1982-12-14

MOTIONS UNDER S.O. 43   ENERGY SUGGESTED MODIFICATION OF OIL PRICING AGREEMENT

['No.\nOral Questions']
Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, in view of the fact that under the federal-provincial agreement the price of a barrel of domestic oil is geared to 75 per cent of the cost of a barrel of international oil, which is applied only when the international price rises but does not apply when the price drops, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis):
That the Government take the necessary steps to modify this agreement so that it will work both ways, which could mean a substantial saving to Canadians in their fuel bills when implemented.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.



Mr. Ron Stewart (Simcoe South):: Madam Speaker, it is important that recognition be given to the ideological direction being taken on behalf of this nation by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). In keeping with his personal socialist philosophy, he established a friendship accord with the Soviet Union and, as the only western leader to attend the funeral, eulogized Brezhnev as a man of peace, a tribute the people of Poland, Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan failed to comprehend. I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor):
That, because the Prime Minister continues to support those Canadians who actively pursue a philosophy similar to his, to the extent of refusing to prosecute those who, like Hugh Hambleton, would otherwise be dealt with as traitors, this House direct that a letter be written to the newest man of peace, Yuri Andropov, former head of the KGB, suggesting the Prime Minister of Canada be awarded the Order of Lenin for services rendered.


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone).


EXTERNAL AID
Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot):: Madam Speaker, since attempting to get a motion passed yesterday, another 12,000 of the world's children have died of starvation. Since Members of Parliament and Senators send an estimated one-quarter of a million Christmas cards per year, and since UNICEF has done an outstanding job in bringing assistance to the world's needy children, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member of Oxford (Mr. Halliday):
That this Parliament urge that an informal group be organized by the political Parties in this Chamber to ascertain the advisability of having the UNICEF organization produce special parliamentary Christmas cards so that Members and Senators might, concurrently with their good wishes for the Christmas season, assist the needy children of the world.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Madam Speaker, on Friday, December 10, Saskatchewan celebrated Human Rights Day. The day before, a Conservative MLA, Lloyd Hampton, told a legislative committee that it is not fair when a person buys a $100,000 house in a nice residential area and then is forced to sell it cheaply when immigrants buy the house next door. He said:
Their aroma floats into my property and the next thing you know the value of my home has gone to pot.
He also characterized native workers as being incompetent and suffering from hangovers. I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Anguish) and, I hope, by all Hon. Members of the House:
That this House condemn the Conservative MLA Lloyd Hampton's comments in light of their affront to federal and provincial human rights legislation, fundamental human dignity, and the history of immigration that has built this country of ours.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.
21564

December 14, 1982


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Len Gustafson (Assiniboia):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan), in moving closure under Standing Order 75C, is creating yet another mammoth Crown Corporation named Canagrex which will have broad and powerful control on all agricultural and food products. This recent step by the Minister further undermines the democratic working of this House. Therefore I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave) and the Hon. Member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields):
That this House ask the Minister of Agriculture to reconsider a step as serious as the one taken yesterday on closure and allow free and open debate in this House on Bill C-85.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Ted Miller (Nanaimo-Alberni):: Madam Speaker, I rise to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Whereas the Bowater Newfoundland Ltd.'s employees have been put on notice that the company will close permanently a large part of its Corner Brook pulp mill on April 2, putting some 750 of the workers out of work; and whereas this decision came in spite of profitable years between 1978 and 1981 and the company's remission of large dividends to its British shareholders this year, 1 move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Mrs. Mitchell):
That the House instruct the Government to meet company officials, provincial Government officials and employees' representatives to discuss possible action to protect the jobs of Bowater's workers, and that the Government also be instructed to investigate the circumstances of the reduction in the plant's operations in spite of its productivity and profitability.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
[Stage Direction]
1985 CONGRESS ON ALCOHOLISM AND DRUG DEPENDENCE-SUGGESTED ISSUANCE OF COMMEMORATIVE STAMP
Mr. Bill Yurko (Edmonton East):: 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 widespread social and economic costs resulting from the abuse of alcohol and drugs are becoming increasingly apparent and understood in Canadian society; in view of the fact that many agencies and groups across Canada are attempting to address this problem by increasing public awareness of it, and in view of the fact that there is almost a desperate call by society on all elected Members to act in a meaningful manner, at the request of the Alberta Alcohol and Drug Abuse Commission, I move, seconded by the Hon. Members for Saint-Michel (Mrs. Killens), Kootenay West (Mr. Kristiansen), and Calgary East (Mr. Kushner):
That this assembly act unanimously to bring attention to this very serious matter by requesting the Post Office to strike a stamp to mark the first meeting in Canada of the thirty-fourth International Congress on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence scheduled for Calgary in 1985.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


METRIC CONVERSION
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Madam Speaker, my motion under Standing Order 43 is a direct challenge to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) to retract an incorrect statement in his media release of yesterday that regulations regarding metric were passed by the Clark Government, by Order in Council. I checked with the Privy Council Office this morning and was informed that no such Orders in Council were passed between May, 1979, and February, 1980. Therefore I move, seconded by the Hon. Members for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger) and Athabasca (Mr. Shields):
That the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs move immediately to amend this false statement, and if he intends to follow through with his bluff to prosecute those Canadians in the retail field who are exercising their freedom of choice in a free country, that he treat the cases as sub judice and refrain from placing any phone calls to judges or criticizing their decisions.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.
December 14, 1982


FINANCE
Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Madam Speaker, because the rate of farm bankruptcies in Canada which have been caused by high overhead costs to farmers has reached the point where the survival of the agricultural industry is seriously threatened, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Wetas-kiwin (Mr. Schellenberger) and the Hon. Member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gustafson):
That this House immediately take action to assist farmers to reduce their operating costs by introducing legislation which will exempt farmers from the payment of federal excise tax on fuels used in agricultural production.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


CROWN CORPORATIONS
Mr. Charles Mayer (Portage-Marquette):: Madam Speaker, Crown corporations were termed a dangerous hole in the taxpayers' pockets, and the Government's control of Crown corporations was severely criticized by the Auditor General in his annual report. Last night the Minister of Agriculture gave notice that the Government is now invoking closure in order to create Canagrex, yet another Crown corporation. The Opposition has moved several responsible amendments to the legislation that will allow Parliament effectively to scrutinize public funds being spent by Canagrex. As a result of closure, these amendments will not now have a chance of being adopted. Therefore I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Wetaski-win (Mr. Schellenberger):
That this House instruct the Government not to create any new Crown corporations before legislation is passed which allows Parliament to regulate this form of subgovernment properly.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister, who indicated that he would be here, and in the absence of the Deputy Prime Minister, I will direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister, to whom I have also given notice. The Acting Prime Minister will know that the Canagrex Bill had been debated for only 90 minutes at the report stage. Yet last night, without warning, the Minister of Agriculture gave notice of an intention to introduce closure on Canagrex.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


Charles Joseph Clark: Will the Acting Prime Minister, on behalf of the Government, now agree not to proceed with closure on Canagrex?


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, since the question concerns the business of the House, I think I should make it clear what the facts of the matter are. I may remind the Hon. Members opposite that the Canagrex Bill was introduced more than a year ago, on December 8, 1981. It was debated on second reading for twelve hours and fifty minutes on five sitting days. In committee, the Bill was debated for three and a half months. Twenty-seven meetings were held, lasting a total of twenty-one hours and forty-five minutes, and finally, at the report stage, most of the amendments being proposed are similar to those that were defeated in committee. The Leader of the Official Opposition ought to know that for the Government to give notice pursuant to Standing Order 75C means that his party in particular has refused to co-operate in negotiating a reasonable schedule for completing debate on the Bill. Otherwise, the Government would have had no reason for using Standing Order 75C. Whenever a minister responsible for a bill sees no other alternative but to give notice in order to limit debate at any stage, it implies that despite discussions with the Official Opposition, no agreement could be reached on when debate could reasonably be concluded. Consequently, what the Minister of Agriculture did yesterday is entirely in accordance with the Standing Orders of this House and with parliamentary procedure, and indicates the Official Opposition's lack of good faith in refusing to negotiate an agreement for ending debate on this very important Bill.

