1982-03-02

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Walter McLean (Waterloo):: Madam Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43 I rise on a matter of urgency for the people of Waterloo region. Despite representations by business and labour to each member of the cabinet committee on Industrial and Labour Adjustment Programs, the government continues to ignore the plight of the growing number of unemployed in Kitchener-Waterloo and surrounding communities.
The meagre support to the automotive parts industry is of little help in addressing the social cost from unemployment across the communities. I move, therefore, seconded by the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty):
That this House direct the government's I LAP committee to bring forward quickly some practical and creative responses to present unacceptably high levels of unemployment, so that communities like Kitchener-Waterloo can, once again, confidently attract industrial growth.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INCREASE IN PRICE OF PETROLEUM-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Madam Speaker, today petroleum prices across Canada rise by another two cents per litre as a result of the government's high energy price policy. This translates into about nine cents per gallon, Madam Speaker, only half of 18 cents. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone):
That this House congratulate the government on only raising oil prices nine cents, not 18 cents this time, and require from the minister confirmation of how many times since September 18, 1980, he has raised prices by only nine cents per gallon instead of 18 cents per gallon, and call on the minister to explain why federal taxes imposed since February, 1980 now approximate 63 cents per gallon on gasoline, home heating oil and other petroleum products.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SMALL BUSINESS
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Madam Speaker, given the daily report about the increasing difficulties of small business in this country I should like to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie):
Whereas Canadian banks are reaching the limits of the funds they are willing to commit to the small business bond program, and whereas this proves that the banks cannot or will not prop up small businesses in financial hardship so that they can meet the increasing difficulties they are facing because of high interest rates, this House calls on the government to admit that the small business bond program is not working in the way in which it was intended, and calls on the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism to indicate when the small business financing review will be made public as it has now been in the process of operation for 20 months.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


POLITICAL PARTIES
Mr. John Evans (Ottawa Centre):: Madam Speaker, I rise pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Whereas the Conservative Party last night demonstrated the ultimate in perverse flip-floppery by voting with the government after forcing a seven-day debate on second reading of the bill designed to relieve many Canadians with mortgage problems, and whereas this Tory filibuster continues to delay the implementation of a program which would generate 70,000 jobs for Canadians, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Gatineau (Mr. Cousineau):
15516

March 2, 1982
That this House urge the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition to abandon his obstructionist tactics and demonstrate his interest in the welfare of Canadians with mortgage problems by co-operating in giving speedy approval to the remaining stages of this bill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE EMIGRANT'S LAMENT
Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot):: Madam Speaker, one of Canada's most renowned cartoonists, Jim Unger, who created the lovable character "Herman", has chosen to leave Canada permanently because, and I quote, "My tax money is going to support things I don't support and there is creeping leftism and a breakdown of law and order in the present government", and according to a recent local poll it was noted that 87.3 per cent of citizens prefer Herman to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), while the other 12.7 per cent think that Herman is the Prime Minister, and since Herman has more charisma than at least two Liberal leadership hopefuls, namely, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray) and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) and, as Jim Unger might imply, we ought not to be giving the Russians a S600 million loan at 10 per cent interest while Canadian farmers are going bankrupt; or spending millions of dollars for monuments in Algeria when Canadians cannot afford homes; or hire Japanese firms-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. That is hardly pressing and urgent.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



ESTIMATES


Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of some urgency under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Restraint and equity were two of the main themes of last November's disastrous budget. The tabling of the 1982-83 spending estimates demonstrates that the government has no intention of practising either. Despite the fact that there are more than 1.5 million Canadians unemployed, the budget for the Canadian Employment and Immigration Commission will only increase by 6.6 per cent, in contrast to a 24 per cent increase in the funds being provided to run the
office of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Ellis):
That the Prime Minister, in the spirit of restraint and equity, take immediate steps to reverse either the percentage of increase with respect to his office and the employment commission, or use his additional funds to hire unemployed Canadians who obviously have a sound, first-hand understanding of the state of our economy.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



GARRISON DIVERSION


Mr. Charles Mayer (Portage-Marquette):: Madam Speaker, the International Joint Commission, in a report on the Garrison diversion project in 1977, recommended that "those portions of the Garrison diversion unit which could affect waters flowing into Canada not be built at this time". Since that time construction on the Garrison has gradually proceeded. Subsequently the House unanimously passed a motion on March 5, 1981, supporting the thrust of the decision of the International Joint Commission. Until recently the only thing preventing continued construction on the Garrison was a court injunction obtained by a private group of Americans. Therefore I move, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, and seconded by the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta):
That the federal government support the suggestion that was made to the Secretary of State for External Affairs in the House on November 19, 1980, to send an all-party delegation of members of the House to Washington to let American legislators know that Canadians are unalterably opposed to construction of those sections of Garrison which will cause damage to Canadian waters.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

[ Translation]



THE ECONOMY


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Madam Speaker, considering the arrogance and lack of co-operation shown yesterday by three federal ministers regarding Quebec's emergency plan for assistance to smaller and medium-sized businesses, and considering the disastrous effects of the Liberal government's economic policies in Quebec and throughout Canada:
March 2, 1982

I move, seconded by the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae):
That this House condemn the Liberal government for its offhand attitude and its refusal to co-operate with the provinces on economic matters.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



THE HONOURABLE MEMBER FOR BROADVIEW-GREENWOOD MOTION UNDER S.O. 43

Mr. Jim Schroder (Guelph):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that the former finance critic of the New Democratic Party is following the lead of the Government of Canada by promising more aid for co-operative housing in the province of Ontario, and that it is rumoured the former NDP finance critic, now leader of the Ontario NDP provincial party, may not remain as a member of the House much longer, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Willowdale (Mr. Peterson):
That before the former NDP finance critic resigns his seat in the House, he use his good offices to attempt to persuade the NDP governments of Saskatchewan and Manitoba to adopt his plan to provide financial assistance to cooperative housing in their provinces.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



POLITICAL PARTIES


Mr. Len Gustafson (Assiniboia):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity to western Canadian farmers. The NDP-Trudeau coalition, in defeating the Progressive Conservative government, has resulted in some very negative effects for western Canada, including the NEP-


Some hon. Members:: Crow, Crow, Crow!


Leonard J. Gustafson: -with increased prices of gasoline of 87 cents per gallon in Saskatchewan.
Oral Questions


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is entitled to have the House hear his motion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leonard J. Gustafson: The result of this coalition action now threatens the removal of the statutory Crow rate in western Canada. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil):
That this government take steps to reverse its position on the statutory Crow rate and condemn the NDP-Trudeau coalition for the detrimental effect it is having on western Canadian farmers.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

['Yesterday the hon. member for Welling-ton-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty) raised, as a matter of privilege, the failure of the government to lay an order made under the Safe Containers Convention Act before Parliament within the period required by the act. The act provides that an order "shall be laid before Parliament not later than the tenth sitting day of Parliament after it is issued". The hon. member, in his presentation, indicated that the order in question was issued on January 21 and was registered on January 22. As he pointed out, Parliament has sat for more than a full month since the issuance of the order. I therefore doubt he has raised this matter at the earliest opportunity. That is one point.\nOf course, it is not the function of the Chair to interpret the law. I must also point out that alleged errors in the tabling of documents have not in the past been ruled to be breaches of parliamentary privilege. The hon. member quoted from a ruling given by my predecessor on February 1, 1979, but I am afraid I cannot agree with his interpretation of the implications of the ruling.\nI would draw attention to two other rulings given by my predecessors. In a decision given on June 27, 1972, concerning the failure to table a report of the National Harbours Board within the period required by the National Harbours Act, the Speaker in the course of his ruling said:\n-I fail to see how this can be considered a breach of the privileges of the House.\nOn June 19, 1978, dealing with a complaint concerning the late tabling of the annual report of the post office, my predecessor ruled:\n-I feel that the hon. member is raising a grievance rather than a question of privilege. I do not see how, under the guise of privilege, the Chair can be drawn into determining a question of law-\nThe hon. member further quoted Erskine May in support of his submission and cited in particular the paragraph appearing on page 138 of the nineteenth edition concerning disobedience to the orders of the House. I cannot agree that the failure to comply with the law constitutes disobedience to an order of the House. While it may be argued that legislation is adopted by Parliament and therefore reflects the will of Parliament, I do not think it possible to sustain an argument that an act of\nTabling of Documents\nParliament constitutes a specific order of the House, either of this House or of the other place. I would also refer the hon. member to page 578 of the nineteenth edition of Erskine May, wherein he has stated:\nBreach of a statutory duty to lay an instrument before Parliament will not of itself invalidate the instrument, though it may amount to a misdemeanour. The resulting situation has been dealt with both by statute and by statutory instrument.\nIt seems clear that such a failure on the part of the government has never come within the scope of parliamentary privilege.\nIn this particular case it is my view that, if the government is indeed in violation of the law-and if it is, it is not for me to determine-the hon. member may have a grievance rather than a valid question of privilege. If the government has not properly complied with the requirements of the Safe Containers Convention Act, a remedy could be sought through the courts or otherwise. However, it would appear-although I emphasize that I am not interpreting the law-that orders issued under the act have no force until the procedures laid down in Section 8 of the act have been complied with. If the government, therefore, chose to rectify any error which might have been made with the least possible delay, Parliament would have an early opportunity of debating the order and coming to a decision on it. Therefore, I cannot find that the matter raised by the hon. member should take precedence over other business as a prima facie case of privilege.']
Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Vancouver South.


Hon. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration who is not presently in the House, although I understand he will be here. Therefore, may I defer my question until he arrives?


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Hamilton-Went-worth.



Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Canadians are again today being hit with price increases at the gas pumps and for home heating fuel. In view of figures from the Department of Finance which tell us that the indirect tax burden for Canadian consumers over the past year was more than $6 billion, which represents $881 per household per year, and since the real income of the average Canadian has declined while the federal government's income has increased, why does the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs not feel a responsibility to protect the consumer

March 2, 1982
Oral Questions
from these devastating taxes and offer some protection particularly for the working poor, the farmers and middle-class Canadians, especially in cases where heads of households are not eligible for GIS?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Madam Speaker, I feel that Canadian consumers have already acted responsibly by getting rid of the Progressive Conservative government, when in addition to all other oil price increases, it was preparing to impose an 18-cent surtax which was entirely unacceptable.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT INTRODUCE ENERGY TAX CREDIT
Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Madam Speaker, that 18-cent excise tax on a gallon of gas looks pretty good compared to what this government is doing to consumers right now.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: And I might add that tax did not apply to the cost of home heating fuel, which brings me to my next question. The federal government has more than $6 billion in energy tax dollars in its coffers now. It will accumulate many more billions of dollars over the next five years. The government is collecting all this tax and contributing nothing in its stead. Why does the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs offer no energy tax credit? Will the government not reconsider for once this means of putting approximately $220 back into the pocket of every consumer?


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, it is quite remarkable how Progressive Conservative members manage to talk out of both sides of their mouths. The Progressive Conservative energy critic feels that the Canadian government is not doing enough for the oil companies and that our energy policy is actually doing substantial harm to the major companies. I am very surprised to hear such divergent views from within the same caucus.


