purchase of gloves for the Canadian Armed Forces in excess of $20,000 and, if so (a) what was the exact amount of the contract (b) on what date was it awarded (c) what are the names of all those tendering and the amounts of the tenders?
2.	(a) Were tenders called by public advertisement and (i) if not, for what reason (ii) if so, what are all the details (b) were tenders invited and, if so, what is a list of all those invited and on what basis was this list arrived at?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: The
replies to part 1, (a), (b) and (c) (see appendices C, E, K, L) and 2, (a) (i), (ii) are answered as part of question No. 3,547 tabled this day.
2. (b) Bids are solicited from all manufacturers considered capable of manufacturing and supplying a particular item. A list of all firms capable of manufacturing and supplying an item is established by the Food, Drug and Textile Products Centre in conjunction with the industry and federal government customer departments that have the requirement. A facility evaluation is conducted by the federal government customer departments for all new companies that express an interest to do business with the government. At that time, the company's technical and financial capabilities are reviewed and government needs are matched up with the company's capabilities. The company's name is then added to a source list and the company has the opportunity to bid on all government requirements for which they have been pre-qualified.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich): 1.	For each year 1980 to 1982, what quotas were established for the importation of cars from Japan (a) globally (b) by make (c) by model (passenger, pick-up, 4x4, station wagon)?
2.	For each year 1978 to 1981, how many cars were imported from Japan by (a) make (b) model?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: In so
far as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned:
1.	No quotas were established by Canada on the importation of motor vehicles in the years 1980-1982.
The Japanese government announced on June 4, 1981, that exports of passenger cars to Canada would not exceed 174,213 in the period April 1, 1981, to March 31, 1982. Any arrangement with respect to make and models was between the Japanese government and the vehicle producers.
2.	Import data is not available by make and model.
Imports of Passenger Cars from Japan
1978	-129,308
1979	- 61,459
1980	-150,616
1981	(11 months)	-190,917


Mr. Howie: Will cancellation of the P-3C Orion aircraft by the government of the United States and the shutdown of the Lockheed assembly plant affect the supply of parts for the Aurora aircraft which is operated by the Department of National Defence?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: The United States government has cancelled its plan to terminate production of the Lockheed built P-3C Orion patrol plane, of which the Canadian CP-140 is a variant.
We have received confirmation that the U.S. Secretary of Defense has decided to request procurement of six P-3Cs in 1983 and at least five annually thereafter until 1989. This together with orders from other Allied countries will assure us of the continued supply of spare parts necessary to maintain our aircraft.
In addition, since the U.S. Navy P-3 fleet will be operational for a number of years, Lockheed is obliged to provide the required logistics support to navy operations.
With the announcement of the cancellation of the P-3C, Canada as well as a number of other Allied countries, it is reported, advised the U.S. government of their concerns. We consider that as a result of these representations, the U.S. government reconsidered its decision to terminate.
February 12, 1982


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered.


James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary if he could tell me when I can expect an answer to question No. 2,096 which was placed on the Order Paper on February 11, a year ago. The question dealt with the allocation of 17 metric tons of ordinary squid to the Japanese.
I also, Madam Speaker, have question No. 2,464 which was placed on the Order Paper May 12 dealing with information regarding the government's decision to approve urea formaldehyde foam insulation under the government's CHIP program. These are starred questions and should be treated with a little more urgency than the ordinary questions on the Order Paper. Also, Madam Speaker, question No. 2,466, again dealing with urea formaldehyde foam insulation, and question No. 3,274 dealing with Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, and question No. 3,548 on December 14, dealing with the same matter. Those questions have not been answered and 1 hope the parliamentary secretary will take notice of these questions, especially those which have been standing on the Order Paper now for a year and are starred questions and should have been answered.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, I do not have in front of me any specifics with regard to what stage the answers have reached, but I want to assure the hon. member that up until today the government has answered 2,759 questions on the Order Paper, and that I will make inquiries with regard to each and every one of these questions to see if we can expedite the answers he has requested.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Madam Speaker, in a similar vein, I would like to draw the attention of the parliamentary secretary to a much lower numbered question than those previously cited this afternoon. Starred question No. 849 was presented to the House on May 8, not 1981, but May 8, 1980, almost two years ago. This is a very important series of questions dealing with one Peter Moss, chairman of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation, and has to do with the possibility that he was improperly paid for consulting services and that perhaps the government provided an apartment for Mr. Moss here in Ottawa for a number of months without due authority from the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. LeBlanc).
I might say, Madam Speaker, that minister provided me with a draft reply to these questions many months ago, but for some unusual reason the government has not chosen to properly register and record the correct answers. 1 have to speculate as to the possibility that the draft is not correct or accurate, and I therefore would urge the parliamentary secretary to consult his records. I am sure if he would go back to questions numbered below 1,000 there ought to be a very clear and obvious explanation why the government has not chosen to bring these answers forward. I would respectfully request,
Order Paper Questions
Madam Speaker, that the government and the parliamentary secretary be urged to give, as this is a starred question, a full and oral presentation of the answer to question 849 today or at the earliest possible moment.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, again, I do not have the particulars in front of me as to the progress of answers being prepared to those questions. 1 wish to tell the hon. member for Richmond-South Delta (Mr. Siddon) that if he is under the delusion that there are any ulterior motives-