December 14, 1982
Oral Questions


POWER OF PROPOSED CANAGREX CORPORATION
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, we have noted before with this pocket dictator of a Government-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: -that the weaker its case, the longer it takes it to defend its action. The Government knows that there have only been 90 minutes of debate at report stage. It knows that its own Members failed to show up to allow debate on this Bill the last time it was brought in. It knows that the Minister of Agriculture snuck into the House the other night and introduced closure by surprise, on Canagrex. What the Government House Leader has done is indicate that he holds in contempt the spirit of Parliamentary reform that was marked when Members from all sides of the House adopted the first report of the Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure, and that will not be forgotten.
Let me ask whomever is speaking for the Government as Acting Prime Minister whether the Government believes, and why this Government believes, that this Crown corporation needs the extraordinary power to buy and sell agricultural products, and why it refuses to allow that principle to be discussed here in the House of Commons of Canada?


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I think the Leader of the Opposition will agree that one would have to be very narrow-minded to conclude that limiting debate at this point constitutes an attack against the spirit of parliamentary reform, on the contrary. The Right Hon. Member ought to know that the reform proposals provide for a parliamentary calendar, with set dates for adjournment. It will therefore become even more vital for parties to meet in good faith and try to negotiate agreements on the length of debate on certain bills, if the House really wants this experiment to be fruitful and to pave the way for permanent reform. What we are doing today in no way affects the spirit of parliamentary reform, and I think the Right Hon. Member's party, in refusing to agree to time allocation with a view to ending the debate on Canagrex, is in fact against the spirit of parliamentary reform. The Leader of the Opposition knows perfectly well that the House will adjourn on December 22. This is the first time in our history that Hon. Members have been informed three weeks ahead of time that the House will be adjourning on a given date for the Christmas holidays. Nevertheless, the Leader of the Opposition is doing everything in his power to keep the Government from expediting its legislation within a reasonable length of time. The fact that the Minister of Agriculture was obliged to give notice, as he did yesterday, means that the Leader of the Opposition failed to show the parliamentary co-operation required to conclude an agreement on a reasonable length of
time for ending the debate on this very important Canagrex Bill.


AUDITOR GENERAL'S COMMENTS ON CROWN CORPORATIONS
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, the Government House Leader will have a hard time explaining how it was the attitude of the Opposition that stopped his own Members from being able to show up in this House of Commons to debate Canagrex. They would rather boycott the House and then invoke closure, which is what they have done.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: I see that the dictator-in-chief has returned.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Charles Joseph Clark: Let me ask the Prime Minister-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


Charles Joseph Clark: Perhaps Members opposite would like to impose closure on the question period as well.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: Can the Prime Minister tell us whether the Government intends to ignore the Auditor General's report and recommendations about the abuse of Crown corporations generally, or does he intend to ignore it simply and exclusively in the case of Canagrex?


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, if I may finish my answer to the question put by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition, he twice alluded to the fact that at a given time, there were not enough Liberal Members in the House to debate the Canagrex Bill. This reminds me that we tried twice over to call the Bill for debate, and twice the party of the Leader of the Opposition used childish tactics to prevent the debate from taking place. In fact, the occasion to which he is referring, namely, when a large number of Liberal Members were present but not in sufficient numbers to make a quorum, there were more than twenty Conservative Members hiding behind the curtains like a bunch of kids to prevent Parliament from working. Madam Speaker, since we are talking about the spirit of parliamentary reform, not about infantile behaviour, I suggest that the Leader of the Opposition consult the real lawyer sitting on his left, who will tell him that he urged me, in the present circumstances, to limit the debate because there was no way agreement could be reached on a specific deadline for concluding the debate on Canagrex.
December 14, 1982


POSITION OF PRIME MINISTER
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, let me direct my supplementary to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister know anything about Canagrex? Does the Prime Minister know that his Government imposed closure on it? Does the Prime Minister intend to reject the advice of the Auditor General regarding the abuses of Crown corporations generally, or does he intend to reject that advice simply in the case of Canagrex?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, I apologize to the House. I did arrive late. I was having lunch with the spiritual leaders of the country who wanted to debate the question of nuclear disarmament. On the way back I was told that the Leader of the Opposition had sent a letter to my office at 12.45, at which time 1 was already engaged in the meeting. Therefore, I have not had time to read the letter. However, I understand from the debate which has begun that the objection is more to the notice of closure than to the substance of the debate.
I understand that timing has been discussed over a long period as to how we can reasonably bring this debate to a democratic end by having a vote on it. There have been more than 86 hours in the House and in Committee given to the debate on this subject. I think any reasonable kind of person in a democratic meeting, and this is the case here, would be able to reach some firm agreement as to a reasonable amount of time after which the debate would be brought to an end. I do not think there is anything dictatorial in hoping that a democratic assembly will make up its mind on the time for debate and on the results of that debate. That is what we are asking the Opposition.
In so far as the question of the Leader of the Opposition on Crown corporations is concerned, 1 do not think that even he or his Party would think that the Auditor General was advocating the abolition or non-use of all Crown corporations, because then we could begin with Air Canada, CNR, and so on. Therefore, the question of Crown corporations and its relevance to the Auditor General's report is whether this Crown corporation will be properly controlled. That is the purpose of the debate before the House. It is on that we want the Opposition to express its views and to vote.


THE ECONOMY
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Yesterday in the House the Minister of Finance, in reply to a question from the New Democratic Party, indicated that there ought to be a major coordination between the federal and provincial Governments to come to grips with the alarming level of unemployment in the
Oral Questions
country. Yesterday, at the same time the Minister was speaking here, the Maritime Premiers were meeting elsewhere, expressing the same desire for a co-ordinated effort between the federal and provincial Governments on the economy, but noting that the Prime Minister, not having agreed to a First Ministers' conference on this subject, they remain skeptical about the seriousness of the federal Government on it.
Considering that the Minister of Finance has said we need a major co-ordinated effort and, as everyone knows, unemployment is now at a disastrous level, will the Prime Minister state his agreement in principle and make it clear to the Maritime Premiers that he would like to have a First Ministers' meeting on the economy?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I would like to suggest to the Leader of the New Democratic Party that his question is very oddly timed. He is asking that question just two days before the federal Minister of Finance meets with all his opposite numbers from the Provinces, precisely to discuss ways of implementing that coordinated effort which we certainly want and which we suspect the Provinces want, and they will be attending that meeting. 1 would suggest to the Leader of the New Democratic Party that he put more faith in the provincial Ministers of Finance, who are coming precisely to discuss co-ordinated efforts, than the other Ministers of the Provinces who do not seem to know about that meeting.