INDUSTRY
Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Yesterday, Madam Speaker, three federal ministers met their counterparts in Quebec City to discuss an emergency plan aimed at helping small and medium-sized businesses, and since the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources acted as spokesmen, my question is
directed to the hon. minister. In view of the disappointment- the minister will understand why-of millions of Quebecers following the federal government's negative answer to Quebec's proposal for an emergency plan; considering the efforts made by the federal government last year and new programs that will probably have an impact in the medium and long term, can the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources inform us today whether he is willing to reconsider the decision made by his team or his party yesterday, namely, to refuse to co-operate with the emergency plan proposed by the Quebec government in view of the importance of saving thousands of small businesses from bankruptcy and putting a stop to the galloping rate of unemployment which is particularly evident in Quebec?


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I believe I cannot allow the minister to answer this question. Perhaps another minister who actually has ministerial responsibility for this area could reply. The hon. member directed his question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources as political spokesman for a region, and 1 do not believe that is allowed in the House.


Hon. Charles Lapointe (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased that the hon. member for Joliette has brought up the subject at this particular time, because the press reports we received following the meeting we had yesterday in Quebec city with our Quebec counterparts in no way reflected what actually happened. We did not refuse to collaborate with Quebec. Concerning Part III of Quebec's request which dealt with an emergency job-creation program, we indicated to our Quebec counterparts that a firm proposal had been made by our Minister of Employment and Immigration to create jobs in Quebec in the near future. However, the Quebec ministers preferred to play petty politics by leaving the meeting and announcing that we refused to help small businesses in Quebec. However, at the present time, our programs are able to help more than 7,000 Quebec businesses. The programs proposed by ministers Biron and Landry were aimed at helping
1,000	Quebec businesses in the manufacturing sector. We have left the door open. We asked whether we could fit our programs in with the Quebec programs so that Quebec entrepreneurs and Quebec businessmen and women would be able to make use of our programs sooner and in greater numbers and more federal funds could be put to work in Quebec's economy.


FOOTWEAR-REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT TAKE MEASURES TO ENSURE VIABILITY OF INDUSTRY
Roch La Salle: Madam Speaker, I should think that the minister will acknowledge that he indeed rejected Quebec's proposal and offered them a program which is that of the federal government. In a more specific field, I have a question for the Minister of State for International
March 2, 1982

Trade. Considering that the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe, following in the footsteps of the other ten, made public a letter to denounce openly the policy of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce with respect to the footwear industry and decided to make public a letter written to the Minister of State for International Trade, would the minister tell the House whether he has received the letter from the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe who rightfully blames his colleague the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, and does the Minister of State for International Trade intend to make recommendations to his colleague the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce with a view to ensuring the viability of the footwear industry in Quebec as well as in Ontario and Canada?


Hon. Ed Lumley (Minister of State (International Trade)):: Madam Speaker, I received the letter alluded to by the hon. member as I receive representations from many members on this side of the House with respect to the footwear industry. We are looking at the possibilities of rectifying some of the situations referred to in the letter.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Yesterday, while in British Columbia, 1 learned that two more manufacturing contracts associated with coal development in the northeastern part of that province had been bid on by companies from Japan, France, and here in Canada. Is the minister aware that the Canadian bid was the lowest of the three but, in spite of that, the projects and the jobs are going to foreign countries? If he is aware of that, when is the Government of Canada going to take steps to make sure that manufacturing jobs associated with resource development stay in Canada?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Madam Speaker, I will be very happy to get further details of the projects mentioned by my hon. friend and get back to him about them. Our general policy is that, where Canadian companies are competitive, then they should have a full and fair opportunity-


Mr. Siddon:: What about a preferred opportunity?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: -to take part in the industrial benefits from major projects of this sort, and I certainly want to work to see that this policy is respected.
Oral Questions


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I can tell the minister why; I learned that in British Columbia yesterday as well. The reason we lost these manufacturing jobs in Canada is due entirely to this government's high interest rate policy. The Japanese have underbid us on the financing by offering an 8V2 per cent interest rate, so we are losing jobs because of this government's high interest rate policy. That is the reason.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


NATIONAL HARBOURS BOARD
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the minister a related question, this time concerning another Japanese firm and relating to the Ridley Island project. As we know, last week it was announced that this contract went to a Japanese firm instead of a Canadian firm which also had a lower bid. I want to ask the minister whether he will confirm to the House that, as a result of the loss of this contract, Canadians will lose 150,000 man-hours of employment which ought to reside in Canada.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I am not in a position to confirm that that will be the result in terms of lost man-hours, because I understand that the contract which was awarded involved 53 per cent Canadian content. That, in itself, must amount to a substantial amount of Canadian employment.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I point out to the minister that the Canadian firm, which was lower in price, offered 96 per cent Canadian content, which was just a little better than the Japanese firm.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


NATIONAL RESOURCES
John Edward Broadbent: I would like to ask the minister, given the government policy of selling off resources at almost any price it can get, and given the lack of a related manufacturing development policy, when will the Government of Canada submit an integrated development policy to the House which will ensure that Canadian resources, when they are sold, will be sold at prices which will maximize Canadian benefits and will not be sold under conditions which do not include the maximum number of manufacturing jobs associated with their development which is occurring here in Canada?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

March 2, 1982
Oral Questions


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, my hon. friend is quite mistaken in his premise to this question. Our policy is not as described by him with respect to selling of resources. Our poicy is, however, very much one of ensuring to Canadians, on a full, fair and competitive basis, the spin-offs in terms of industrial benefits coming from resource projects.


Mr. Andre:: Since when?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: We are speaking about jobs and we are speaking about manufacturing opportunities-


An hon. Member:: Where are they?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: -as well as service opportunities. That is why we put in place our office of industrial and regional benefits and our objectives and guidelines for major project sponsors. Even though some of these matters are under provincial jurisdiction, we intend to be working increasingly effectively to ensure that Canadian companies and Canadian workers receive these benefits. This is our policy; this is what we are doing.


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: You are driven.


FINANCE
Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Madam Speaker, I address my question to the Minister of Finance, and 1 hope we get better response than the bluster we got with the last answer. My question relates to the huge loss in foreign exchange reserves in the month of February, amounting to some $800 million. This, as the minister is well aware, is a culmination of the drop in the value of the Canadian dollar from the time of the budget at 85 cents to the current level of approximately 81.25 cents.
Could the minister tell the House the reasons for the weakness in the dollar? Why have the reserves fallen as much as they have, and how much of the drop in the reserves is related to the dropping out last week of three of the participants in the Alsands project?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Do not blame the Americans for that.


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, in my view the drop in the exchange rate in the past month has been mainly due to the interest rate developments or the relationships in interest rates between Canada and the United States. I believe that this level of reserves and the recent change in the level should make it very clear that the Canadian government has no plan to devaluate the Canadian currency and is standing firmly behind the Canadian dollar.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER CHANGE POLICIES
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, it is very clear that the drop in the reserves is related to many
more things than the interest rate factors to which the minister has referred. It is related to the Alsands mess, the National Energy Program, and the attitude of this government toward investment, both domestic and foreign.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: It is related to the anti-investment attitude expressed in the budget. All of these together have resulted in a huge outflow of capital which, last year, was six times the level of the 1970s.
Is the minister considering a reversal of some of these policies which are causing such chaos in the foreign exchange markets, which resulted in record high interest rates in this country during the past year, and which are causing so many problems to our economy? Is he prepared to make some changes in those policies?


An hon. Member:: Don't blame the Americans.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The hon. member asked me what my opinion was of the change in the level of Canadian reserves and the drop in the Canadian dollar over the last month, which is well known to all of us. I gave him my reason, my considered judgment, that the principal reason for that is mainly the interest rate relationship between Canada and the United States, particularly the fact that at one point that relationship was negative and Canadian rates were lower than United States rates, and that is bound to have an impact on the exchange rate and influence the intervention of the exchange rate authorities. That is my view.
The hon. member rose and then said that is all wrong, and gave his own reasons. The hon. member is entitled to have his own reasons. I disagree with them. Therefore I do not suggest that the policy changes he recommends are appropriate nor would they bring about the effects that he believes they would achieve.


AVIATION INDUSTRY
Donald Alex Blenkarn: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board who has before him an application to authorize the guarantee by the Government of Canada of a $150 million U.S. loan to Canadair Limited at 15.5 per cent. In view of the fact that the company's statement for the year ending December 31 shows the company has a debt of $973.7 million and only had a net income of $3 million, does the President of the Treasury Board
March 2, 1982

feel it prudent that the Government of Canada should make further guarantees of further loans to Canadair?


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (President of the Treasury Board):: Madam Speaker, we all know how important Canadair is to the Canadian aerospace industry and what a marvellous product it has been able to develop in the new Challenger jet. i am surprised at the implication of the question from the hon. member.


An hon. Member:: Why don't you answer the question?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Madam Speaker, my question was to the President of the Treasury Board. I am surprised he did not answer with respect to the prudence of the loan.
Bearing in mind the government problem that he got into with respect to Consolidated Computer Incorporated, and bearing in mind the advice he received from the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce with respect to the viability of that corporation, and bearing in mind the study of the Enterprise Development Board that he has before him, I would ask the minister, then, is he going to have a full study of the Enterprise Development Board and Canadair, is he going to table the Canadair statement, and is he going to table new projections with respect to Canadair, to indicate that we are not going to have another Consolidated Computer on our hands as might be indicated by the information he now has with him.


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, as the hon. member knows, when guarantees are brought forward they will be the subject of supplementary estimates in this House. Then he will have ample opportunity to raise all his questions with the responsible ministers in Committee.


HOUSING
Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Madam Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the minister responsible for housing. Tomorrow the minister will be addressing a seminar sponsored by one of the largest real estate agencies in the country, the theme of which is creative financing and the legal obligations of home buying. I would like to ask the minister responsible for housing, as we face another serious shortfall this year in housing starts, which could go as high as
70,000	by the minister's own projection, as we face continuous high interest rates, which could see mortgages continue to escalate around the 20 per cent mark, which means of course that the minister, by his policies, is contributing to housing inflation, would the minister tell the House what advice he proposes to offer to first time home buyers, tomorrow?
Oral Questions


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, at this time last year when housing starts were at a five-year high, seasonally adjusted for the month of March, somewhere around 242,500, it was interesting that there was no question from the learned member who has just asked that question. That was a time of prosperity. He cannot stand the improvement in the housing situation and which is so important. Last year, for the first time in five years, we had that improvement in the number of housing starts, one year over the last. As I indicated, I hope that that strength in the industry will be reflected in this year's production.
One of the things I do intend to say to the other panelists and to people who may attend is that I hope they will encourage members opposite, some of those who supported Bill C-89 last evening, and those of the New Democratic Party who voted against them, that if they would support Bill C-89 there are provisions in it to assist Canadians looking for a first time purchase of a home.


An hon. Member:: He is the next candidate for parliamentary secretary.


NUMBER OF UNITS TO BE FINANCED UNDER BILL C-89
James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, it seems entirely appropriate that the minister would be speaking to a seminar sponsored by a real estate company, because it is only the real estate companies and the banks that are benefiting from the government's housing policies. I would like to ask the minister this question. This morning, on the "Canada AM" program, the minister indicated that the
15,000	apartment units which would benefit from the bill now before the House, Bill C-89, is only a floor, only a minimum. That is the first time the minister has given the House that information.


An hon. Member:: He did not give it in the House.


James Aloysius McGrath: May I ask the minister what he considers to be the total number of units to be financed under Bill C-89, since the 15,000 mentioned in the bill is only a minimum?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, I welcome the obviously serious question by the critic for housing from the official opposition.


An hon. Member:: Give a serious answer, then.