Thomas Edward Siddon: No, 1 would not be under that delusion.


David P. Smith: -which would prevent the information coming forward, I can assure him that that would not be the case.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Of course not.


David P. Smith: I will make every possible inquiry to expedite the filing of these answers.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, if question No. 3,547 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled forthwith.


Madam Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that question No. 3,547 be deemed to have been made an order for return?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Cossitt: How many contracts were awarded by the Department of Supply and Services to the Louis Fischl Glove Co. Ltd. in Prescott, Ontario in the constituency of Leeds-Grenville since the department came into existence or as far back as records exist and what are all the details of such contracts including amounts, goods furnished, methods of calling tenders, names and amounts of all those who tendered in each case?
Return tabled.


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


Madam Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

February 12, 1982
Motion to Adjourn BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Ian Deans: Madam speaker, you can appreciate the difficulty that I face. I have tried everything I possibly could to avoid missing out on the opportunity to place what I consider to be vital amendments before the House. I have come to the ultimate conclusion that I am faced with only one final course. I therefore move the adjournment of the House.


James Aloysius McGrath: He gets curiouser and curiouser!


Erik Nielsen: Do you not want to debate C-78?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Do you have the support of your friends over there, your bedmates?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: I am absolutely astonished!


Ian Deans: You are astonished?


Madam Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea!


Madam Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay!


Gordon Edward Taylor: We want to work!


Madam Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Madam Speaker:: 
Madam Speaker:: 1 declare the motion lost.		
It being after 4	p.m., the House will now proceed to the		
consideration of private members' business as listed on today's			
Order Paper, namely, notices of motions.


[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]
Orders Nos. 48, 50, 51 and 52 stand with unanimous consent.
[Stage Direction]

The House divided on the motion (Mr. Deans), which was	INCOME TAX ACT
negatived on the following division:	„
6	6	MEASURETO AMEND
(Division No. 145)
++YEAS
Messrs.
Althouse
Deans
Heap
Jewett (Miss)
Andre
Appolloni
(Mrs.)
Baker
(Gander-Twillingate)
Baker
(Nepean-Carleton)
Kristiansen
Mitchell
(Mrs.)
++NAYS
Messrs.
Beauchamp-Niquet
(Mrs.)
Begin (Miss)
Berger
Bloomfield
Breau
Caccia
Ogle
Rose
Waddell-9.
Cardiff Carney (Miss)
Clark
(Yellowhead)
Clarke
(Vancouver Quadra) Cooper
Walter David Baker: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of amending the Income Tax Act to change the automatic deduction of one hundred dollars for medical expenses and charitable donations, to an automatic deduction of one hundred dollars for medical expenses, with all charitable donations being deductible from the total income on which tax payable is calculated.
He said: Madam Speaker, if there is one thing I can be thankful for to the NDP today, all five of them, it is that they have brought, by their motion and through the efforts of the opposition and government whips, members into the House to listen to this debate which is of some considerable importance. 1 want to thank hon. members for staying. This is a moment which shall live in my memory as a parliamentarian. Having said that, they have my permission to leave if they wish, since it is Friday afternoon. This is private members' hour and one knows what usually happens to private members' motions. 1