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER AGREE TO MEET PREMIERS
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, it is not a question of faith in the provincial representatives on this issue. Up to this point, and specifically concerning the Prime Minister, it is a question of faith in the Government.
I would like to say in all seriousness to the Prime Minister that one of the advantages of a commitment by the Prime Minister now, instead of standing back and waiting to have such a conference, would be that the Finance Ministers when they meet could act on that assumption, sort out certain basic questions which ought to be faced by the First Ministers, and the First Ministers could then meet, presumably early in the new year, if it is not resolved before. Therefore, I would like to ask the Prime Minister once again, will he not commit himself in principle to the necessity of meeting on this fundamental question of unemployment with the other Premiers of the country?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I cannot speak for the Finance Ministers of the Provinces, but our Finance Minister has been part of the Government for more than ten years and throughout the seventies we have had a greater number of federal-provincial First Ministers' meetings than in any other period in our history. There have been dozens of such meetings, Madam Speaker, since I have been Prime Minister, as many, I think, as have been had, perhaps in the previous 25 or 50 years. The assumption is that we are always anxious to have federal-

December 14, 1982
Presence in Gallery
provincial meetings if they are productive, and the best way to see if they can be productive will be for the federal Minister of Finance to meet with his counterparts to see what suggestions they have for co-ordinated or other forms of action in order to help revive the economy.


RESPONSIBILITY FOR CONVENING CONFERENCE
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, with all due respect to the Prime Minister, surely if the meeting which is taking place on Thursday is a success, then, presumably, the implication of what the Prime Minister is saying is that there will be a First Ministers' conference. But even if it is not a success, I would like to suggest to the Prime Minister it is all the more reason for the Prime Minister of Canada to show some leadership and call the First Ministers together to give some collective leadership to Canada in this very serious economic situation. Therefore, I would like to ask him a straight question, not a rhetorical one. Would he not agree that, even if the meeting which takes place on Thursday is not successful, it is essential to get a co-ordinated effort at the national level, involving the Provinces and the federal Government, and, therefore, he should exercise his responsibility and request that the Premiers come and meet in Ottawa, or elsewhere, to deal with the very serious problem of unemployment?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I will speak my mind quite clearly on this. 1 think that a meeting which would be wildly unsuccessful and would break down as did the February meeting of last year, when there was total disagreement and practically chaos in the so-called collective approach of all First Ministers, would be counter productive. 1 would rather have no meeting if it appears from the meeting of the Finance Ministers that there is not some possibility of reaching a form of agreement, and if the signs seem to emerge from that meeting that the Premiers will use the next meeting as they did the February one, to make ten speeches on television blaming the federal Government for all the evils of the nation.


PRESENCE IN THE GALLERY OF MINISTER OF EDUCATION OF SWAZILAND
Madam Speaker:: 1 would like to draw the attention of the House to the presence in our gallery of the Hon. Canon S. D. Dlamini, Minister of Education of Swaziland.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF THE SECRETARY GENERAL OF THE NORTH ATLANTIC COUNCIL AND OF FRENCH PARLIAMENTARIANS
Madam Speaker:: 1 also have the honour of drawing the attention of the House to the distinguished presence in our gallery of Mr. Phiilipe Deshormes, Secretary General of the North Atlantic Assembly.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: And of a delegation of French parliamentarians headed by Mr. Bernard Derosier.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CROWN CORPORATIONS
Hon. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, in his response to my Leader, the Prime Minister talked about what the Auditor General did not say about Crown corporations in his report. What the Auditor General did say was that of 33 key criteria which should be included in an omnibus Crown corporations' policy, the Government's Bill C-123 fails to meet some 26 of those criteria. 1 would like to ask the Prime Minister, will he now give the House the assurance that no new Crown corporations will be created, including Canagrex, until the Government has in place a comprehensive framework for the accountability of Crown corporations which meets most of the key objections of the Auditor General?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, we do have such a comprehensive framework. I believe it is before the House now in Bill C-123, and Part V of that Bill indicates that comprehensive framework which we see as appropriate for ensuring that Parliament has all the pertinent and relevant information regarding the operation and control of Crown corporations, and that the Government maintains the ultimate responsibility for acting on behalf of the shareholders. This is the spirit of Bill C-123. We hope that the Opposition will co-operate to bring it before the House as soon as possible so that we can hear their views on this and, hopefully, improve it and study any amendments they might want to bring in which would improve the control and administration of Crown corporations.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: If not, bring in closure.


REQUEST THAT BILL C-123 BE SCRAPPED
Henry Perrin Beatty: Possibly the Prime Minister did not hear the question or he did not read
December 14, 1982

the Auditor General's report. What 1 pointed out was what the Auditor General said, that of 33 key criteria which the Auditor General feels should be included in any framework for Crown corporations, C-123 fails to meet some 26. In view of that fact, and in view of the fact that the Government, without any reference to Parliament whatsoever, over a three-month period created four new Crown corporations, and is acting now to gag Parliament on Canagrex, why will the Prime Minister not reconsider his policy? Why will he not stand Canagrex to one side? Why will he not scrap Bill C-123 and bring in a Crown corporations' policy which meets the objections of the Auditor General and the Parliament of Canada?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am sure the Hon. Member is not serious in suggesting we scrap a Bill on which some 86 hours have already been spent.


Some Hon. Members:: Put it aside.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Canagrex has been studied for 86 hours by this Parliament. If the Hon. Member is asking now about Bill C-123, then we suggest that the debate begin on that also and that we hear which particular criteria, in the view of the Hon. Member opposite, have not been met by that Bill.


Henry Perrin Beatty: They are listed in the Auditor General's report.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I understand the Hon. Member has a copy of the Auditor General's report in his hand and he wants to make some arguments-


Charles Joseph Clark: All you have are your jack boots.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -on the criteria. The Leader of the Opposition wants to get in on this, but I would suggest it would be a courtesy to his Member, to his backbencher, if he let me continue the argument with him. But the Leader of the Opposition is not known for his courtesy and he would like to act as a dictator-


Charles Joseph Clark: I do not take lectures on courtesy from you.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -but unfortunately he cannot find in his Party people who want to be dictated to.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


INCOME TAX ACT
Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. In his Bill to amend the statute law relating to income tax, I think there was a very serious oversight which the Minister will notice in Clause
Oral Questions
16(2), which identifies the professions of accountant, dentist, lawyer, medical doctor, veterinarian and chiropractor. The Minister of Finance is aware that in Quebec, we have a very important profession, namely that of notary. Why is this profession not identified in the Minister's Bill?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Finance):: I shall check with my officials to find out if there has indeed been an oversight. If such is the case, an amendment will be proposed, when the Bill is considered in Committee of the Whole, to include this very important profession for which I have the greatest respect.


Roch La Salle: Madam Speaker, on behalf of Quebec's 2,000 notaries and on behalf of a profession that has existed in Quebec for well nigh 300 years, does the Minister undertake to add to his legislation the profession of notary, which is very well known in Quebec?


Marc Lalonde: As I said before to the Hon. Member, I shall check whether there was an oversight, and if that is the case, I shall see to it that a correction be made at the time the Bill is considered in Committee of the Whole. That is when amendments to a bill are made.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Bert Hargrave (Medicine Hat):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture regarding the Canagrex issue. In view of the Minister's abrupt indication last night that he will proceed with closure, he must surely be aware of the total opposition to this legislation as it presently stands by almost all the organized beef cattle producers in Canada. He must know that beef cattle producers have requested that cattle and beef products be removed from the Bill unless the buy-sell provisions are cancelled.
How can the Minister justify such an extreme procedure when only 19 hours-and that may add up to five days-but only 19 hours of debate took place on second reading, and less than two hours at report stage?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, the motion that I put through was because of the long talk that had taken place about Canagrex, even before it entered this House.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: That is a new parliamentary principle.