Paul James Cosgrove: I invite him in the same spirit to look at page 14, paragraph 4 of the document that was tabled with the budget, called "Budget in More Detail", which sets out in further detail the fact that the $350 million allocated to assist in the production of affordable rental accommodation is intended to do that. It is intended to be a start for 15,000 and, if there is a surplus, to assist in further production during the later period of this year or next year.

March 2, 1982
Oral Questions ENERGY


AGREEMENT WITH NOVA SCOTIA ON DEVELOPMENT OF OFFSHORE RESOURCES
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. It concerns the very significant energy agreement between the federal government and the province of Nova Scotia. I would like to ask the minister if he could elaborate on certain points regarding this agreement, in particular the duration of this agreement, where does this exactly leave the question of ownership of the offshore, resources, and whether this same type of agreement is available to the province of Newfoundland.


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister of Canada and the Premier of Nova Scotia have signed today a long-term offshore agreement on offshore resources development, offshore Nova Scotia. This agreement is for an indefinite period, but will last at least until the year 2024. It provides for very generous revenue sharing and for a real participation by the government of Nova Scotia in regard to those offshore resources. That agreement obviously is available to the province of Newfoundland also, and we would be willing and ready to sign the same type of agreement with the province of Newfoundland tomorrow, if the government of Newfoundland wished to do so.


RAILWAYS
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. On Friday last 1 raised with the minister the fact that there were 28 tank cars in the Hamilton yards that were leaking a variety of different toxic and flammable substances. I want to suggest to the minister that that number has been raised now from 28 to 74, that between the months of October and December an additional 46 tank cars were found to be leaking, and in every case the leaks were discovered as the result of mechanical work being done on tank cars. Is it not possible that those tank cars had been leaking all the way from Sarnia to Hamilton through each of the municipalities on the way, and does he not now recognize, as a result of the weekend disaster, that there are many people in jeopardy by the lackadaisical attitude of the CTC?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, I have not yet received a report from the CTC on that subject. I hope to get one very soon.


REQUEST FOR TABLING OF INSPECTION REPORTS
Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the minister if he is prepared to table all the investigations that have taken place, all of the work records that have been undertaken, and all of the testing that was done, both at the source and along the way, on every single tank car which travelled on that train which travels from Sarnia to Hamilton to Nanticoke. Will he explain how it is possible that an adequate inspection procedure can be carried out, given the tremendous number of people who have been laid off by the CNR and CPR, the result of which obviously means that there are not a sufficient number of people employed to do the work?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I will indeed give consideration to that suggestion. On the other subject which the hon. member had been recommending, in recent days, that is the addition of a substantial number of people to inspect railway cars, I have had this suggestion analysed. Hon. members might recall that yesterday I indicated how the inspection of cars takes place. I indicated that it is done a number of times, by the shipper, by the railways, and by the receiver of the goods. I have had estimated the consequences of one of these suggestions which the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain has been making to the press. For example, the complete mechanical inspection of all railway cars twice a year would require approximately 1,300 people, or person-years at the CTC. That would only be part of the examination, the examination of the car itself. Presumably my hon. friend would also like us to start examining the tracks, the crossings, the operators, etc. There might be more examiners at the end of the exercise than cars to be examined.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
John Allen Fraser: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Yesterday the minister confirmed that the November budget forecast on the unemployment insurance fund deficit was wrong, that the deficit may be much higher than the $218 million predicted. The deficit of $218 million was based on an unemployment forecast for 1982 of 7.8 per cent. Can the minister tell the House what the revised unemployment rate is?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, I would like to clarify for the hon. member that my only indication at the time was that we would have to see what the revised figures would be according to our quarterly estimates of what the actual draw was on the unemployment insurance fund. It is obviously a revolving fund and has to keep pace with current conditions. It should come
March 2, 1982

as no surprise to the hon. member, or to anyone else, that we have a substantial demand upon the fund at the present time because of the current very serious economic circumstance. I would point out to the hon. member again, in case he has forgotten, that this government substantially reduced the premiums on unemployment insurance in that November budget. We provided substantial savings to both employers and employees in that budget. That saving provides a major asset at this point in time. There is no projection of figures. It is one we would simply calculate based on quarterly assessments of UI draws.


REASONS FOR DEFICIT
John Allen Fraser: Madam Speaker, the minister said, "It may mean there will have to be some increases in rates next year." I come back to my question which the minister was careful not to answer. If the deficit that was in the budget in November was based on an unemployment rate of 7.8 per cent, and if the minister is now confirming what his officials are indicating, that the premium rates will have to go up to cover a much greater deficit, can the minister tell us whether there are any projections whatsoever within his purview which indicate that the unemployment rate of 7.8 per cent which was predicted for 1982 is wrong? If the minister now says there may be a deficit, to what does he attribute that deficit-a wrong estimate of unemployment or increasing unemployment? If it is increasing unemployment, will he kindly tell us what that increase is going to be?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I think the important words in the statement 1 made were that there may have to be a raise in premiums, depending upon the draw on the fund. There was no confirmation. There may have to be a raise if unemployment stays at the present level of 8.3 per cent. That is a conditional statement, not a confirmed statement. I would simply say that is the basic practice. Each year we estimate what the draw will be upon the fund and what the premium requirements will be for the following year to make it up. Last year we had a substantial surplus of over $300 million. As a result, we substantially reduced the premiums. We will want to assess that as the year progresses and at the end of the year determine whether we have to raise or lower premiums, depending on the state and condition of the fund. I would caution the hon. member not to get too excited.


REQUEST FOR UNEMPLOYMENT FORECAST
John Allen Fraser: Madam Speaker, I am sorry if I have to be cautioned not to get too excited. The minister's comments have led to speculation that his own department probably now has different figures of what it expects the unemployment rate will be during 1982. I do not want the minister to fudge on this. I am asking whether the minister has any figures which lead him or his officials to believe that the unemployment rate for 1982 will be different from the 7.8 per cent presented in the budget of his colleague.
Oral Questions
We know that a lot of the projections in the budget have been wrong. I am giving the minister a chance to indicate whether he is working on a new forecast. The country is certainly entitled to know that. I do not think I can be accused by the public, the workers, or their employers, of getting too excited about the matter.


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity the hon. member gives us to clarify the situation because the only speculation that is being raised is on the part of the hon. member and in some news stories trying to develop projected figures. We say the reality now is that there is an 8.3 per cent unemployment rate. That is a serious and tragic circumstance. We are taking a number of steps to offset it. In the hon. member's province alone we have signed close to 40 worksharing agreements which are putting thousands of workers back to work in his province. The same is true right across Canada. We are not going to engage in the kind of speculation the hon. member does. We are not in the business of raising false alarms as the members of the opposition do.


ALSANDS PROJECT-QUERY RESPECTING POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVE PRODUCTION
Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The minister has stated on a number of occasions that the Alsands project is not needed for Canada to reach energy selfsufficiency by 1990. Indeed, last Friday the minister would not give a guarantee that the Alsands project would proceed. What alternative does the minister have to replace the shortfall of
130,000	barrels of oil from the projected production of Alsands?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I have indicated that we should do everything we can to get the Alsands project proceeding and that this production would be extremely useful in achieving our goal of self-sufficiency. The latest forecasts we have of production coming out of the east coast offshore production and the Beaufort Sea production indicate that we can count on at least 200,000 barrels being available from that production by 1990.


PRODUCTION FORECASTS
Jack Wendele Shields: Madam Speaker, I wonder if the minister realizes that these forecasts along with the Ocean Ranger are now at the bottom of the sea. From the information the minister has given us, it is indeed a black day for Canada when he admits in this House that Alsands is not required, to the detriment of jobs in Canada and our economy with its weak dollar. I have nothing to ask him because he has indicated in this House very clearly-

March 2, 1982
Oral Questions


Marc Lalonde: Very simply, Madam Speaker, I told the hon. member that the Alsands project would indeed be a very welcome development and that we should do everything to ensure it takes place. However, there is a limit on what the taxpayers should be called upon to contribute. There is not a bottomless pit in the public treasury. My hon. friend should be old enough and wise enough to realize that.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I want to ask the minister about the poster which has been put out, as Commonwealth Day approaches, for the second year in a row by his office, to commemorate the affair. I am wondering about whether the fact that the High Commissions-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: -of Canada are eliminated-


Madam Speaker:: Order. The hon. member knows that he may not display a poster in the House.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: I am sorry, Madam Speaker; I just want the minister to be sure what I am talking about. I wonder if it was a fait accompli, that his office was planning to cut off relationships with Commonwealth countries? Why is it that Canada's High Commissions have been replaced by embassies, according to this chart, a term which is reserved for nonCommonwealth countries?


Walter David Baker: (Nepean-Carleton): You need a new artist over there.


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, without having seen what the hon. member held in his hand, I cannot comment on that poster, but I can say that the notion of Commonwealth Day was advanced by our Prime Minister some years ago. It has been adopted across the Commonwealth and we are very pleased to observe it here in Canada because of the intense dedication that we have to the Commonwealth ideal.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Madam Speaker, I am shocked that the minister is not aware of this poster which has been put out for at least the second time to commemorate the very day he is talking about, and Canada's ties with the Commonwealth. I
suggest that he familiarize himself with it and consider a correction for next year's poster.


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In view of the fact that approximately 18,000 workers are laid off in the Canadian auto parts manufacturing industry, and in view of the fact that Canada had a $4.35 billion net trade deficit in trade last year, would the minister explain to this House just why he refuses to raise the Canadian auto parts content to 85 per cent in Japanese cars and trucks being sold here in Canada?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, the objective of increased content is very much part of our strategy policy as a government.
We have taken a number of steps for the purpose of working toward this direction, for example, our arrangement with Volkswagen. Another example is our individual duty remission agreements with a number of car exporting companies. The matter of Canadian content in parts and vehicles is something that we put forward very forcefully in our discussions with Japan in particular, and we will be continuing to do so.


An hon. Member:: A broken record.


CANADA-JAPAN NEGOTIATIONS
Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Madam Speaker, I gather that the minister's buzz word in his answer was "forcefully". Therefore my supplementary question is to the Minister of State for International Trade. Will the minister undertake to assure the Canadian auto parts industry and its workers that at the talks in Japan in two weeks time Canada will insist on much greater Canadian content in Japanese autos and trucks, eventually leading to 85 per cent, in view of the fact that this is a labour-intensive industry and not part of the other resource-based megaprojects which are really causing fundamental structural problems in our economy?


An hon. Member:: Say yes, Ed.


Edward C. Lumley: Madam Speaker, as the hon. member knows, in response to one of his colleagues last week I stated that we would be initiating a content proposal during our negotiations with the Japanese. I do not think it would serve the interests of the industry or the Canadian workers to discuss those negotiations in the House at the present time.
March 2, 1982


DANGEROUS PRODUCTS
Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In light of the publication of European studies which reveal that steel wool might be just as hazardous as asbestos, would the minister tell the House whether his department has made a study on that subject?


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question. I can assure her that the officials of my department are now examining that question and that I will report to the hon. member as soon as possible.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It concerns the boundary negotiations on the AB line on the northern coast of British Columbia. One of the senior officials of his department is quoted as saying, "I see no relationship between the salmon talks and the boundary negotiations with the U.S. The Canadian government is not willing to jeopardize its trade agreements with the U.S. over a boundary dispute". Would the minister confirm that this is the position of the Canadian government on that particular boundary dispute?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, 1 can confirm that that is not our position. The position of our government is consistently that each issue must be taken on its own merit. We do not engage in bargaining one issue against another. It is for this reason, indeed, that we have been taking great exception to some of the proposals made recently in the United States whereby they would propose actions of that kind. Whoever made that statement is not enunciating government policy; quite the contrary.