February 12, 1982

think it is very important that we advance private members' motions from time to time.
This is a motion which hopefully is designed to improve the lot of the great army of volunteers in Canada who perhaps do not even know how influential they are, how important they are and what a force for good they are. Thefore, I hope this motion is accepted at least for consideration by the government.
As did the earlier motion of the hon. member for Edmonton South (Mr. Roche)-which I had the honour to second-I hope this motion will centre public attention on the importance of the recognition government ought to give to the volunteer sector.
I said this is a great army of volunteers, and it is. These unsung heroes service the needs of the country. They might belong to service clubs such as Kiwanis, Rotary or Kinsmen. The men and women in those organizations are all brothers and sisters under the sun. They are the people who go from door to door for the Cancer Society, the Heart Association and other charities. The United Way and the people who contribute to it are a force for good, and they are a mighty force.
In a labour force survey released in January of 1981, Statistics Canada noted that 2.7 million adults worked as volunteers in Canada in the year ending February, 1980. Total volunteer hours worked during that year numbered over 373 million, equivalent to approximately 281,000 person-years of volunteer labour. The then secretary of state and now Minister of Communications (Mr. Fox) noted in a speech to the Committee of National Voluntary Organizations in January, 1981, that this labour is equivalent to 75 per cent of the entire federal public service and that if the labour was compensated at the average industrial wage, it would represent a value of $3.5 billion in forgone wages by Canadian volunteers. That is the extent of the work.
Volunteers and the organizations they support are active in virtually every facet of Canadian life. Our 47,000 registered charities provide the vehicles through which a tremendous percentage of our cultural, spiritual, educational and social services are developed and delivered. Hospitals, universities, the Stratford Festival, the YMCA, the Red Cross, UNICEF, the National Ballet and the United Way are all registered charities. The whole concept of universal social and health services was developed by the volunteer sector many years before it was adopted by governments.
Without exception, the cultural and educational institutions we take for granted in this country and elsewhere were started by a few small groups of dedicated volunteers. More importantly, no matter how big they have grown, all these organizations are still run by volunteer boards of directors which raise the funds necessary to keep them going, make the policies that animate their activities and keep them accountable to the communities they serve.
The problem is, however, like everything else in this world, these services have been growing rapidly, and the costs of
Income Tax
providing them have been growing even more rapidly. In response to rising costs, voluntary organizations are becoming even more imaginative in terms of searching for ways to raise the additional and necessary funds. Unfortunately, all their efforts have not been successful, and that is why we hear from time to time of the precarious state of, for example, the Winnipeg Symphony. We hear concerns about United Way campaigns getting over the top, and sometimes they do not. We hear about cutbacks in services at the Sick Children's Hospital in Toronto and in the services of many other necessary organizations.


Mr. Evans:: The cardiac unit.


Walter David Baker: My friend, the hon. member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans), mentions the cardiac unit at the Ottawa Civic Hospital. We face almost a crisis in some of those areas, and we must think about this very carefully and find some answers.
Solutions must be found, but without relying primarily on government grants because sometimes the views of governments on particular activities do not coincide with the views of the leaders and members of voluntary organizations. I think we need a new approach, and if government has a role to play in all this, its role is to create an atmosphere in which people will be enticed to give and support volunteer organizations. I think government has the role of providing incentive for people to give. If this was done, I believe certain things would happen. There would be greater self-reliance on the part of voluntary organizations. There would be enhanced sensitivity and accountability on the part of voluntary organizations to the constituencies they serve. There would be greater participation by citizens in voluntary organizations because, as all of us who are in politics know, the fact of the matter is that a donation from someone usually means a commitment from that person to participate as well. There would be an increase in the number and capacity of voluntary organizations to provide social and economic support to worth-while activities. There would be a diversified financial base.
Given the fact that it is a Friday afternoon, I suggest to the government as kindly as I can, that perhaps once again in the budget we missed a great opportunity to do what this motion would do or what the motion of the hon. member for Edmonton South would have done. Either one of those propositions would be acceptable to me. One would be less expensive to the government than the other, but the basic proposition is to do away with the automatic charitable donation of $100, which does not entice people to give to voluntary organizations, but in fact serves the administrative process more than anything else. It is a matter of the pen claiming the deduction rather than the pen writing the contribution cheque.
The contribution cheque is the purpose behind this motion, and it was the purpose behind the motion of the hon. member for Edmonton South. This would be an encouragement the government could give. I know that the parliamentary secretary or whoever will be speaking today has figures to indicate the costs of my motion and, likely, the cost to the government