December 14, 1982
Oral Questions


Eugene Whelan: Canagrex was not thought up by the Liberal Party. Canagrex was thought up by farming people in this nation, and it is still backed by farming people in this nation. As the Hon. Member says, it is not backed by all of them, not by 100 per cent, but the vast majority still want Canagrex and they are still asking that we get on with it. As late as yesterday evening, I am told, the President of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture was saying, "Where are we at? Let's get on with passing Canagrex."
The Hon. Member refers to the length of debate. He knows this was discussed in committee. He knows that you operate this House and the Committees as democratic forums, Madam Speaker. We have followed that principle. He also knows that if this were the Mother of Parliaments there would be an agreement for so many days of debate and to deal with amendments, et cetera.
Hon. Members opposite keep using the word "closure". We are asking for time allocation, Madam Speaker. Since I was 21 I have been elected to some kind of public office and I know that this is generally how business is administered, by some kind of ladies' or gentlemen's agreement.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Herbert Thomas (Bert) Hargrave: Madam Speaker, 1 would have to add to the Minister and to the Government House Leader that it is a little difficult, if not impossible, to collaborate on bad legislation.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


OPPOSITION TO CANAGREX
Herbert Thomas (Bert) Hargrave: I have a supplementary question, Madam Speaker. The Minister will be aware that some 23 agricultural commodity organizations have recently reaffirmed their total opposition to Canagrex. Most of them were unable to appear before the Committee. The Saskatchewan Stock Growers requested permission to appear but were denied the opportunity. 1 want to ask the Minister if this closure motion is his only response to this large and important segment of Canadian agriculture. Surely this is not the Canadian democratic way.


Eugene Whelan: Surely, Madam Speaker, it is the parliamentary way. We are operating within the rules and regulations of a democratic Parliament. The rules we have in this Parliament lag far behind the rules in most democratic Parliaments in the world, where this would be an automatic thing. For instance, Premier Davis had to do the same thing in Ontario just the other day. 1 do not hear Hon. Members opposite saying that his action was undemocratic. He used closure, and he used the guillotine.
We are asking for time allocation. The Hon. Member refers to Committee meetings. As he attended most of them he knows what took place. Democracy took place in the Committee. Members made the decisions on the amendments that were presented. What they are saying now is that they do not want democracy to work. That is what they are saying.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

[ Translation]


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Louis Duclos (Montmorency-Orleans):: Madam
Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. Last week, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution with a sweeping majority, in favour of the establishment of an Arab State in Palestine, while Canada, with the United States, Costa Rica and Israel, voted against the resolution.
Could the Right Hon. Prime Minister inform the House why Canada thought it preferable to vote against this resolution?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, if the Hon. Member had given me notice of his question, I could have checked the text of the resolution we voted against or on which we abstained, or else 1 could have asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs who is at this moment meeting with members of the Brandt Commission. 1 cannot give a specific answer for the simple reason that I have not read the resolution in question. On the face of it, it seems to me that the Hon. Member's question raises a number of other questions regarding an Arab State in Palestine. Is this not merely a petition on a matter of principle? What is Palestine? Does it only mean the left bank of Transjordania? Does it include the Gaza strip? I do not know what the resolution contained, so 1 am really not able to answer the question.


RAILWAYS
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport concerning the mishap, the explosion and fire, in the CPR yards in Winnipeg last evening. Since Mississauga and McGregor, and since there was a spill of methanol in the same yard two years ago, and in
December 14, 1982

light of the request by the City of Winnipeg for the relocation of the CP railway yards to an unpopulated area-and not only in Winnipeg but in many other cities as well-may I ask the Minister how many times this sort of accident will have to happen-is he waiting for people to be killed? How many times does it have to happen before the Government will act on feasibility studies and on the actual relocation of railway marshalling yards to unpopulated areas?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, in 1979 or 1980 an agreement had been reached that an overpass would be built, and the city and the Province requested UTAP money for that purpose. An amount of $7.6 million was allocated. But later, because of local opposition, the municipality decided to drop that project-regretfully, in my view.
The relocation had always been considered to be rather expensive at $170 million, which would probably be up to $300 million at this time. There are all kinds of problems associated with it besides the financial ones. For example, where the yard would go is one problem. All this is to say that at one point the city had a choice to make. It decided not to go ahead with the Sherbrooke-McGregor overpass. Since then it has decided to get involved in a core development program, and this is very well known to Members of the House.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Madam Speaker, had that explosion occurred last night at the overpass at one end or at the underpass at the other end, people would have been killed. That is not the answer. Those yards have to be relocated.


REGULATIONS GOVERNING TRANSPORTATION OF DANGEROUS GOODS
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: It is two years and four months since the legislation on the transportation of dangerous goods was passed. The Minister has recently presented one-third of the regulations but they are still not in force, and two-thirds of the regulations have yet to see the light of day.
When is the Minister going to publish regulations that do something about the security of railway cars that contain, or used to contain, dangerous goods, in storage and marshalling in railway yards? What action is he taking to try to prevent what occurred last night from happening again?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I think my hon. friend should make a distinction between railways operations under the Railway Act-and there are plenty of regulations for the operation of railways in yards or outside them-and the transportation of dangerous goods. That is really a different issue. On the transportation of dangerous goods, as he said, we have gazetted the first units of regulations now. Most people who are well informed on the subject, while regretting that we have not gone faster in drafting these regulations, understand why it has been done so slowly according to the Hon. Member's standards. Drafting the regulations is terribly difficult because of the many jurisdictions that have to be reconciled, and I have explained that before. The operations in the yard come under the Railway
Oral Questions
Act and are not really a matter that would come under the transportation of dangerous goods, as far as I am concerned.


Madam Speaker:: Could I ask all Hon. Members to please try to be more brief. We are runnning considerably behind time. I want to warn Hon. Members on both sides that they will not be able to get their usual number of questions in today.
I would ask them to be very brief for the rest of the Question Period.


TRANSPORT
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. It arises out of the Canadian Coast Guard report on the vulnerability of standing bridge structures in Canadian waterways. The Minister will be aware that there are at least five from Vancouver to Halifax in some degree of danger. Ideally these bridges should be protected. The Minister will have in front of him a proposal from the Premier of the Province of Nova Scotia on an 80-20 per cent cost sharing arrangement to alleviate the possibility of imminent disaster. Will the minister give some indication of his preparedness to call together the various jurisdictions for the purpose of sitting down and resolving this very potentially disastrous problem?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I have answered this question a number of times. I have stated quite clearly that the responsibility for intraprovincial bridges is a provincial one. My hon. friend knows that, and I am quite sure that he agrees with it. Consequently, the protection of intraprovincial bridges under Canadian law is a provincial matter. However, because I am sympathetic by nature, and sympathetic to this particular subject, I have gone further and have said that I will be looking with the Provinces-Nova Scotia, in this particular instance-to find if there could not be savings on other transportation matters which could be made in order to help the federal Government make a contribution to this particular objective.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER INITIATE NEGOTIATIONS
J. Michael Forrestall: Madam Speaker, an additional 800 transits will occur beneath the Angus L. Macdonald and A. Murray MacKay bridges into Bedford Basin this year. Will the Minister undertake to the House that he will ask his officials to initiate negotiations immediately which will lead to the conclusion that I am sure he shares, as well as all of us on this side of the Chamber?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, there is a federal-provincial body to look into these matters. I remember that this was one of the items that I

December 14, 1982
Oral Questions
expressed the wish should be put on the agenda. I will check further and I will activate matters, if they have not yet been sufficiently activated.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Lome Greenaway (Cariboo-Chilcotin):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. According to one of the Minister's senior officials, Indian bands across Canada owed banks, retailers and suppliers more than $35 million as of the end of March, 1981. This estimate was arrived at by doing band audits. However, the Department gave up on the matter because it proved to be such a large problem. It now estimates that the total amount is probably in the neighbourhood of $100 million. What recourse does a creditor have when an Indian band defaults on the payment of a loan or a debt? What responsibility does the Minister have to these creditors?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Madam Speaker, that is very largely a legal question, but let me indicate that I think many suppliers in communities near Indian reserves are aware of the limited liability of the Indian people with respect to reserve lands. They choose to make those supplies, knowing the degree of limited liability with respect to others. They have to accept a certain amount of responsibility for the fact that they are prepared to extend the credit under those circumstances.
If the Hon. Member is suggesting that somehow the Minister should intervene and tell Indians where and how they can buy, it certainly runs counter to any suggestion from the Hon. Member or the Opposition Party with respect to ending the dependency and paternalism regarding Indian people which they allege so often in the House.