QUERY RESPECTING MAINTENANCE OF BOUNDARY
Benno Friesen: Madam Speaker, my supplementary is to the same minister. Will he confirm that Canada's position is to maintain an historic boundary line which has existed now for 80 years?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, when the hon. member puts his question in those terms I do not know whether he means to exclude additional claims which we might have. We are certainly not contemplating abandoning any of our traditional
Oral Questions
claims, but we do not necessarily limit ourselves to traditional claims.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment and Minister of State for Science and Technology. Would the minister advise the House what progress was made at his meeting with his American counterpart in Washington last Wednesday which dealt with our mutual problem of acid rain? Specifically, did the American government make a commitment to equal the commitment of the Canadian government to cut down emissions which cause acid rain by 50 per cent by the year 1990?


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of the Environment and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Madam Speaker, meetings did take place last week between the two negotiating teams of Canada and the United States on the acid rain question. These are difficult negotiations. They are proving to be difficult. We did have the opportunity at that meeting to put forward our proposals which, after consultation with the provinces, are that we are prepared to see that sulphur dioxide emissions in Canada are reduced by 50 per cent by the year 1990. These are contingent upon American action in meeting similar reductions. The proposals which we have presented are being assessed and studied by the American administration. There is some progress in the sense that the American government will be appointing scientific assessors before the end of the month to review the scientific evidence.


An hon. Member:: Why not just say no.


John (Moody) Roberts: That is a step forward. Negotiations will continue and I expect that we will meet another three times before the end of this year. That is the extent of the progress to date.


PROMISE MADE BY PRESIDENT OF UNITED STATES
George Harris Hees: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. In view of the minister's answer and the fact that the United States Department of the Environment has cut back its number of employees by 40 per cent since the first of the year, thereby indicating a far lower level of activity in attempting to control the environment from now on, both of which indicate that the U.S. government is very badly dragging its feet in this matter, would the Prime Minister tell the House how does the stand of the American government at the present time, as displayed by the minister's answer, and the facts which I just brought out, compare with the very warm, fulsome promise by the President of the United States, Mr. Reagan, when he was

March 2, 1982
Resignation-Mr. Rae
here last year, that the United States would give 100 per cent co-operation to Canada in our mutual fight against acid rain?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member points out two facts. First, the U.S. administration has, according to the hon. member, cut back on the number of its public servants in a certain area. I cannot judge that. I know they have been cutting back rather substantially in many areas and perhaps that is just one of the many areas where this has taken place.
However, in terms of the second fact which was brought forward by the hon. member, 1 listened to the answer given by the Canadian minister responsible for the environment and it seemed to me that he indicated, on the contrary, that there were more meetings planned, that there had been a draft agreement tabled, that progress was slow but that progress nonetheless was expected.
The hon. member alluded to President Reagan's commitment to me of, I believe, last March, when he was in this House of Commons. He did indeed commit himself to reaching an agreement with Canada on a diminution of energy pollution, and that commitment was restated when 1 visited the White House in July. 1 take those commitments as indications of a desire to negotiate in good faith, and I take from the minister's answer some evidence of that desire.


George Harris Hees: This is the Americans' way of dragging their feet.


HOUSE OF COMMONS RESIGNATION OF MR. BOB RAE
Mr. Bob Rae (Broadview-Greenwood):: Madam Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bob Rae: If hon. members keep this up too long, I'm likely to change my mind!


Some hon. Members:: No, no!


Bob Rae: I knew that would have the desired effect.
As many hon. members will be aware, I was fortunate enough to be honoured by my provincial party and to be elected to a position of leadership in my native province of Ontario. Because 1 feel so strongly that the electors of Broadview-Greenwood should be represented full time in the House of Commons and because I have come to recognize, as those who are in positions of leadership will know only too well, just how awesome are the responsibilities of leading a party, I have decided that I should submit my resignation to you, Madam Speaker, as the member of Parliament for Broadview-Greenwood. In doing so, I would like to pay tribute to my electors, the voters of Broadview-Greenwood, who three times have done me the honour of electing me as their Member of Parliament.
It was three and a half years ago that I was first elected to this place, and I am sure those hon. members who have come here through the struggle of partisanship will know and understand what I am saying when I simply say that in a democratic society such as ours I regard it as, perhaps, the greatest honour that could be bestowed on anyone to have been elected to the Parliament of Canada; and I want to thank the people of Broadview-Greenwood for their advice, for their encouragement and for the warmth of their friendship. Whatever party they may or may not have belonged to or supported, I will respect them always, and I thank them from the bottom of my heart for having done me the honour of electing me to this place.
I am sure hon. members will understand when I express my gratitude to my staff and particularly to my constituency assistant, Valerie Lawson, who has served me and my predecessor, John Gilbert-who is now a judge in the province of Ontario-with tremendous dignity, distinction and hard work. I think it is important for everyone here to remember that our staffs are our eyes and ears in our constituencies for listening and serving the people, and I want to pay public tribute to them.
I want to thank my colleagues in the New Democratic Party. We have had our differences from time to time. From what I understand and read in the newspapers, occasionally all caucuses have differences of opinion. Even in the party opposite I understand there are differences of opinion. However, I want to say that it has been a pleasure, an honour and a lot of fun to participate with my brothers and sisters in bringing the message of social democracy to the people of Canada through this Parliament.
1 want to thank members of other parties. I do not think the public understands sufficiently the necessity and the fact that all of us-I hope-make a distinction between things which are said in the spirit of political partisanship and the friendships and the sense of colleagueship we all feel in our common work which is, I suggest, to serve the people of our constituencies, the people of our provinces and the people of Canada.
There are a great many people in all parties I could single out who have given me the gift of friendship, which I regard as perhaps the greatest gift we have. They have given me much good advice-sometimes after I made mistakes rather than before I made them! 1 particularly want to pay personal tribute, as it were, to those ministers who have responded to my questions, or not responded to my questions, as they saw fit.
I will not take too long, and I hope Your Honour will indulge me, but I was looking over the very first question I asked when I came to this House, and I think it shows the quality of repartee in this institution. The second question I asked was directed to the then minister of finance, the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien). In the last part of my question I said:
March 2, 1982

-will be reconsider and suspend the government's present policy of restraint and cutback which is only increasing unemployment insurance payments and welfare expenditures?
The minister's reply to that was to say that he had no intention of introducing exchange controls at that time!
I have asked several questions since that time. 1 still have not received the answer I want, which might explain why I have decided to leave. However, I do want to pay tribute particularly to the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie), the Minister of Justice and the current Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) for their courtesy to me as the finance critic for our party. Perhaps 1 should preface that by saying "personal courtesy" to me, because my political differences with these ministers are, of course, a matter of record.
When I came here the Liberal Party was on its last legs.


Mr. Epp:: Still is.


Mr. Nielsen:: No change.


Bob Rae: It had become the captive of a neo-conservative ideology. It was desperately afraid of an election. The Conservative Party had the distinction of having five finance critics, not just one, and all I can say is that when I arrived here I was very green and wet behind the ears. The point of those three remarks is that perhaps nothing changes at all.
In closing, I want to thank you, Madam Speaker, for your courtesy, to thank the officers at the Table for their help, to thank the Sergeant-at-Arms and to thank all the staff of this House of Commons, the people who make this place work and make it the wonderful place it is.

Madam Speaker, I should like to say a few words to express my heartfelt thanks to the constituents in my riding of Broad-view-Greenwood, to those who worked with me in the party, to those in the other parties who worked together with us for the future and welfare of our country. 1 wish to thank you, Madam Speaker, and all the senior officials of the House of Commons for their friendship, their assistance and the work they have done, all of which has been a great help to me in my own work.

Finally-and I am sure hon. members will understand when I say this-my deepest thanks of all go, of course, to my family, whose indulgence, support and love have made it possible for me to be a Member of Parliament and to have spent so much time away from them. My family has participated with me in the tremendously rewarding life which is the life of a politician.
Since I am not retiring from politics, Madam Speaker, quite the contrary, I do not regard this as a tremendously nostalgic event. I want to close, along with a book I read recently, by saying that what is past is prologue. I want to thank you and to
Resignation-Mr. Rae
thank hon. members for your friendship and help these past years.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):: Madam Speaker, I have never been elected in Broadview-Greenwood; in fact, I have never run for office in Broadview-Greenwood, but somehow I feel very close to that riding. I want to tell the hon. member that I intend to take a great deal of interest in it in the weeks and months ahead and perhaps to spend a great deal of time there.


John Edward Broadbent: That is good news for us!


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I have been in one more election than my hon. friend and I have sat in one more Parliament than he has. I want to make the observation that this has been a particularly bitter Parliament for all of us-very partisan, with lots of confrontation and difficult moments. At a time like this, which comes infrequently, we have the opportunity to share a common bond-Liberals, Conservatives and New Democratic Party alike-in the service of our country from the various perspectives we bring to this place.
I can say for my party that it has been an experience for us to sit opposite the hon. member and watch his performance over the years that he has been here. To borrow a very traditional line, as he leaves this place to continue his political battles, Madam Speaker, we wish him well-but not too well!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker,
I should like very much to respond on behalf of the "five official opposition finance critics" that the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae) referred to. I, too, would like to wish him the best, though I am not sure the best of what. On behalf of the Conservative Party, however, I can say that we would like to wish him long tenure in his office as leader of one of the opposition parties in the province of Ontario.
On a serious note-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, I think I have stunned the House! We would like to wish the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood the best of everything in his new position. We understand the tremendous responsibilities he has taken on. 1 am sure the experience he has gained in this House and all the good friends he has here will serve him well in his new career.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: I want to add a few words to those that have been spoken by hon. members in the House today. Of course, we are all a bit sorry when someone decides to leave the House, and that applies to the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood who has carved a place for himself here.

March 2, 1982
Point of Order-Mr. Nielsen
In the name of all hon. members, I want to wish him well in whatever capacity. As Speaker I would be the last one to prophesy anyone's political fortunes, so I shall not qualify that!
May the qualities and talents which the hon. member has displayed in the House, as well as the experience he has gained which I am sure is considerable, be of good counsel to him in his new endeavours.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


VACANCY
Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for the electoral district of Broadview-Greenwood having given notice of his intention to resign his seat in the House, it is my duty to inform the House that when the notice has been entered by the Clerk on the Journals pursuant to Section 6.(1 )(a) of the House of Commons Act, Chapter H-9 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1970, 1 shall forthwith issue my warrant to the Chief Electoral Officer to issue a new writ of election for the election of a new member for the said electoral district.


POINT OF ORDER
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I have a brief point of order. The Chair will have noted the appointment yesterday of several new parliamentary secretaries. As the Chair will recall, under the very first ruling of Mr. Speaker Jerome, one which he made in 1974 and which has been with us since, parliamentary secretaries are not permitted to move motions under Standing Order 43. It was probably an oversight on the part of the-I see you nodding in the negative Madam Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: -and the "Disco Duck" saying "not true" also.
Mr. Speaker Jerome ruled that parliamentary secretaries would not be recognized for the purpose of putting motions under Standing Order 43, which was not the case with respect to putting questions. He allowed that and indeed you, Madam Speaker, have allowed that, notwithstanding the fact that I have raised it as a point of order in the past. Each time a point of order has been raised with respect to a parliamentary secretary moving a motion under Standing Order 43, the Chair has prevented it.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of State for Science and Technology and Minister of the Environment (Mr. Schroder), newly appointed yesterday, I believe, put a motion under Standing Order 43 today. I hope we will revert
to the practices that were established under Mr. Speaker Jerome which you, Madam Speaker, have been following in this session. I see you nodding in the negative again, Madam Speaker, but I do not recall an instance where a motion under Standing Order 43 has been accepted by the Chair.