February 12, 1982
Income Tax
of the motion of the hon. member for Edmonton South. I do not say this proposal would not cost the government revenue. It would cost the government a tremendous amount of revenue, but this would be a donation by government through a change in the statute. The government would provide an incentive to give. If people do not give, they cannot claim the deduction. Under this proposal the government would ally itself, in terms of the over-all delivery of social services, with volunteer organizations of all kinds, which would be strengthened and enhanced both in terms of the things they could engage in and in terms of their nature. It is in a real way the give and take system.
I think this House should consider this proposal. I hope at the end of this day this motion will be considered by the House not as a direction to government to act, because it is not framed that way, but as a direction to government to consider this proposal as well as the proposal of the hon. member for Edmonton South, which I had the privilege to second.
I have never found anyone in government or in any political party who disagrees in principle with this motion and the idea behind it. Everyone agrees that the current system is inequitable and provides virtually no incentive to people to be generous. The current system causes, at the same time, a considerable expenditure of public funds, because many of the services voluntary organizations cannot provide, but which are necessary, must be provided. I believe the problem is lack of political will to act. It was with that idea of generating that will that the government under the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark), when he was prime minister, proposed a parliamentary task force, as it is called today, or a select committee on the voluntary sector. That proposal stood in my name as the then president of the Privy Council. I was very proud that it happened that way. It would have permitted a committee of the House, as was done in the case of the disabled and in so many other cases, to focus public attention on the requirements of the voluntary sector of the community.
If this debate today will simulate the same desire on the part of the government to propose that kind of special task force, as they like to call it, under the auspices of this Parliament where the voluntary sector and those in the community who depend on it can come and tell us what is required and we can urge the government to make the changes, then I would be very happy. 1 promise that I will not accuse the government of stealing our idea; I would applaud it for that! I would applaud it for its wisdom in the circumstances and, to the extent it was possible for me to do so, I would applaud it from one end of the country to the other.
I think it is important that we not forget, in a period of restraint when government is drawing back and services are being cut back, that there are still needs that have to be served and people who are disadvantaged in the community. There are still groups that are socially and culturally disadvantaged. If the job of government is anything at all, it is to instil in people the will to do public good. If by changes in the tax
system we can remove the disincentive to giving to charities rather than merely claiming the exemption, then I think we will have advanced the cause of humanity in the country and the delivery of social services. If I may say so, we will have done a service by enhancing and helping the government as it moves into this difficult time of restraint.
There is a large army of volunteers out there, Mr. Speaker. It is an army for good. Its will, its sense of what is right, its sense of what is needed should be harnessed. It is within the hands of the government to do that. All of us agree that something should be done now.
The national volunteer organizations and their constituent members would be delighted to see agreement with this motion and the motion of the hon. member for Edmonton South. They would be delighted to see some action by the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen). Indeed, they would be very pleased if we should begin an examination of their importance and their place in society.
If that is the result of the work of the hon. member for Edmonton South and the public consideration of this motion, I will be very pleased. I will support and applaud the government if it will only consider this from the point of view of the appointment of what it calls a parliamentary task force. The need is there and we must create the will and the understanding in the community. We must give those National Voluntary Organizations in the community not just a voice here, but a place here.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) has indicated, the charitable organizations in our country do a fantastic job of serving a need that could never be served by government at any economic cost. They meet the requirements of a large body of Canadians who require services in social and economic areas. We are in the debt of the voluntary sector for the services it provides.
The motion put forward by the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton and an earlier motion by the hon. member for Edmonton South (Mr. Roche) are somewhat different. I would like to go into some of the concerns that I have with these motions.
The National Voluntary Organization has been making representations to government for some time to modify the existing provisions that apply to charitable donations in order to enhance the incentive for people to give. They have put forward a somewhat different proposal than those put forward by the two members opposite.
Earlier last year in my role as parliamentary secretary to the minister I was asked to examine the possibility of pulling together the diverse interests and recommendations made with regard to charitable giving to see how we could enhance them within the fiscal restraints of the government so that there
February 12, 1982