Lorne Everett Greenaway: That is not what I had in mind. I had in mind to tell the Minister that his officials are telling us that a serious credibility problem is building up because of this. Many suppliers, banks and retailers think the Department has some part to play in this, and that is why I wanted to raise the matter on the floor of the House today.


INVESTIGATION REQUESTED
Lorne Everett Greenaway: Madam Speaker, will the Minister order an investigation into the problem, and will he report the findings of such an investigation to the House?


John Carr Munro: Madam Speaker, in each case where this occurs, where band councils expend money for purposes other than the ones indicated when they sign contribution agreements with the Department, we go in, we intervene, we
send in auditors to assess the situation and to apply what corrective measures we can. We will continue to do that, but I just want to indicate that the Hon. Member is ill-disguising what he is suggesting. I take it that he is suggesting a greater degree of interference by the Department, and that is not consistent with policies enunciated by his Party.


POLITICAL PARTIES
Mr. John McDermid (Brampton-Georgetown):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Do the Prime Minister and the Government approve of a political party using a citizenship court judge as a tool for recruiting new members to that party?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The question is hypothetical, Madam Speaker, in its very form.


John Horton McDermid: Maybe I could show the Prime Minister that it is not hypothetical.


MULTICULTURAL RECRUITMENT MANUAL
John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, could the Prime Minister explain why the multicultural recruitment manual of the Liberal Party of Canada, written by the Minister of State for Multiculturalism, suggests under the chapter entitled, "New Activities for Recruitment", that a meeting be called by a Liberal riding association under the guise of a citizenship class involving a citizenship judge, and that this meeting be used to recruit new members to the Liberal Party? Does he support this flagrant misuse of citizenship court judges?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I would have to take cognizance of the document itself. If the Hon. Member would be patient, I will look into it.


NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS
Mr. Doug Anguish (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Recently the Secretary of State for External Affairs said that the umbrella agreement between the United States and Canada had been concluded, or tentatively agreed upon. In the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, could the Prime Minister tell us what are the details of the umbrella agreement, including the Cruise missile, if any, and when he expects the final signing of the agreement?
December 14, 1982


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I am afraid that I will have to take notice of the question on behalf of the Minister. I do not know of any date.


REQUEST THAT AGREEMENT BE DEBATED IN PARLIAMENT
Douglas Keith Anguish: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister as well. In the United States matters of this importance are usually discussed by the House of Representatives. Just recently the MX program was turned down there because of financial implications and the concern about nuclear arms. Will the Prime Minister assure us that there will be some debate in this House on the whole umbrella agreement, specifically on the use of the Cruise missile over Canadian territory, before the agreement is finally signed, so that we can voice the concerns of our constituents who have been writing to us about the Cruise missile question?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I agree with the Hon. Member that the question is extraordinarily important. I hope the New Democratic Party would view it as important enough to give perhaps one of its opposition days to debate the subject.


MEETINGS BETWEEN FEDERAL AND NEWFOUNDLAND MINISTERS
Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The Minister met in St. John's yesterday with his Newfoundland counterpart. Can he tell us whether, arising out of that meeting, we can expect a resumption of formal negotiations on the offshore? Can we also expect a degree of flexibility from the Minister which hopefully could lead to a settlement?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, I had meetings last Friday in Montreal and this Monday in St. John's. We explored new avenues which could lead to a resolution of this problem. I guess the fact that we have had two meetings is a good sign. I am well known for my flexibility, but at the same time I have to protect the interests of the Canadian Government.


JOINT MANAGEMENT AND REVENUE SHARING PROPOSAL
James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, could the Minister be more specific and tell us whether or not he is prepared to deal with the Newfoundland compromise proposal on joint management and revenue sharing?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, we have explored new avenues, and Mr. Marshall and myself have agreed that our two governments should not necessarily maintain their previous
Oral Questions
positions and that they should try to seek new alternatives. That is exactly what we are trying to do at this time.
 * *


HOUSING
Hon. David Crombie (Rosedale):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for housing. Yesterday I had the opportunity to ask the Minister of State for Finance whether or not the reports that social housing, coop housing and non-profit housing had been reduced by over 600 units in the Province of Ontario were correct. He indicated that he could not confirm that figure but found it surprising and shocking. Could the Minister confirm the figure today?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, I heard the exchange. In fact my colleague dealt with the Hon. Member very effectively. The reality is that the social housing budget has been consistent since 1979, with some variations, but over all the statistics would show that the average has been very well respected. In fact, it has been more than respected.
The Province of Ontario, in the area of social housing, has benefited from 30 per cent to 38 per cent over the same period. It, too, has been dealt with very fairly. In the debate taking place, I think probably caused by some statement by the Minister of Housing for Ontario, the point was not made that the allocation of municipal non-profit housing units, 75 per cent paid by the federal Government, is at the total discretion of the Minister of Housing for Ontario.


REDUCTION OF PROJECTS IN TORONTO
David Edward Crombie: Madam Speaker, the figures that are in the hands not only of the Province of Ontario but of the City of Toronto and of metropolitan Toronto are that in 1982 the allocation from the federal Government was 7,418 and the allocation for 1983 is 6,688. Those are the actual figures with which they are working. The city has now taken an action to reduce five projects, all co-op and social housing, including those dealing with handicapped and disturbed children. Would the Minister check with his own officials and confirm those facts? Right now those projects are being halted as a result of the information which they have from officials in CMHC. Would the Minister check those facts and get in touch with the city?


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, not only will I check those alleged facts but I can inform the Hon. Member that the 1983 budget has not been finalized.

December 14, 1982
Point of Order-Mr. Nielsen


VACANCY
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that, following the notice of vacancy given in the House on Monday, December 13, 1982 by the Hon. Member for Pro-vencher (Mr. Epp) and pursuant to Section 10 of the House of Commons Act, I have addressed my warrant to the Chief Electoral Officer for the issue of a new writ for the election of a member for the electoral district of Brandon-Souris.