Marc Lalonde: Why not?


Erik Nielsen: Because it has been the practice for six years not to do so, that is why.
I suggest that rather than being allowed to put motions under Standing Order 43, they can damn well call up the department of the minister concerned and get the answer. I suggest that the same applies with equal force to questions.
If this is going to be allowed to cut into the privileges of members on all sides of the House, then in my submission it is an infringement on the time that is normally given to private members. The situation is as ludicrous as it would be for the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) to ask questions of the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen). Perhaps she would have been better served had she done that.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: I can hear the "Disco Duck" over there again. I submit that the practice should be honoured and parliamentary secretaries should not move motions under Standing Order 43.


Mr. David Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, this very point was raised by the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis) about two months ago and Your Honour ruled that it was quite in order and that any member was entitled to move a motion under Standing Order 43. That was made quite clear and it has been the practice regularly, perhaps two or three times a week, during this session. It is not something which has happened suddenly, and Madam Speaker ruled on this and said that it was in order.


Madam Speaker:: 1 refer the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) to Standing Order 15(2), which in part reads:
Members, other than ministers of the Crown, may propose motions pursuant to Standing Order 43 at this time.
That is the time which is set out in the Standing Orders. I believe my predecessor ruled out the possibility that parliamentary secretaries would ask questions-


Erik Nielsen: No, it was the other way around; motions under Standing Order 43.


Madam Speaker:: Yes, I think he allowed motions under Standing Order 43. If my memory serves me right-but I will not insist on it because I am really basing my remarks on the Standing Orders-I rule and confirm that parliamentary secretaries may put motions under Standing Order 43, but they may not ask questions.
March 2, 1982

I refer the hon. member to Citation 370 of Beauchesne, which indicates that parliamentary secretaries should not be asking questions since they have access to ministers and can be informed about questions they should like to ask. I must confirm-and it was not an oversight this afternoon-that I distinctly feel the Standing Order, as written, allows parliamentary secretaries to put motions under Standing Order 43.


PRIVILEGE
Madam Speaker:: Yesterday the hon. member for Welling-ton-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty) raised, as a matter of privilege, the failure of the government to lay an order made under the Safe Containers Convention Act before Parliament within the period required by the act. The act provides that an order "shall be laid before Parliament not later than the tenth sitting day of Parliament after it is issued". The hon. member, in his presentation, indicated that the order in question was issued on January 21 and was registered on January 22. As he pointed out, Parliament has sat for more than a full month since the issuance of the order. I therefore doubt he has raised this matter at the earliest opportunity. That is one point.
Of course, it is not the function of the Chair to interpret the law. I must also point out that alleged errors in the tabling of documents have not in the past been ruled to be breaches of parliamentary privilege. The hon. member quoted from a ruling given by my predecessor on February 1, 1979, but I am afraid I cannot agree with his interpretation of the implications of the ruling.
I would draw attention to two other rulings given by my predecessors. In a decision given on June 27, 1972, concerning the failure to table a report of the National Harbours Board within the period required by the National Harbours Act, the Speaker in the course of his ruling said:
-I fail to see how this can be considered a breach of the privileges of the House.
On June 19, 1978, dealing with a complaint concerning the late tabling of the annual report of the post office, my predecessor ruled:
-I feel that the hon. member is raising a grievance rather than a question of privilege. I do not see how, under the guise of privilege, the Chair can be drawn into determining a question of law-
The hon. member further quoted Erskine May in support of his submission and cited in particular the paragraph appearing on page 138 of the nineteenth edition concerning disobedience to the orders of the House. I cannot agree that the failure to comply with the law constitutes disobedience to an order of the House. While it may be argued that legislation is adopted by Parliament and therefore reflects the will of Parliament, I do not think it possible to sustain an argument that an act of
Tabling of Documents
Parliament constitutes a specific order of the House, either of this House or of the other place. I would also refer the hon. member to page 578 of the nineteenth edition of Erskine May, wherein he has stated:
Breach of a statutory duty to lay an instrument before Parliament will not of itself invalidate the instrument, though it may amount to a misdemeanour. The resulting situation has been dealt with both by statute and by statutory instrument.
It seems clear that such a failure on the part of the government has never come within the scope of parliamentary privilege.
In this particular case it is my view that, if the government is indeed in violation of the law-and if it is, it is not for me to determine-the hon. member may have a grievance rather than a valid question of privilege. If the government has not properly complied with the requirements of the Safe Containers Convention Act, a remedy could be sought through the courts or otherwise. However, it would appear-although I emphasize that I am not interpreting the law-that orders issued under the act have no force until the procedures laid down in Section 8 of the act have been complied with. If the government, therefore, chose to rectify any error which might have been made with the least possible delay, Parliament would have an early opportunity of debating the order and coming to a decision on it. Therefore, I cannot find that the matter raised by the hon. member should take precedence over other business as a prima facie case of privilege.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Eleventh report of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments, in both official languages-Mr. Beatty.
[Editor's Note: For above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 41(2), I would like to table the historical agreement between Canada and Nova Scotia on management and revenue-sharing of offshore oil and gas resources.

March 2, 1982
Order Paper Questions


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. 2,272, 2,347, 3,377 and 3,655.


Mr. Crosby: 1.	Was a capital budget established by the National Harbours Board Tor the port of Montreal for (a) 1980-81 and, if so, what are all the details (b) the past five fiscal years and, if so, what amount was expended for (i) each item in the budget (ii) additional items not listed in the budget?
2.	Does the board use automobiles for its operations in the port and, if so, for each automobile, what was the (a) type (b) purchase or lease price (c) designated use?


Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: The National Harbours Board advises as follows:
1. Yes.
(a), (b), (i), (ii)
1980-81	Estimates	Actual ExpendituresRacine Terminal Phase A	$ 9,140,000	$ 951,812Grain Elevator No. 4 extension	3,700,000	1,305,124Grain Elevator No. 3 truck loading	2,362,000	2,065,312Grain Elevator No. 5 interconnection	600,000	1,151,225Administration Building	142,000	-Total	$15,944,000	$5,473,4731979-80	Racine Terminal	$ 6,764,000	$3,575,979Grain Elevator No. 3 truck loading	2,733,000	1,042,279Administration building	466,000	365,875Grain Elevator No. 5 interconnection	2,573,000	1,331.590Total	$12,536,000	$6,315,7231978-79	Grain Elevator No. 3 truck loading	$ 1,000,000	$ 88,423Grain Elevator No. 4 gallery automation	1,100,000	Grain Elevator No. 4 workhouse automation	300,000	Grain Elevator No. 5 annex interconnection	1,200,000	Administration building	967.000	670,136Maintenance building section 42	345,000	241.748Racine terminal	6,674,000	6,421,019Land acquisition section 41	100,000	-Barge conversion	350,000	-Total	$12,036,000	$7,421,3261977-78	Jacques Cartier terminal	$ 4,328,000	$ 53,902Jacques Cartier cranes	2,550,000	-Grain Elevator No. 3 truck loading	1,820,000	23,185Administration building	1,030,000	46,592Police station	240,000	-Grain Elevator No. 4 gallery automation	250,000	Grain Elevator No. 5 annex interconnection	200,000	101,271Floating derrick	650,000	-Grain Elevator No. 3 scale automation	140,000	-Section 102-fill	475,000	23.925Cold storage warehouse	50,000	-Total	$11,733,000	$ 248,8751976-77	Construction of container terminal.	Wharf 79-80	$ 40,000	$ 114,787Oil berth No. 75	60,000	38,653Jacques Cartier terminal	2,030,000	237,853Replacement of diesel locomotives	700,000	694,895Grain elevator improvements	380,000	367,064Total	$ 3,210,000	$1,453,2521975-76	Construction of container terminal.	Wharf 79-80	$ 274,000	$ 429.034Jacques Cartier terminal-	Berthing facilities	1,900,000	2,592,336Shore facilities	855,000	254,661Oil Berth No. 75	145,000	208,352Replacement of Motors and Drives-	grain elevator	320,000	77,042Automation of scales	200,000	49,870Replacement of diesel locomotives	700,000	-Total	$4,394,000	$3,611,2952.	Yes.(a)	Chevrolet Malibu	(5)Plymouth Volare	(9)(b)	Purchase price of Malibu was $6,936.00 each and purchase of Volare was $7,463.00 each.(c)	Five Malibu and eight Volare are used for policing the port as well as the Champlain and Jacques Cartier bridges. One Volare is used for courier and other port related duties.


Mr. Cook: 1.	What was the arithmetic mean of rental increases per square foot of waterlots (a) between the First and Second Narrows Bridge in Vancouver Harbour of leases up for renewal in 1980 (b) east of the Second Narrows Bridges over Vancouver Harbour of leases up for renewal in 1979 and in 1980?
2.	What is the policy, formula and method of appraisal of the National Harbours Board for determining value of individual waterlots for rental purposes in the harbour?
3.	What is the arithmetic mean of rental rates per square foot of waterlots in the harbour in 1981 (a) between the First and Second Narrows Bridges (b) east of the Second Narrows Bridge?
4.	What is the arithmetic mode of rental rates per square foot of waterlots in the harbour in 1981 (a) between the First and Second Narrows Bridges (b) cast of the Second Narrows Bridge?
5.	What is the arithmetic mean of the mode of rental rates per square foot of waterlots in the harbour in 1981 (a) between the First and Second Narrows Bridges (b) east of the Second Narrows Bridge?


Jesse Philip Flis: The National Harbours Board advises as follows:
1. Based on a sampling of 10 per cent or more of the large number of existing leases (a) $.0567 (b) 1979-$.0205; 1980-$.0717.
March 2, 1982

2.	The formula for determining rental is the application of a rate of return to fair market value of the property. For the most part, the B.C. assessment authority value is used in determining fair market values of waterlots in the area.
3.	Based on a sampling of 10 per cent or more of the large number of existing leases (a) $.061735 (b) $.02335.
4.	Based on a sampling of 10 per cent or more of the large number of existing leases (a) $.10 (b) $.02.
5.	As the mode is one number, the arithmetic mean would result in the same number.


Mr. Nickerson: 1.	Do regulations prevent the use of the airborne "wet process" system for obtaining hardcopy of side looking airborne radar imagery in Canadian registered aircraft but not prevent its use in United States registered aircraft flying in Canadian territory?
2.	Is the "wet process" superior to the "dry process" and, if so, does this necessitate one of the two Canadian firms that undertake SLAR work using a United States registered aircraft and does it put the second firm at a competitive disadvantage because its aircraft were registered in Canada?
3.	Are changes planned in order to ensure that both Canadian and United States registered aircraft are treated the same when operating in Canadian airspace, with respect to regulations governing the use of SLAR hardcopy production systems, and, if so, what are the changes?