could be some resolution of the differences that have existed among members of Parliament and the volunteer community.
We worked with other parliamentarians in a small group and with people from the voluntary sector to try to come to grips with this question. At the moment 1 understand that this issue is in the hands of the Secretary of State (Mr. Regan) who is putting together a final proposal to be presented either as a white paper or as proposals for legislation in the not too distant future.
This is the second time in this session that we have had a motion dealing with tax deductions for charitable donations. Certainly we all recognize that it is a very important area and one which should be dealt with at the earliest possible moment. There is great interest in and concern about the subject, and this is reflected in the motion we are debating today and in the motion of the hon. member for Edmonton South which was debated on June 9, 1980. These interests and concerns are shared by the government and there has been an ongoing review of the whole question of government initiative for charitable giving, and of the most appropriate form that this incentive could take. There is general agreement that some form of incentive is necessary and justifiable but there are different views on the nature and extent of the incentive and how it should be provided. Today I should like to review some of the considerations that must be taken into account and to look at some of the approaches that might be taken to resolve this issue.
First of all, there are several key principles that must be taken into account in any consideration. One involves equity, which is particularly important in our tax system. Any incentive that we provide through the tax system should seek to deal equitably among taxpayers and this principle, of course, was put forward rather forcefully in the recent budget.
In addition, the incentive should be as effective as possible in relation to its cost to the treasury. In other words, we should try to ensure that the money being put forward in the form of a tax expenditure-that is, dollars not collected by the treasury, that money forgone by the treasury that is naturally picked up by other taxpayers-is allocated in the most efficient manner possible to the charitable organizations in the country.
Another important consideration is that we continue to respect the pluralistic nature of our society. The great variety of our voluntary agencies is important to our social fabric and we should seek to give free rein to this aspect of charitable organizations.
A further consideration that we should bear in mind is the administrative costs and convenience of the approach that we select. There are differences in approach. Some individuals would say that the federal government or a level of government should enter into a direct expenditure program to fund charitable organizations. That is one of the options that have been put forward. Another would be through the tax system, while others could be to use a method similar to the one we have now with an automatic deduction in the tax system to avoid the administrative costs of providing tax receipts for
Income Tax
every donation. On the other hand, it would mean that certain individuals may claim deductions for which no charitable donations were given in the first place.
If we look carefully at the standard $100 deduction which is in place now, we realize that it is actually a disincentive to giving, because an individual who gives nothing has a tax reduction of some amount depending on his marginal tax rate. If his marginal tax rate is 25 per cent, by not giving anything and simply claiming the $100 deduction, he is $25 ahead of the game. Therefore, the first dollar given to a charitable organization reduces that $25. In the first $25 the individual is losing twice; he is giving $1 to a charitable organization and is giving up $1 of tax saving. It is actually a disincentive. I am quite concerned that a standard deduction, which does not require substantiation in the form of a receipt, is actually a disincentive to giving. We would probably see a higher level of charitable donations if we simply eliminated the $100 deduction altogether.
The other question raised by the hon. member's motion suggests that we should have a $100 deduction for medical expenses. There is a slight problem here because the standard rule in the tax law now is that the $100 deduction is for medical expenses and charitable donations. This deduction was really included for administrative purposes, so that people would not have to attach $1 or $2 receipts to their tax forms and send them in. In that event Revenue Canada people would be required to go through the various receipts. We said that the first $100 was automatic whether one gave anything or not. Given that we now have a computerized system which is becoming more sophisticated all the time, it is not beyond my imagination to ask why we could not have standard receipts that are machine readable. This would eliminate a great deal of administrative bother. Employees of Revenue Canada would actually be able to check the individual receipts as they came in, and it would eliminate the disincentive to which I referred earlier.
I have some problems with regard to the medical deduction. As I said, the standard in the present tax system is that an individual can claim medical expenses over and above 3 per cent of his income. The reason for this is that we have one of the finest medical insurance systems in the world, in the form of our hospitalization or medicare. As a result it was thought that only those expenses over and above relatively small expenditures for medical care should be deductible from tax, and that it should be greater than 3 per cent of income. If the first $100 deduction was allowed for medical expenses, we would have a double standard. The first $100 would be deductible, and everything between $100 and 3 per cent of income would not be deductible, and everything over 3 per cent, substantiated by receipts, would be deductible. Given the fact that we have such a very effective medical insurance and medical security system in the country, quite frankly I see no reason for leaving the standard deduction of $100 for medical purposes. If a person has legitimate medical expenses, that is one thing, but if he has good health and no legitimate medical