POINT OF ORDER
Hon. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Last night, as recorded at page 21551 of Hansard, there will be found in the right-hand column the heading: "Business of the House-Time Allocation for Report Stage and Third Reading of Bill C-85". This statement by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) then follows:
Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the House that there has been consultation among the representatives of the Parties and that it has not been possible to reach an agreement pursuant to Standing Order 75A or 75B with regard to the allocation of time on report stage and third reading stage of Bill C-85, an Act to establish a corporation called Canagrex to promote, facilitate and engage in the export of agricultural and food products from Canada. Therefore, at the next sitting of the House I shall propose a motion pursuant to Standing Order 75C to allocate one sitting day to each of the said stages of the said Bill.
As you know, Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably absent from the House when the Minister of Agriculture made that statement during debate on Bill C-139, an Act to amend the Income Tax Act. Upon being informed of the statement, at 9:55 p.m., as recorded at page 21556 of Hansard for December 13, 1982, 1 said, among other things:
I want to note, Mr. Speaker, that ordinarily this-
"This" referred to the Minister's remarks. My sentence continued:
-would trigger a debate tomorrow before Government Orders for two hours. I want to serve notice now that we do not accept the propriety of the procedure adopted by the Minister in giving that notice tonight. We do not accept the notice.
To support my submission which 1 will be making to you that that notice was out of order, I want to review some of the precedents with respect to the notices given since the implementation of new Standing Order 75C.
On December 1, 1971, at page 10046 of Hansard, the then President of Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen), under the heading "Business of the House-Notice of Time Allocation Motion for Committee of the Whole Stage on Income Tax Bill", gave notice with respect to the Bill then under consideration, which was Bill C-259, that he would move pursuant to Standing Order 75C that four additional days be allotted to the Committee of the Whole stage of that Bill.
The next precedent I wish to draw to the Chair's attention is recorded in Hansard for Monday, December 13, 1971 at page 10383, where again the then President of Privy Council gave notice during Routine Proceedings, dealing with Business of the House, that he would be imposing Standing Order 75C limiting debate and stating his intention to move a motion which would limit the debate at the third reading stage of Bill C-259 to an additional three days.
The next precedent is to be found in Hansard for November 12, 1975 where the then President of Privy Council, the Hon. Mitchell Sharp, gave notice that he would be invoking Standing Order 75C with respect to Bill C-58. He stated:
-I shall move that not more than five additional hours shall be allotted to the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage of the said Bill.
That notice was given during debate on Bill C-58.
The next precedent in Hansard is found at page 11639 for March 9, 1976 appearing under the heading in Hansard of "Routine Proceedings-Business of the House". The then President of Privy Council, the Hon. Mitchell Sharp, again invoked the provisions of Standing Order 75C with respect to Bill C-68. He said that he gave notice that at the next sitting of the House we would move that not more than five hours shall be allotted on that bill.
At page 12340 and 12341 for March 31, 1976, Mr. Sharp, the then President of Privy Council, rose during the debate on the Bill on a point of order and informed the House that he would be invoking the provisions of Standing Order 75C with respect to Bill C-83, allocating a further four days for the consideration and disposal of second reading. Again, I point out that procedure took place during the debate on Bill C-83.
The next precedent is found in Hansard at page 2495 for January 28, 1977. Again under Routine Proceedings notice was given by the then Minister of Finance, the Hon. Donald S. Macdonald, invoking the provisions of Standing Order 75C with respect to Bill C-22 limiting Committee of the Whole stage consideration to an additional eight hours. Again, that action was taken under Routine Proceedings.
On February 8, 1977, at page 2830 of Hansard, again under Routine Proceedings, the then Minister of Finance, the Hon. Donald S. Macdonald, gave notice that he intended to move a motion limiting the proceedings at third reading stage and passage of Bill C-122 to one additional sitting day. Again, that action was taken by the then Minister under Routine Proceedings.
On March 28, 1977, at page 4377 of Hansard, again under Routine Proceedings, the then Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) gave notice under Standing Order 75C which affected Bill C-27 and informed the House that a motion would be made at the next sitting for the purpose of allocating five further hours to the second reading stage of Bill C-27. Again, that announcement was made under Routine Proceedings.
December 14, 1982

At page 1077 of Hansard for November 21, 1977, the then Minister of State for Multiculturalism, the Hon. Norman A. Cafik, gave a similar notice. It is recorded under Routine Proceedings, Business of the House for that day, and he gave notice that he intended to move a motion limiting the proceedings on second reading stage of Bill C-ll to five additional hours. Again, that action was taken during Routine Proceedings.
At page 1498 of Hansard for December 2, 1977, again under Routine Proceedings, the then Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) gave notice under the provisions of Standing Order 75C relating to Bill C-ll, for study in Committee of the Whole, limiting that study to an additional three days. Again, that action was taken under Routine Proceedings.
On June 5, 1978, at page 6049 of Hansard, again under Routine Proceedings, Business of the House, the then Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) invoked the provisions of Standing Order 75C by giving notice that he intended to limit discussion on Bill C-56 at second reading to a further one additional day. Once again, that action was taken during Routine Proceedings.
Then on June 12, 1978, at page 6298 of Hansard, the then Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien), under Business of the House, invoked the provisions of Standing Order 75C restricting further discussion of Bill C-56 at the Committee of the Whole stage to a further two additional days. Again, this was done while that legislation was under discussion and on Routine Proceedings.
At page 458 of Hansard of October 25, 1978, again during Routine Proceedings, dealing with the Business of the House, the then Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) invoked the provisions of Standing Order 75C on Bill C-7 and gave notice that he would be moving to restrict consideration at second reading to one further sitting day. Again, that action was taken under Routine Proceedings.
At page 2262 of Hansard for December 19, 1978, again under Routine Proceedings, the Hon. Member for Lambton-Sarnia (Mr. Cullen) invoked the provisions of Standing Order 75C informing the House that he would be moving a motion limiting debate to one additional day on each of the stages of report and third reading of Bill C-14. Again, this was under Routine Proceedings.
In Hansard for March 17, 1979, at page 4281, again under Routine Proceedings, the then Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and Minister of State for Science and Technology, the Hon. Alastair Gillespie, invoked the provisions of Standing Order 75C to limit discussion on Bill C-42 to one additional day for each of the report and third reading stages of that legislation. Again, the action was taken under Routine Proceedings.
At page 2040 of Hansard for December 5, 1979, again under Routine Proceedings, my colleague for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) gave notice under Standing Order 75C to limit discussion on Bill C-20, to amend the Income Tax Act and to provide a tax credit with regard to mortgage interest and home owner property taxes, to one further sitting day. Again, that action was taken under Routine Proceedings.
Point of Order-Mr. Nielsen
At page 1840 of Hansard for June 6, 1980, again under Routine Proceedings, Business of the House, the present Government House Leader (Mr. Pinard) gave notice of invoking the provisions of Standing Order 75C with respect to Bill C-30, informing the House that he intended to propose a motion allocating one additional sitting day to the second reading stage of that Bill. Again, that action was taken under Routine Proceedings.
In Hansard for January 12, 1981, the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) invoked the provisions of Standing Order 75C while Bill C-48 was under discussion, notifying the House that he intended to propose a motion that would limit the debate on second reading stage of that Bill then under discussion to one further day.
At page 7147 of Hansard for February 11, 1981, the Government House Leader and President of the Privy Council during debate on Bill C-59 indicated that he was giving notice under Standing Order 75C to allocate one additional day for second reading stage of Bill C-59 which was then under discussion and in which the Minister was participating in the debate.
At page 8614 of Hansard for March 25, 1981, the Minister of State for Finance, during the debate on the measure, invoked the provisions of Standing Order 75C to limit the report and third reading stages of Bill C-59 to one sitting day for each of the stages of the Bill then under discussion and being debated.
At page 10373 of Hansard for June 8, 1981-and this is one exception-the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Bussieres) gave notice, immediately following the dinner recess, under the provisions of Standing Order 75C, to limit the report and third reading stage of Bill C-57 to one sitting day for each of those stages. In that precedent, the Chair will note that under discussion at that time was a national energy measure, and that immediately following the dinner recess at 8 p.m. the Minister of State for Finance rose on a point of order. The record does not disclose whether any consent was sought or given. Mr. Deputy Speaker in the chair at the time simply recognized the Minister of State for Finance on a point of order and it was that vehicle which he utilized to give that notice. I do point out, in passing, and I will come back to it in a moment, that no consent was sought.
At page 13734 of Hansard for December 4, 1981, the Minister of Energy (Mr. Lalonde), as he then was, during Routine Proceedings, under Business of the House invoked the provisions of Standing Order 75C with respect to the proceedings on Bill C-48, giving notice that he intended to move a motion that one sitting day be allocated to the third reading stage of that Bill. That action was taken again under Routine Proceedings.
At page 15348 of Hansard on February 24, 1982, the then Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cosgrove), under Business of