Jesse Philip Flis: 1. Provided the developing solution on board is not connected to any of the aircraft operating systems and the developing solution is not considered to be a dangerous article as defined under the International Air Transport Association-Restricted Articles Regulations, there is no regulation to prevent the use of the "wet process" for side looking radar in either a Canadian registered aircraft or United States registered aircraft operating in Canada provided they have been granted operating authority.
2.	Transport Canada is not aware of differences in the image quality between the two processes. To operate a commercial air service in Canada, whether with Canadian or United States registered aircraft, authority is required from the Canadian Transport Commission and Transport Canada.
3.	The regulations pertaining to aircraft operating in Canadian airspace do not differentiate between registrations in that they apply equally to both. No changes are foreseen.


Mr. Cossitt: Is all eye testing for Canadian Armed Forces personnel done by graduate optometrists or medical doctor eye specialists and, if not (a) what type of persons are used and what are their qualifications to perform such examinations (b) what are all the reasons justifying any government policy that does not require graduate optometrists or qualified physicians to perform such duties?


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Minister of National Defence):: (a) and (b). Eye testing in the Canadian Forces is done by or under direction and supervision of physicians and ophthalmologists. Physicians and ophthalmologists are qualified to
Order Paper Questions
provide eye care by virtue of their medical degrees. They are assisted by ophthalmic technicians who only perform limited procedures. Ophthalmic technicians in the forces are qualified to the same standard as their civilian counterparts by the Joint Commission on Allied Health Personnel in Ophthalmology, an accrediting body recognized by the medical professions of both Canada and the United States. This policy conforms with recognized civilian medical practices in Canada.


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


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


Mr. MacKay:: Madam Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. As you will recall, several days ago I asked the parliamentary secretary why I have not received answers to question No. 3,461 concerning Canadair which I placed on the Order Paper on November 23. At that time he indicated that he would look into it. Since that time I have placed other questions on the Order Paper concerning this subject, and still I have received no responses. Today the hon. member for Mississauga South raised further questions during oral question period about this matter. Once more 1 ask the parliamentary secretary if he would be kind enough to find out why these questions cannot be answered.
On a slightly related matter, if Madam Speaker will permit me, I wish to raise a point of order concerning the fact that 1 am having great difficulty with the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce in obtaining answers to correspondence about two matters of vital concern to my constituents. In the case of the Minister of Transport, it relates to Northumberland Ferry Services which provide a vital sea link between Nova Scotia-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. This is not covered by the Standing Orders. The hon. member may ask a question concerning his questions on the Order Paper, but the matter of correspondence is not covered by the Standing Orders.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Madam Speaker, on a further point of order, my point is that it takes up unnecessary time during question period. These matters could be dealt with if ministers would answer their correspondence.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, again I will pursue the question raised by the hon. member. I know those inquiries are on the way. It may take a little longer, but we will come up with the answers pretty soon.


Mr. Young:: Madam Speaker, I should like to ask the parliamentary secretary how the chase is coming along in terms of obtaining answers to questions Nos. 3,380 to 3,438 concerning the report of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped.

March 2, 1982
Energy Security Act


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, the chase is coming along fairly well. I am in hot pursuit and hopefully we will obtain something before too long.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
On the Order: Government Bills (Commons):
Second reading and reference to a Committee of the Whole of Bill C-94, an act to amend and enact provisions related to the Petroleum Administration Act, the National Energy Board Act, the Foreign Investment Review Act, the Canada Business Corporations Act, the Petro-Canada Act, the Energy Supplies Emergency Act, 1979 and the Oil Substitution and Conservation Act; to repeal the Energy Supplies Emergency Act; to amend an act to amend the Petroleum Administration Act and the Energy Supplies Emergency Act; to amend the Adjustment of Accounts Act; and to enact the Petroleum Incentives Program Act, the Canadian Ownership and Control Determination Act, the Energy Monitoring Act and the Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption Standards Act.-The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
Madam Speaker:: Perhaps hon. members might wish me to refer at this time to the point of order raised yesterday afternoon by the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre). He has taken the position that Bill C-94, being an omnibus bill of considerable complexity, should be divided. 1 take this opportunity to thank him for the arguments he presented. Also I want to express my thanks to those other hon. members who offered their contributions to this interesting procedural matter.
This question is one which is not only of concern to me, but has also concerned some of my predecessors in this chair. The hon. member for Calgary Centre has described his view of the difficulties encountered in a measure of this kind and has supported his view with procedural arguments. In presenting his procedural argument, no precedents were cited which would establish the validity of his point of order that the bill should be divided.
The hon. member did, however, emphasize the observation of Mr. Speaker Lamoureux in a ruling of January 26, 1971, as follows:
There must be a point where we go beyond what is acceptable from a strictly parliamentary standpoint.
Mr. Speaker Lamoureux went on to rule that the government in that instance had followed the accepted practice of the past. Although he expressed the reservation that the point of going too far may have been reached, he did not offer a solution, except to say that future omnibus bills should be
scrutinized at first reading stage when hon. members can express their views.
Mr. Speaker Jerome, on May 11, 1977, expressed-
-some very deep concern about whether our practices in respect of bills do in fact provide a remedy for the very legitimate complaint of the hon. member that a bill of this kind gives the government, under our practices, the right to demand one decision on a number of quite different, although related subjects.
No solution to the matter was proposed by Mr. Speaker Jerome. The bill was allowed to proceed.
For my part, in the present circumstances there seems little point in offering yet another opinion on a question so well addressed by my distinguished predecessors. The matter is there for all to see. It may be that the House should accept rules or guidelines as to the form and content of omnibus bills, but in that case the House, and not the Speaker, must make those rules.
Therefore, having heard argument and having examined Bill C-94, I must now rule on the basis of existing precedents, which do not support the proposition that the bill should be divided or struck down.


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am not arguing with the ruling that you have now made, but it does bring forward a number of questions. There is one in particular that I would like to put to the Chair. It arises from Citation 764(1) which has affected me adversely in the past. It reads:
A committee is bound by the decision of the House, given on second reading, in favour of the principle of the bill, and should not, therefore, amend the bill in a manner destructive of this principle.
Perhaps the Chair could give me some guidance as to what the principle of this bill is so that I might be guided in terms of what amendments at committee stage I am permitted to propose or not propose.


Mr. Pinard:: That is a hypothetical question.


Madam Speaker:: I would not think the Chair would want to make any comments on the principle of the bill. The Chair would only comment on procedural matters. I am afraid that at the present time I cannot answer the hon. member's question.


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, it is quite clear that second reading is a vote on the principle of the bill. It is quite clear from our precedents that we are going to be required to vote on that principle and that we are going to be guided by the principles in preparing amendments for committee study. Having given the view that in fact there is a principle, having established by your ruling that indeed we can have a second reading vote on the principle, I think my question as to what the principle is is very reasonable under the circumstances.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, may I draw your attention to citation 117(5)
March 2, 1982

and (7) of Beauchesne's fifth edition, pages 38 and 39, which reads as follows:
(5) Hypothetical queries on procedure cannot be addressed to the Speaker from the floor of the House.
(7) The opinion of the Speaker cannot be sought in the House about any matter arising or likely to arise in a committee.
Consequently, I think that if my hon. colleague wishes an opinion on parliamentary procedure, it is not appropriate for him to direct such a request to the Speaker, from the floor of the House. These questions are procedural, they are hypothetical, and 1 submit, with due respect, that it is not up to the Chair to answer them.


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, hypothetical or not, and I would argue it is not, we are in a dilemma in that you have ruled that since there is no precedent you cannot address the question that this bill has no principle, or that it has a multitude of principles, and all the other problems. If the Speaker cannot do anything because there is no precedent, the Speaker can never do anything. Precedents are only established by Speakers. Having ruled that you cannot act because there is no precedent. Madam Speaker, you have in essence ruled that no Speaker can ever act. Because you have to start somewhere: which is the chicken and which is the egg?


Erik Nielsen: What about Bill C-93?


Harvie Andre: We are in a circumstance, Madam Speaker, where literally the tyranny of the majority prevails in contravention of Citation 1 of Beauschene. There is absolutely no possibility of preventing the government from doing anything unless perchance some Speaker was not so proscribed in the past as to say "Yes, I will take action, even though it is establishing a precedent." If you cannot act because there is no precedent, nobody can ever act on anything.
I humbly submit, Madam Speaker, that there is no protection of this chamber from the tyranny of the majority in that circumstance.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member should know that the only protection that members have, apart from the one specified very clearly by the rules and which the Speaker is bound to enforce, is the House itself. The members themselves should be making the rules by which the Chair will conduct the debates or preside over the debates of this House of Commons.
The hon. member is inviting the Chair, in the absence of a precedent or a rule, to make one of her own. I submit to the hon. member that is the last thing a Speaker should do. In the absence of precedents or any valid argument or valid rule on which I could base a different judgment from the one I have just made, I have to refer the question to the House itself. That is why in my decision I have asked the House, if it feels this question has to be addressed, to determine guidelines or rules that would be applicable to the particular situation which the hon. member so ably brought forward in the House the other
Energy Security Act
day. But it is wrong to ask the Chair to substitute her own rules in the absence of clear rules or clear precedents.


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, I move therefore, that Bill C-94 be put aside and a committee of this House be authorized to examine the appropriateness of omnibus bills of this sort containing multiprinciples being brought before the House. If that is a requirement on which the House needs to judge, then the Chair should allow this House some mechanism upon which to reach that conclusion.
If a precedent can never be established, and the House has no mechanism to carry forward the suggestion which you, Madam Speaker, have raised, we are back to the fundamental dilemma that whatever is proposed by the majority shall come to be; that is, the tyranny of the majority will prevail in direct contravention of Citation 1 of Beauchesne.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, two things are quite clear from the horn, member's statement. First of all, he has been thoroughly criticizing one of your rulings which is based on the standing orders and parliamentary procedure, and that is in itself inadmissible. Second, he is proposing a motion without having given prior notice to the House, which is entirely irregular. In the circumstances-we are pressed for time since we have already wasted seven days on second reading of a bill supported by the party that is now using delaying tactics-I suggest that we proceed without further delay with consideration of the bill in question which the Chair ruled was admissible and which we are ready to debate.


Madam Speaker:: To conclude on the statement by the hon. member for Calgary Centre, it is clear that I cannot accept his motion since no prior notice was given, which is against the Standing Orders of the House.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, the intervention by my friend, the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) was by no distortion or stretch of the imagination a criticism of the ruling of the Chair. That is not the way I heard it. The hon. member was seeking desperately not only for clarification but for guidance, having regard to the very serious nature of the question raised by him and the very serious consequences of the ruling by the Chair.
The government House leader suggests that it is wrong to ask the Chair for guidance on a hypothetical question. There is nothing hypothetical about the fact that the bill is before us accompanied by a ministerial press release which sets out seven different principles. The hon. member for Calgary Centre has submitted that the bill goes beyond that, but I am prepared to sit with the minister's own press release. The guidance and clarification we seek, Madam Speaker, is: does your ruling now mean that the long-established precedents and practices of this House that it has a right to divide on the principle of a bill-because that is what second reading is all about-has now been expanded to the point where the House

March 2, 1982
Energy Security Act
can be confronted by the government with several different and disparate principles in one bill, and be asked to divide under the guise-simply because the bill has a long title-of dividing under one? If that is the case, the clarification we seek is, where is the principle?
If we go along with the conclusion that the Chair is not called upon to determine what the singular principle of the bill is, and we know we are confronted by the minister's own press release with seven different principles, we are, I submit, abandoning the practice of hundreds of years' standing.
We would like to know, Madam Speaker, whether your ruling means that we are now embarking upon an entirely different practice where, in the future, the House may be called upon legally by your ruling to divide, if they so choose, on several different principles under the guise of dividing under an omnibus bill, which by its very title sets out several different principles.