February 12, 1982
Income Tax
expenses during the year, why should he be able to write off $100 just because it is in the tax system? I am of the opinion that we should eliminate the $100 deduction altogether, and then in Parliament or in committee we could look at the question as to whether there should be additional incentives to charitable giving over and above the fact that charitable donations are deductible from income for tax purposes.
Then of course the question arises as to whether it is adequate incentive or whether we should become involved in an incentive program such as the one put forward by NVO. That organization argues that the present system is an inequitable method of rewarding charitable givings. The suggestion is that a person in the 25 per cent marginal tax bracket receives the benefit of a $25 tax saving, whereas a person in the 50 per cent tax bracket receives a $50 savings. The notion of equity has been called into question in terms of different individuals with different tax brackets receiving different incentives from the public purse for charitable donations. As a result NVO indicated that instead of using a deduction system, it would prefer to see a tax credit whereby, for example, an individual would receive a 50 per cent tax credit. If he donated $100, then he could deduct $50 from his tax payable at the end of the year. This would mean that everyone would receive exactly the same benefit from the contribution, whether their marginal tax rate was 10 per cent or 50 per cent, which is now the top bracket.
Clearly this raises some problems because the top marginal tax rate in the present system is 50 per cent and the average marginal tax rate is less than that. For any given level of donation, obviously the contribution in the form of tax revenue forgone would be much higher under a 50 per cent tax credit than in the present situation. As I understand the current situation, the revenue forgone from the personal and corporate tax system was somewhere in the range of $425 million for the year 1980. Therefore, if we used a 50 per cent tax credit it would not only increase the value of donations given now, it would probably be a substantial incentive to increase donations, and the cost to the treasury could be well in excess of $1 million, although this is only a guesstimate on my part.
For example, if the average marginal tax rate of Canadians was 30 per cent and the tax credit becomes 50 per cent, there is an automatic 40 per cent increase in cost. Of course 40 per cent of $425 million is almost another $200 million, so there is $625 million. If there was an additional incentive effect it would be between $625 million and $1 billion, somewhere in that range. I am not sure how much it would be, but certainly it would be a substantial increase.
At a time of fiscal restraint the government is reluctant to undertake any major program, as the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) indicated on a number of occasions in answer to questions posed over the last couple of weeks. Requests were put forward to increase expenditures over and above the level of the envelopes now, such as to increase the expenditures for job creation and to increase assistance for home owners, farmers, fishermen and so on. The minister has indicated that he is not prepared to do this outside the present
structure and fiscal plan and, as a result, I think he would be quite reluctant to move to a tax credit scheme or some similar scheme which would involve major increases in expenditures from revenue.
It is a very important point which we as parliamentarians should consider. I have raised in the House before that the notion of tax expenditures is an extremely important concept for us to deal with, because we have an expenditure plan which must be financed. If we make conscious decisions not to collect revenue from someone, then someone else or everyone else is required to pay higher taxes than they would otherwise pay to fund the expenditure plan. This is because someone is not paying as much as he would without that tax expenditure being in place. Every time we put a tax expenditure in place we are causing other Canadians to carry a heavier burden than otherwise. It is a very important concept. I tend to think of tax expenditures as just another form of direct expenditures. In one case the government spends taxpayers' money, in the other case the government decides not to collect from some taxpayers. From my perspective the effect is the same in terms of the burden on the taxpayers.
With that said, I would suggest to the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton that it is a very worthy cause he has put forward. I can tell him that the government is actively developing policies in this particular area right now. Proposals will come forward to deal with the voluntary organization question.
I am sure as parliamentarians we can come to a resolution of this problem that will be satisfactory not only to the voluntary organizations but satisfactory from the point of view of the taxpayer in that we will be providing the assistance that all Canadians wish to provide to the voluntary sector in the most effecient and effective way possible.


Mr. Dan Fleap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker. 1 wish to speak in support of the general direction of this proposal for a bookkeeping improvement in the way that charitable donations are handled. While we are considering the subject, we should be willing to give the whole matter of charitable donations a very thorough rethinking.
As times have changed the role of charitable donations should also change. It is now possible that low-income people who are almost by definition the object of charitable giving can do a great deal for themselves. In some ways they can do it better than can be done by those who are the traditional source of charity. We have developed all kinds of techniques for co-operatives. For example, co-operative joint self-education in poor communities and various kinds of mutual help in neighbourhoods. for which a certain amount ol tinancial assistance would be most useful. The question is who controls this? If these local self-help organizations have to be controlled by outside do-gooders, by ladies bountiful, men or women, whatever sex, or by academics who are primarily interested in doing research, the benefit to them is very questionable.
I live in the Kensington area of Toronto which, according to a former member of the provincial legislature, Allan Gross-
February 12, 1982

man, has been studied probably more than any other part of Canada.


Mr. Nickerson:: Except my constituency.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: The Kensington area is just about a mile from the University of Toronto. Every first-year student of sociology, economics, politics, etc., are told to study the Kensington area. It would be cheating to use the study done the previous year or 20 years ago, so people are always coming around to ask us questions. At first there seems to be ready help for local groups and things such as community centres, but students are required to use this practical experience to advance their credits. They are not really able to give free voluntary help to a local group.
Low-income people who need this help have shown a great deal of ability to govern their own organization if allowed to. It would be very useful to have the tax system changed so as to allow them to control the charities that serve them rather than having the charities be instruments by which people of middle and upper-income control the lower-income people.
One way of doing this would be first to make sure that basic services are not treated as matters of charity. The basic services are funded on the tax base or within a particular service, institution or charitable activity. A certain base is funded on the tax base and perhaps extras then are funded by additional charitable donations.
There are many groups which do not yet have adequate funding from the tax base. They have to go cap in hand every year for another grant from the municipal council and another grant from the provincial government and another grant from the federal government. These people spend a large part of their year just trying to make sure that they will still be in business in the future. I am thinking of rape crisis centres which have demonstrated that they are necessary but have great difficulty getting funding. Hostels for battered wives, with or without their battered children, exist. They have proven their worth by the number of people they have to turn away. Yet these hostels are still extremely short of funds. Those that do exist are in a most precarious financial state.
In our large cities we need youth drop-in centres to give youth, who. for w hatever reason ureperhapsalicnated from their homes, if they have homes, some kind of social group around which to orient. This type of thing is desperately needed. It should be provided on a secure basis so that the director and the volunteer board of such a group does not always have to be skewing its work in order to be able to go to a government and show they have such and such a case load and such and such a success rate on a short-term basis which makes basic and long-term work very difficult to do. It would be much better if the work of these groups was accountable in a broad way on the tax base rather than the groups being treated as either strictly private charities or as hybrid outfits who have to beg money from private sources or beg money by annual or semi-annual grants from all levels of government.
The second way that we should make this change is by using a tax credit instead of a tax deduction. The tax credit would
Income Tax
give recognition and appropriate reward to low-income people who give to these things instead of making this a traditional tax haven only for high-income people. Let them have dollar for dollar credit for what they give. If the high-income people wish to give more then they will be credited accordingly. But the low-income people, especially those who do not have enough income to enjoy the privilege of paying income tax, cannot get anything from a tax deduction. But they should be recognized through the system of tax credit.
Finally, and the most important change that would have to be made, would be in the charitable organizations legislation. It must be recognized in order to include clearly and positively the concept of an advocacy group. It should include advocacy groups dedicated and openly committed to trying to produce social changes. We may not all agree on what kinds of social changes are wanted, but we could agree that any organization that seriously tries to put forward a social goal and works toward that goal should be able to solicit donations on the basis of an advocacy group as a charitable organization.
That is already done for three well-known advocacy groups who do not agree about the kind of change they want in this country. I belong to one called the New Democratic Party. My colleagues to the right belong to another and my colleagues opposite, if any of them had stayed around, belong to another. We do not agree exactly about what kinds of changes we want. We are all recognized as being members of a kind of advocacy group. We all have tax credits as a basis for raising our donations. This should not be limited to people running for public office federally or provincially. It should be extended to people who are going to do the other kinds of very necessary work for changing our society.
I am thinking of, for example, consumer organizations and groups such as native friendship centres which have been directly threatened by the loss of their charitable status if they dare to suggest that the Department of Indian Affairs does not always do things right, whether it be the federal or provincial department. They should not be threatened and hampered in carrying out their mandate on behalf of the native peoples of Canada by being faulted as charitable organizations for doing something for which political parties praise themselves, namely, trying to change the laws of this country.
Community centres in Toronto have often been attacked in the same way. They have been told they cannot get political. If the supporters of a community centre do not wish to give money because they do not like the activities of that centre, then the centre will fold. But it should not be in the power of government to say, because your community centre opposed the expressway that the city government happened to like, we do not think you should have your charitable status. That has not been said explicitly, so far, but it has been at times hinted at and we should revise the act so as to make clear that any social group in the neighbourhood should have the right to advocate the things the neighbourhood needs without having to fear for their charitable status.