Madam Speaker:: Well, obviously the meaning of the ruling I have just made-and the hon. member was debating the question-is precisely that I saw no reason for dividing the bill. I feel that the procedure which will apply to the study and eventual adoption, or otherwise, of that bill is a procedure we have followed in other circumstances. I have precisely said in my ruling that I felt this bill, as it is written, may be studied in the manner proposed. I am not introducing anything new. I have refrained from doing so because I have no precedent or rule on which to do other than what I have suggested in my ruling.
So I am not confusing the House by introducing new procedures. These procedures are well known to hon. members; they are ones which have been followed by the House in the past.


Erik Nielsen: I have a further question for clarification, but the Chair has made the statement that I was debating the issue. It was certainly not my intention to reflect on the ruling of the Chair. I was legitimately and sincerely seeking guidance because of the Catch-22 situation we are in here.
One of the points raised with great clarity by the hon. member for Calgary Centre had to do with existing Standing Orders which require bills, on receiving approval in principle on second reading, to be referred automatically to standing committee. Now, we have four different and disparate bills by way of schedule which are now going to travel the Committee of the Whole route, thereby denying members of the House an in-depth inquiry by way of calling witnesses before the standing committee to inquire into the various clauses of the bill.
If I understand your ruling correctly, Madam Speaker, it means that those four schedules-in effect, four different statutes-will not go to standing committee but will remain in Committee of the Whole and thus deprive members of their normal rights. If I understand your ruling correctly, that is the result.


Madam Speaker:: Well, the hon. member is again arguing the ruling and using the same arguments as the hon. member for Calgary Centre used the other day in his point of order. Those arguments were considered, and the ruling I just made answered those arguments. If the hon. member looks at the intervention of the hon. member for Calgary Centre, which intervention was most complete, he will find that the hon. member argued those points which the hon. member for Yukon is arguing over again.
I do not mind questions as to what may now happen in the House, but certainly the hon. member has to realize that he is not accepting the ruling and does not want to proceed as the ruling now determines the House should proceed. I am afraid I have to ask him to accept it, because that is the purport of the ruling.
The hon. member refers to the schedules, and he knows the hon. member for Calgary Centre spoke about the schedules and referred to the fact that there were four different principles or ideas, and so on, in those schedules. I dealt with that in my ruling.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, let me point out at the outset that this is the second time the Chair has made the observation that 1 am arguing with the ruling of the Chair. I am not arguing the ruling of the Chair, however much you, Madam Speaker, may think so. If I have left that impression, I want the Chair to dismiss it from her mind. I am simply seeking clarification. I know quite well that the hon. member for Calgary Centre made these arguments. I have not only read them, I have studied them, Madam Speaker, and I am quite aware of what they say. The reason I raise these questions for clarification now is precisely because the Chair, with great respect, did not deal in the ruling with the several points made by the hon. member for Calgary Centre. That is why I raised the points for clarification.
Now, had the Chair dealt seriatim with the six points raised by the hon. member-and I was following very carefully the ruling of the Chair to see whether each of those arguments was met-then I would not be standing here. I am standing here because, with great respect, we are left in this quandary by virtue of the fact that these several points raised by the hon. member for Calgary Centre have not been dealt with.
For instance, in regard to the point on the principle, which I will leave aside because I raised it a moment ago, the Chair did not give a response in detail to that argument. The one 1 am dealing with now with respect to the denial of our normal rights under the Standing Orders had the bill gone to standing committee as it ordinarily would have has not been dealt with, unless it can be said to have been dealt with by the umbrella rejection of the hon. member's submission. With great respect, I would have expected the Chair to deal with each one of the points raised because all of them are very important points indeed.
Another one which has not been dealt with, with great respect, and without intending to reflect on the ruling of the Chair, is this question of the rights of members to divide on a
March 2, 1982

recorded vote. That right has, in the hon. member's submission, been removed. That point has not been dealt with by the Chair.
The clarification we seek is genuine. The question outstanding, Madam Speaker, is: does your ruling mean that in future, legislation can be introduced by means of a schedule, as it has in this case, thereby changing our existing practices under the Standing Orders and sidetracking new legislation away from the standing committees into this House in Committee of the Whole? Is that the result of the Chair's ruling?


Yvon Pinard: The ruling just made by the Chair has not added any new elements, since the same situation occurred not long ago. The House is aware that when the government introduces a bill seeking authority to borrow money, commonly called a borrowing authority bill, if the sole object of the bill were to seek borrowing authority, we would not go before the Committee of the Whole, and the bill would be referred to a standing committee of the House. However, since tax measures are included in this bill, our motion must include a request that the bill be considered in Committee of the Whole, and that includes the provisions concerning borrowing authority.
The example I just gave was in fact a very recent precedent, namely Bill C-93, on which the Chair made a ruling. There have been other precedents as well, however. It is, therefore, not something new. The hon. member claims that the opposition is frustrated because it will not have an opportunity to consider certain aspects of the bill in the standing committee, as opposed to what it will be able to do in Committee of the Whole. I may answer the hon. member that first of all, this is not a precedent, that it is a consequence of the Chair's ruling on Bill C-93, and that previous Speakers have handed down similar rulings on far more complex bills. When the hon. member says that they are penalized, I doubt that is really the case, because when we go into Committee of the Whole, as a rule each clause of the bill is debated and may be discussed or amended. In fact, the bill is given far more thorough scrutiny than it would ever receive in a standing committee of the House. Now we may or may not agree on this comparison between the work done in Committee of the Whole as opposed to a standing committee of the House, but the fact remains that the precedents are established and clear-cut, and when a bill contains measures that entail the levying of taxes on Canadian citizens, we have no choice but to go into Committee of the Whole. Bills containing provisions that are solely concerned with taxation do not contain tax provisions in every single clause, but that does not mean that only the clauses in which taxes are levied are referred to the Committee of the Whole and other clauses of the same bill that do not are referred to a standing committee of the House. Thus, there are many precedents, the Chair's ruling does not have any new consequences, and unlike what the hon. members said, we are not setting new precedents or taking new directions. The Chair
Energy Security Act
has served the House, as is its role, by interpreting the Standing Orders, precedents and parliamentary practice and if this practice is not satisfactory to members on both sides of the House, the way to make changes is to agree to changes in the Standing Orders, and my hon. colleagues know perfectly well that we are prepared to discuss such changes. In the short term, however, we are still governed by the existing Standing Orders and the Chair's ruling merely confirms past practice.


Madam Speaker:: I will answer the hon. member who has put a question to me concerning what this means for the future. 1 will tell the hon. member that I will not decide the future now. When future procedural problems present themselves, I will study them on their merits and try to rule on them to the best of my judgment.
The hon. member has referred to the fact that he felt 1 had not dealt with some of the arguments point by point. Yes, perhaps I did not answer each and every one of the arguments which were presented to me during perhaps more than one hour and a half in which hon. members spoke on this particular subject. However, I can assure the hon. member, as I did in my ruling, that they were fully considered. My practice is not always to answer every argument that hon. members put forward point by point, because there is a certain approach to rulings and to the way in which the Speaker must deal with the House where the Speaker does not necessarily want to knock down every possible argument that she feels was not particularly pertinent to the situation. However, what I do, 1 believe, in all of my rulings, is to give hon. members the basis for my decision by stating which arguments were compelling and on which I have based that decision.
At any rate, if hon. members wish me to make very, very long statements, I can always do that; but I rather thought that my role was to try to leave the time of the House to hon. members rather than to take too much for myself. I can oblige hon. members by systematically referring to all of the arguments which have been brought forward, but it does not seem to me that that is an absolute necessity.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I am certainly not suggesting to the Chair, as a generality, that in every single instance verbose rulings be made. I would not be so presumptuous, nor so silly, as to suggest that. I was not present to hear all of the matter, but I have read and studied the submissions of the hon. member for Calgary Centre. Because of the far-reaching and serious implications of the arguments of the hon. member- and there were only six arguments with that kind of serious implication-and because of the serious consequences of Your Honour's ruling, I am simply saying that I would have anticipated, in this particular rare instance where some detail is expected, that it might have been forthcoming so as to assist us in resolving our present dilemma of where we are to go. I am certainly not asking Your Honour to get out your crystal ball to gaze into the future with respect to what you might do

March 2, 1982
Energy Security Act
in future instances. However, we are confronted here with an existing situation, with four brand-new bills in four schedules, which we would ordinarily have expected to go to committee.
My question was really with respect to these four. Am I correct that as a result of Your Honour's ruling, notwithstanding the Standing Orders in that regard, because these four bills now appear as schedules to this legislation the ordinary procedures which would hive them off to standing committees do not apply? Are we now confined with these new pieces of legislation to Committee of the Whole? Is my understanding of the effect of your ruling correct?


Madam Speaker:: That is correct.


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, I would again repeat what the hon. member for Yukon, our House leader, has indicated. I am not questioning the ruling; I am asking for clarification because of the seriousness of the six points raised during the point of order. There were six very important principles based on precedents by previous Speakers, some which were so enshrined as to become part of our parliamentary authorities, referred to in several places, such as this question of second reading being a vote on principle.
I would ask the Chair to clarify, if she can, the dilemma that I face as one hon. member, and the dilemma that I am sure other hon. members in this House face. Let me quote Mr. Speaker Jerome, who remarked on May 11, 1977, as found on page 5523 of Hansard:
I think an hon. member of the House ought to have the right to compel the House to vote on each separate question.
He felt that the requirement that an hon. member be able to compel the House to vote on each separate principle was fundamental. Indeed, it is so fundamental that it shows up on numerous occasions in our parliamentary authorities.
The question that I put to the House concerns the opportunity for myself and other hon. members, given the way this bill is treated, to request a vote of the House, for example on Part A, petroleum incentives and Canadian ownership and control, which, generally speaking, we would approve, and a vote of the House on Part C, petroleum administration, which, generally speaking, we would oppose. How can that happen?
I also wonder about the future. Are we now establishing a precedent that it will indeed be possible to create a law, as it were, upon which the House of Commons, supposedly the supreme law-making body in this country, has not had an opportunity to divide? That is a precedent of enormous consequences, so much so as to render this institution absolutely meaningless, so much so as to give effect to the often made accusation that we have a four-year or five-year dictatorship. That is the impact.
I, for one member, must re-examine my reasons for being here if, in fact, I am unable to vote on something as fundamentally important as that. I am not asking for the ability to influence; I am just asking to vote, that is all. The ability to vote is the last right of a Member of Parliament. We are not even asking to have the ability to legislate, but just to vote on
principle. I would like to ask, Madam Speaker, how in this circumstance, as a result of this situation, how this bill is proceeding and so on, I as an hon. member will be able to fulfil my responsibilities and obligation to stand up and be counted on the various distinct principles that are brought forward in this piece of legislation.
[ Translation]