February 12, 1982
Income Tax
There are many kinds of poor people's organizations. Many of them have not registered as charities, not only because it takes a little money, a little legal advice, and a little organization for which some poor people do not have the training; but also because of the nature of what they are trying to do, trying to change life for poor people, and for some in this country that is an unsatisfactory goal. They do not want the lives of the poor changed. They are able to organize their own charities in many cases, and the poor should be able to organize theirs.
For example, I am thinking, even of such middle groups as the Children's Aid in certain areas which, although it is a traditional group, has often entered into advocacy work, for example in Toronto, by advocating that we need better and more low-income housing, yet they have been criticized for "getting political". Who is it that criticizes them? The politicians.
Some politicians do not like someone encroaching on their monopoly so they say to Children's Aid, you are supposed to rescue the victims of bad housing but you are not supposed to say it is bad housing that made victims of them. They should be enabled to defend the people for whom they are charged as social guardians. They should be able to speak up and say what are the causes of so many broken families, so many disoriented children in our big cities. The chief reason the Children's Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto pointed its finger was the unnecessary shortage of low-income housing in Metro Toronto. They were very much criticized for getting into that.
Tenants' organizations should be able to defend themselves. They should be able to fund themselves as charitable organizations, provided their books, like those of any other charitable organization, are open and their goals are open. Those organizations that I know of are quite willing to do that. They have nothing to hide. It is the landlords who like to keep their books secret.
There are all kinds of ethnic groups and interpreter services who would like to speak for and defend the interests of the immigrant groups they serve. However, they are hampered and hindered by the fear that if they speak up on behalf of those people, many of them low-income and disadvantaged people, they might lose their grants and be unable to continue the service. Of course, we have the interesting situation, which I believe has already been noted here some months past, where an educational publication has been attacked by the government and deprived, at least temporarily, of its charitable status on the grounds that it represents a certain biased point of view. I refer to a magazine called Dimension. On the other hand, an outfit like the Fraser Institute, which is equally biased-


Mrs. Mitchell:: And hardly charitable.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Yes, as my colleague says, hardly charitable in the ordinary sense of the word. That institute can get tax benefits. Then there is an organization which purports to be religious and gets tax deductions for that reason, and carries on its main public activity by trying to destroy certain trustees in our educational system around Metro Toronto. 1 speak of Renaissance. That organization funds vicious and misleading, in fact outright lying propaganda from time to time with money given as charitable donations and recognized as such.
So, in fact we do recognize advocacy, whether it is by political parties, certain religious groups, or certain conservative minded educational groups. Why not be consistent and let the poor also have their advocacy groups and have the same chance to move this country ahead; the same chance that is given to certain other and much more well-heeled groups which would hold this country back. I would hope when this is considered further we will really try to revise the whole concept of the charitable donation system in our tax laws and make it as available to low-income people as it is now to upper-income people.


Mr. Russell MacLellan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, the proposal before the House is essentially the same as that submitted in March, 1978, in a paper from the National Voluntary Organizations, an umbrella organization representing charitable societies. There are some differences, as my hon. friend has mentioned, and I will not go into them, yet the proposal from the NVO and an earlier submission in 1977 from the National Advisory Council on Voluntary Action, have generated broad public interest in this issue. They have led to consultations and detailed study by the Department of Finance on the whole question of the nature and extent of government support and tax incentives for charitable giving.
I think all members would welcome the opportunity provided by this notice of motion to debate this question. I do not think we are in disagreement on the broad parameters of the program and proposals of the hon. member for Nepean-Carle-ton (Mr. Baker).


Walter David Baker: What about a parliamentary task force?


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: A parliamentary task force is one consideration which could be given to this whole question, Mr. Speaker, and we all certainly are agreed on the importance and value of the contribution these organizations make to our society. I do not think any of us here would want to see the voluntary sector stifled and its incentives diminished as a result of anything we may propose in the House. However, the issue is, in what way and to what extent should governments be assisting this effort through provisions of the Income Tax Act. The extent of such governmental assistance through the tax system is already substantial.
February 12, 1982

[ Translation]


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

Monday, February 15, 1982