Yvon Pinard: Very briefly, Madam Speaker, the consequences mentioned by the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) are not new. Rulings handed down by your predecessors had the same results, and I am thinking of one particular instance when a bill was introduced to amend several aspects of the Criminal Code. I am sure that many members would have preferred to vote on individual provisions of the omnibus bill that was debated, although supporting debate on the entire bill. However, because of the Standing Orders and parliamentary procedure, that was not possible.
Today, the hon. member is critical of the fact that a number of different aspects are contained in the omnibus bill, which, and I shall repeat this once again, is admissible according to our procedure and precedents. He is saying that he would like to be able to vote in favour of certain aspects of the bill and against others, and that now he is in a position where he will probably be obliged to vote against the bill, although he is in favour of some parts of it. This is true on both sides of the House, Madam Speaker, and our Standing Orders affect the government side the same way where an opposition motion is concerned. The House will recall that before the Christmas holidays, the opposition, on an opposition day, introduced a motion on capital punishment. Many members on this side of the House would have liked to be able to vote for or against capital punishment, without at the same time having to vote on a motion of no-confidence in the government and thus having to decide whether an election would have to be called.
We, on this side of the House, also would have liked to say:

"We want to be able to divide, we want to be able to divide on an election, or on the death penalty".
[ Translation]
Therefore, Madam Speaker, the Standing Orders of the House apply on both sides, in all kinds of situations, and that is why-


Erik Nielsen: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Calgary Centre and myself have been very careful to put questions to the Chair by way of clarification for us, as a result of the ruling that you gave today to the submission made by the hon. member for Calgary Centre. The government House leader has been allowed to do that which he. in my submission, should not be allowed to do. He is not asking for clarification, he is not asking for guidance from the Chair as a result of your ruling. He is presenting further substantive arguments today that he did not make yesterday. In my
March 2, 1982

submission, it is quite inappropriate for him to be allowed to put forward further substantive arguments here today. If he is as confused as we are about the consequences of your ruling and wishes to seek clarification, as we are seeking clarification, that is one thing. But to be permitted to add to argument by this subterfuge, to allow him to fill in arguments that perhaps he overlooked filling in yesterday, in my submission is very inappropriate. If he wishes to seek clarification, that is fine. Madam Speaker, but I think that the course that he has been allowed to follow here in submitting substantive argument is most inappropriate.


Yvon Pinard: Then I apologize for having interrupted the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). I would like now to complete my comments because I did not interrupt him when he was arguing his point. I think he has some nerve to take me to task for refuting the point raised by the member for Calgary Centre. Indeed, they are clearly out of order when they challenge your ruling and put questions to you contrary to Beauchesne's Citation 117 (5) and (7) which I quoted a while ago. I think that they both should be ashamed of challenging a ruling, the consequences of which they deplore but which are nothing new, since they are similar to the consequences of rulings made by your predecessors and to which you referred in your ruling. When the hon. member for Calgary Centre states that he would like to be able to vote in a specific way on several elements of the bill and when I tell him that, if it is frustrating for the opposition, there have been other situations under the Standing Orders where the government has experienced the same frustrations, I think it is quite relevant, and if the hon. member for Yukon does not understand the substance of my argument, I cannot be blamed for his obtuseness under the circumstances. In conclusion, I point out that members opposite are complaining about the consequences of this ruling. But these consequences are nothing new. They are the same as those which flowed from your predecessors' rulings and they do not fly in the face of parliamentary practice. Quite the contrary, they do not fly in the face of our Standing Orders, and under the circumstances, I submit that members opposite are wrong in taking the time of the House in an indirect attempt to question your ruling which is quite clear and, I repeat, consistent with all previous rulings.


Madam Speaker:: 1 think it is perhaps time we conclude this matter and 1 will try to answer the question of the hon. member so that he will feel that he can proceed with this bill in the usual manner. I feel that if members follow the usual process, there will be no confusion. The hon. member for Calgary Centre and other members know that in the process of the debate as it is outlined in our rules and regulations there are devices whereby they may present amendments on second and third reading and there will be an opportunity for a standing vote in Committee of the Whole.
Energy Security Act
All of these are things infinitely possible in the course of this debate. The proof of the matter would be, as I suggest that the House should commence the debate and we will see what amendments are acceptable in the course of that debate. Perhaps that would be the best proof that the process allows for all of the things which hon. members legitimately seek to do in studying this bill.
The process is not new. It simply follows the rules and procedures which have been followed in this House before. I think the hon. members, if they begin the debate, will see that it is entirely possible to do this to their satisfaction.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Madam Speaker, this is not on the same point of order at all. Your ruling has been that this is an omnibus bill and perfectly proper for debate. Your ruling essentially is that it covers the same issue, presumably energy security. But I raise another issue with you that 1 think bears some immediate consideration.
Because of the format of the legislation before us, we have an Energy Security Act, 1982, which is to be the title of the bill when it becomes an act. As Your Honour knows, when a bill passes Parliament and receives the royal assent, it becomes an act of Parliament.
Our problem here is compounded by the fact that Schedules III to VI of this bill now before us pretend to be acts, but they are really schedules to an act. We therefore have a very difficult situation before Parliament.
When this bill is passed, as may well happen, it becomes an act. Then what have we got? Have we got five acts passed or have we got one act passed with four schedules to it claiming to be acts? I was wondering if Your Honour had directed herself to question the law officers of the Crown, the Attorney General or the Minister of Justice's Mr. Chretien department with respect to how this bill we now have before us will become an act of this Parliament. Will it in fact become five acts of this Parliament? It strikes me that we have a serious problem.
May I suggest to Your Honour-


Madam Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is again discussing the point of order which was discussed the other day. I did hear all the arguments. Now that I have made my ruling, I am afraid I cannot hear new arguments. That point has been covered in the ruling and I cannot entertain arguments on it.


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege. The basic concept of democracy is that a member represents the thinking of the majority of the people who sent him here. When a bill has two principles, one that my people support and one that my people do not support, and I am required to vote "yes" or "no", I am misrepresenting the thinking of the majority.


Madam Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is again discussing the point of order which was dealt within the ruling. I am afraid I cannot accept his argument.

March 2, 1982
Energy Security Act


Gordon Edward Taylor: I am discussing a point of representation. My ability to represent my people rests with me being able to vote.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member rose on a question of privilege. Unless that question of privilege flows from the deliberations today-and he is now referring to deliberations on which I have ruled-it is therefore ruled out; he cannot intervene on these points. If the hon. member has another question of privilege about the manner in which he should be allowed to represent his electors, he can raise it at another time by giving me the notice required by the Standing Orders. I cannot entertain a question of privilege at this time at this point.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Madam Speaker, the whole point I am raising is basic to democracy. If a member is unable to represent the thinking of the people in his constitutency, something is wrong.


Madam Speaker:: Order.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Are we running a communist state or what?


Madam Speaker:: All the debates in this House are about democracy.


Gordon Edward Taylor: This is not democracy, this is communism.


Madam Speaker:: Democracy in this House can only be preserved by following the rules which the House has devised for the conduct of debates. I am telling the hon. member that if he wants to discuss this important matter of democracy and his particular role in preserving that democracy and in representing his electors, he may do that, but he must do it according to the periods and timing reserved for that under our Standing Orders. That is what I am saying to the hon. member. Order in the House is basic to the functioning of this Parliament and the ultimate preservation of democracy. My preserve is to maintain order. I do not want to allow the hon. member to discuss this matter now because it is not in order at the present time. I can entertain his argument at another time.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Madam Speaker, your ruling prevents me from representing my people. It affects democracy.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I think I have been very reasonable-


Gordon Edward Taylor: You are not reasonable.


Madam Speaker:: -in expressing the views of the Chair in this particular circumstance. I am afraid the hon. member cannot continue. I would ask him to co-operate.


Mr. Albert Cooper (Peace River):: Madam Speaker, I have some concern over this and I seek clarification on this ruling. Something that Speaker Lamoureux treated as very serious, as has been mentioned by my colleagues, is the opportunity of members who deal with bills before us in the House of Commons to have the chance to vote individually on the various clauses. My concern arises from the fact that in this omnibus bill before us, as has been mentioned, we have four schedules which are in fact acts.


Madam Speaker:: I understand, but that point has been covered by the ruling. It has been argued by hon. members before the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Cooper). It was covered by the ruling and the subsequent exchange we had.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, what the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Cooper) was trying to get across is another unanswered question, unanswered in my submission in your ruling and unanswered so far in any of the discussions taking place this afternoon. Normally if a bill is treated in Committee of the Whole under the normal procedure, we go through it clause by clause and, as the Chair has pointed out, we can have a standing division clause by clause.
One of the central points made yesterday by the hon. member for Calgary Centre was that since our precedents require a schedule, in this case a whole act, to be treated as a clause in the bill, then we are deprived of that right of dividing with a standing division clause by clause.
As I understood the hon. member for Peace River, what he was trying to ask the Chair as a result of your ruling today was, in effect, does the ruling of the Chair by virtue of the precedents which the Chair has cited deprive members of a standing division in Committee of the Whole on each separate clause in each of the schedules? To put it in the positive sense, can members be assured by virtue of the Chair's ruling today that they will have the right to a division on each of the clauses in each of the schedules to the bill? That is the question.


Madam Speaker:: At the present time the question is hypothetical.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: I suggest to the hon. member that that question will be dealt with by the Chairman when the time arises.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, surely members are entitled to know at this stage, because we are breaking new ground. We are dealing with four distinct pieces of legislation in a schedule. With the kind of legislation we had hitherto, we had the right to divide clause by clause at the Committee of the Whole stage. Surely the Chair, for the protection of the rights of members and by virtue of the decision which was rendered today, can reassure us and answer positively the question whether we will have the right to vote clause by clause on legislation of this nature, notwithstanding the unusual manner in which it is being treated.
All we ask of the Chair is a reassurance that that right will not be taken away from us, that we will have the right to a standing division on each of the clauses in each of the schedules, they being separate pieces of legislation. That has been past practice. I hope we can be reassured it will be continued in this instance, notwithstanding the rare problem we are dealing with here.
March 2, 1982


Madam Speaker:: 1 am sure the hon. member would not want me to interfere with the work of the committee. The committee itself will decide what it must do in the particular circumstance to which the hon. member is referring. I have before me now second reading of the bill. I have ruled on that. I think the House is perfectly equipped to proceed with it.


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, I find myself in a difficult dilemma as a Member of Parliament trying to act responsibly and fulfil the obligations that fall upon me, having been elected by the good people of Calgary Centre. By virtue of the ruling, I find myself having concerns that I have raised, six separate points, which are very serious in their implications. In your ruling you did not explain how you dealt with those separate points. You gave the reason why you did not explain. You said you did not want to take up the time of the House. However, I now find myself in the position where these points are of concern. They should be of concern to any member who has some respect for the traditions of our parliamentary system and respect for what in fact this institution is supposed to do.
In view of our inability to get that explanation and my inability therefore to know how to approach this particular question in any meaningful and realistic way, I have no choice
Energy Security Act
but to move, seconded by the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Thomson):
That this House do now adjourn.


Madam Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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.


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


Madam Speaker:: Call in the members.
[Editors Note: The ringing of the division bells continued past the hour of adjournment.]

Tuesday, March 2, 1982 (Continuation of Proceedings) through
Wednesday, March 17, 1982
[And the division bells having rung from 4.20 p.m. on Tuesday. March 2. until 2.28 p.m. on Wednesday, March 17, 1982.] '


Madam Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. It is not easy to determine what time it is in the House of Commons. After long consideration, 1 can state that it is now past ten o'clock on Tuesday, March 2. As it is too late to begin the sitting on the 17th at the time prescribed, the sitting is now adjourned.
At 2.38 p.m., the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, March 18, 1982