December 14, 1982
Point of Order-Mr. Nielsen
the House during Routine Proceedings, invoked the provisions of Standing Order 75C stating that he intended to move a motion which would limit debate at the second reading stage of Bill C-89 to one additional sitting day.
On July 14, 1982, at page 19327 of Hansard, again under Routine Proceedings, Business of the House, the then President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) invoked the provisions of Standing Order 75C, stating that he intended to move a motion to limit discussion on Bill C-124 at the second reading stage of that measure to one further sitting day.
On July 21, 1982, at page 19556 of Hansard, again under Routine Proceedings, Business of the House, the then Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Bussieres) invoked the provisions of Standing Order 75C, stating that he intended to propose a motion to allocate two additional sitting days to the second reading stage of Bill C-125.
Now another significant precedent, Madam Speaker. On July 27, 1982, at page 19756 of Hansard, the Government House Leader (Mr. Pinard) invoked the provisions of Standing Order 75C during which he notified the House that he would be moving a motion allocating one additional sitting day to the second reading stage. In any event, the precedent is significant enough to read it in full. Under the heading, "Business of the House, Disposition of Bill C-124", I draw again to the attention of the Chair that when this action was taken the business under discussion was a Bill concerned with UFFI. The Government House Leader took his action immediately following the dinner recess, and this is what is recorded in the exchange:


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I have had consultations with the House leaders, and I think I know what the hon. member wants. Perhaps he will be satisfied once I have disposed of the following.
This is the significant part, Madam Speaker:
At this time I would like to have unanimous consent to tell the House the result of those talks.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the minister to make a statement at this point?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Yvon Pinard: First of all, I wish to inform the House that notwithstanding consultations which took place-
Thereafter followed the usual wording of the invocation of Standing Order 75C, during which he informed the House that he would be moving a motion to limit further discussion on Bill C-124 to one additional day on the said stage of the said Bill. I am presuming that is the second reading stage.
The significant thing is that the debate was recommenced immediately following the dinner recess by a request from the Government House Leader for consent of the House to invoke the provisions of Standing Order 75C.
On July 31, 1982, at page 19874 of Hansard the then President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston), during a debate on Bill C-124, said this:
I also take this opportunity to inform the House that there have been consultations among the representatives of the parties and that it has not been possible to reach any agreement under the provisions at the report stage and third reading stage of Bill C-124, an Act respecting compensation in the public sector of Canada.
Then there is an interjection by the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans), and Mr. Johnston went on:
Therefore, 1 wish to give notice, Mr. Speaker, that at the next sitting of the House 1 shall propose a motion, pursuant to Standing Order 75C, to allocate one sitting day to each of the said stages of the said bill.
I point out, Madam Speaker, that the Minister took that action during debate of the very measure that was concerned with his notice under Standing Order 75C.
On December 1, 1982-and the Chair will be happy to learn that this is my last Hansard precedent-at page 21172, again under Routine Proceedings under the heading of Business of the House, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) invoked the provisions of Standing Order 75C, saying that she intended to propose a motion pursuant to that Standing Order to allocate one further sitting day to the second reading stage of Bill C-131. The Chair will recall that that measure was then called later on as the Order of the Day.
Those precedents all having been set on the record, Madam Speaker-my research has been fairly exhaustive; there may be other precedents but I certainly have not found them-it would appear that this summarization can be made of the precedents which 1 have put on the record.
The first point that can be made is that notice under Standing Order 75C was given during Routine Proceedings in all cases with the following exceptions. There are five exceptions with respect to the giving of notice not during Routine Proceedings, and those five exceptions concern notices all of which were given during debate on the measure under discussion, the measure being the subject matter of the notice being given under 75C. Those occasions were November 12, 1975; January 12, 1981; February 11, 1981; March 25, 1981; and July 30, 1982. In those five instances, as I say, the provisions of Standing Order 75C were invoked while the measure intending to be affected by the notice was then under discussion. It was then under consideration, to use the words of the Standing Order, which I will get to in a moment.
The second point that can be made concerns the one instance on March 21, 1976 when the notice was given by virtue of a point of order during the debate on the Bill concerned. In my submission, that really is not an exception and it need not have been done on a point of order. It certainly could have been given, as the precedents so clearly point out.
The third point I wish to make is that the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) sought the unanimous consent of the House during debate on another Bill not the subject matter of 75C. That was on July 27, 1982. I have already cited that precedent before the Chair. The point is that unanimous consent was sought and given.
The last remaining point, the fourth point, is that on June 8, 1981 notice was given on a point of order during an allotted day. That precedent, if the Chair will examine it, will disclose that that point of order was raised by the Minister giving the notice immediately there was a quorum after the dinner recess. There is nothing wrong with that if the Standing Orders had
December 14, 1982

been complied with. I point out with respect, and with no reflection on the action of the Speaker who was present at the time-1 do not know who it was-that it was up to the Chair at that time to seek the consent that was necessary, as the Government Elouse Leader displayed on the occasion of July 27, 1982. That consent was not sought.
It might be said that now that record is part of Hansard it constitutes some kind of precedent as to the manner in which notice must be given under 75C. I suggest to the Chair that simply because no objection was raised at that moment to that notice on that Bill, it does not establish that event as a precedent for all time to be taken into consideration in reaching a decision as to whether 75C has been properly invoked. My submission is that it was done the wrong way and that consent should have been sought.
It is of singular importance to note that in all cases, apart from that one aberration, since that Standing Order has been utilized in this place-and I believe it came into force in 1969-notice under 75C has either been given during Routine Proceedings or during the discussion of the measure which the notice intended to affect. That was not done in this case.
Last night we were discussing Bill C-139, an Act to amend the Income Tax Act. In my submission, based on those precedents, that notice was wrongly given and is a nullity. Let us just reflect for a moment on the wording of 75C:
A Minister of the Crown who from his place in the House at a previous sitting has stated that an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 75A or 75B-
There is nothing wrong at all so far. It is the next words that are important:
-in respect of proceedings at the stage at which a public bill was then under consideration-
My submission is that Bill C-85 had to be then under consideration in order to allow the Minister to invoke the provisions of Standing Order 75C.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: That is in those cases where the notice is not given during Routine Proceedings, which I submit would be the proper place for it to be given.
That essentially is my submission to the Chair. I believe that the notice is a nullity. We cannot proceed with the triggered debate for two hours today unless the Government now wishes to call Bill C-85. If it calls C-85, then certainly it can give the notice; but it cannot give it during debate on a matter which is not the subject matter of the notice.
Those are my submissions. I tried to give the Chair as much notice as possible last night because I realized this matter required an immediate decision of the Chair.
I further submit to the Chair, on the basis of the literal raft of precedents, that the Chair really is compelled to come to the conclusion that either the notice should have been given under Routine Proceedings, which could have been done quite easily by any Minister of the Crown giving notice yesterday during Routine Proceedings, or during a discussion of C-85. There
Point of Order-Mr. Nielsen
may be other ways. However, what happened last night is certainly not one of them.


Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, 1 will be brief in dealing with this point. I want to say that the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) has made a submission both lengthy and elaborate, obviously well researched and supportable.
1 want to say that to give notice of 75C in the middle of another debate is quite unacceptable. If it were not for the way that Hansard does its work, it would be entirely possible for Members of the House of Commons not to be made aware that 75C had been announced by the Minister during the course of the debate last evening. That is crucial. Surely Members are not required to read every word uttered by every Minister every day in order to determine whether at some point in time some Minister rose to give notice of 75C. They have reason to expect that the notice will be given in the usual way at the usual time.
I urge you, Madam Speaker, to read page 21551 of Hansard. The Minister did not at the beginning of his speech, almost the entire content of which was out of order, bring to the attention of the House, either by way of a point of order or in any other obvious way, that it was his intention to notify the House that 75C was to be used.
The Minister went on for a number of pages during the course of his deliberations, starting at page 21549. It was not until page 21551, in the middle of his speech, that he was giving notice of the use of 75C. I make the point that Hansard need not have put a heading in the speech "Business of the House". Hansard need not have done that; but had Hansard not done that, then the notice which the Minister gave last night would have been buried in the middle of a speech on another piece of legislation and would have excaped the notice of the majority of the Members of the House of Commons. If for no other reason than that, the notice was not properly given.
I want to say further that all of the precedents given by the Hon. Member for Yukon are valid. This is not the way the Government has normally gone about giving notice to the House of Commons. This is not an acceptable way for the Members of the House of Commons to be given notice. I suspect that it probably was intended that he give notice at eight o'clock, but perhaps he was not here; or maybe it was intended that he give it during the Routine Proceedings earlier in the day, but perhaps he was not here. I do not know about that. I am surmising that may have been the case.


Erik Nielsen: Any Minister could have done it.


Ian Deans: It is true, any Minister could have done it. But I ask you in the interest of fairness, Madam Speaker, to rule that this way is unacceptable, that there is no precedent for it, and that because there is no precedent for it, it is unacceptable. But even more important than that, we must establish here and

December 14, 1982
Point of Order-Mr. Nielsen
now that you cannot slip in notice during the middle of a debate on an entirely different matter.


Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Lethbridge-Foothills):: Madam Speaker, I wish to present an argument to you based on the broader aspect of parliamentary reform and procedure. As you know, there is a special parliamentary committee sitting which is designed to make this place more operable for Members of Parliament so that we can go back to our ridings and report on what is happening.
We have 282 Members of Parliament, soon to be 310 if the law is not changed, and there are a million different rules and procedures. We have come to rely on the fact that we are going to meet at two o'clock, and everyone will be here before we spread out over 20 committees and the special task forces. We have come to expect that during that time the Government will provide its notices. Indeed, if you look under "Routine Proceedings" on the Order Paper, there is a special heading entitled "Government Notices of Motions". That is a period when Government Members can stand and give notice of motions which they are going to present, and all of the precedents submitted by the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) show that, with the exception of five occasions when the House was actually involved in the debate on the Bill regarding which they gave notice. That is a reasonable exception because the people in the House at that time were involved with that very Bill. Therefore, they are the people who are interested.
Last night on the income tax Bill, if the Standing Committee on Agriculture had been sitting and all Hon. Members of this House who are interested in agriculture were off on another part of the Hill, the fact that the Minister stands up and gives notice on a Bill dealing with agriculture which affects 300,000 people directly in this land just will not wash, Madam Speaker. I submit to you, on that broad principle, that you have to find that the notice given by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) last night, slipped into a tax Bill, is not sufficient.


Mr. David Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, I do not think it will take me as long to make my argument as it took the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), because I think our case is much stronger and speaks for itself. The proposition which the Hon. Member for Yukon has basically put forward, Madam Speaker, is that either notice has to be given under Routine Proceedings or during consideration of a Bill which is then under debate.
To clear that up we have to look, first of all, at the Standing Orders, Standing Order 75C. The Hon. Member read it but I suggest he did not go quite far enough. That Standing Order reads:
A Minister of the Crown who from his place in the House at a previous sitting has stated that an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 75A or 75B-
Did that happen? Yes, that happened. So far so good.
-in respect of proceedings at the stage at which a public bill was then under consideration-
I believe the many precedents to which the Hon. Member for Yukon referred in which this was done under Routine Proceedings destroys his own argument that it can only be done when the Bill in question is under debate. If you are interpreting it in the way he is suggesting, Madam Speaker, it would clearly suggest that to do it under Routine Proceedings would be some other way which is not specifically referred to here. I suggest that that is not the way it is meant to be interpreted.
It is abundantly clear that that is not the way it is to be interpreted if you, as Mackenzie King used to say, "read on, read on", because my hon. friend from Yukon stopped after the word "consideration". And what does it go on to say?


Erik Nielsen: I don't have a crystal ball.


David P. Smith: After the word "consideration" it says:
-either in the House or in any committee-
What does that phrase "or in any committee" mean?


An Hon. Member:: It certainly does not mean last night.


David P. Smith: It certainly would not suggest that the Bill had to be under debate in the House, because how could you apply Standing Order 75C to something which was going on in committee if you could only do it when the debate was going on in the House? Clearly, what that means is that the Bill is at a stage in which it can be called, it has been called for report stage, it has been dealt with at report stage, and it is a proper matter to be called at any point. I suggest, Madam Speaker, that that is the proper interpretation of what that Standing Order means.
I think it is quite clear that it does not mean it can only be done if the Bill in question is under debate, or all of those examples to which the Hon. Member for the Yukon referred where it was done under Votes and Proceedings, would be out of order. And how do you explain the phrase "in any committee", if that is what it means?
I think we can also look at precedents, and 1 thank the Hon. Member for Yukon for the very exhaustive number of precedents to which he referred where this was done under Vote and Proceedings. That is, of course, in my opinion, an appropriate occasion for it to be done, but certainly not the only occasion.


Erik Nielsen: You mean Routine Proceedings.


David P. Smith: I think if you go back to the first time it was used, as a matter of fact on December 1, 1971, it was done under Votes and Proceedings.


Erik Nielsen: Routine Proceedings.


David P. Smith: Routine Proceedings, yes. Clearly, the Bill had not been called at that point. So I suggest that it clearly does
December 14, 1982

not mean that it can only be done when the Bill itself is under debate.
There have been a number of other occasions on which it has been done in some manner other than on Routine Proceedings, and 1 would refer you, Madam Speaker, to November 12, 1975 and January 12, 1981. It was not done then during Routine Proceedings. My hon. friend referred to it being done on an allotted day. I believe there are two precedents on which it was done on an allotted day, March 25, 1981 and also June 8, 1981. In the latter case, it was done on a point of order.
My hon. friend has referred to the occasion when consent was asked by the Government House Leader, but I suggest to him that the reason consent was asked was that he did not have the floor. It was not that it was necessary to get the consent of the House to give notice, but he needed the consent of the House to in fact get the floor. I think a careful reading of what occurred there will make that point quite clear.
I think we can then, if we are still in any doubt, go to Beauchesne at page 224 of the Fifth Edition, Citation 732, which states, and I quote:
Whenever a Minister of the Crown-
That is the word that is used. It says, "Whenever". It does not say, "During Routine Proceedings". It does not say "During the debate on the Bill in question". It says "Whenever". That is the Citation used in Beauchesne. It reads as follows:
Whenever a Minister of the Crown has given notice under S.O. 75C that he will propose a motion for the purpose of allocating a specified number of days or hours for the consideration of a stage of a bill, this notice must be accepted by the Speaker.
It refers also to a citation from Journals of December 1, 1971.
With regard to the point made by my hon. friend, the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans), which somehow suggested that unless a person read Hansard very carefully, something could be snuck in, it is quite true that Government business was not called as an item. That is something which is done in the minds of the Editors of Hansard, but it is not something which occurs in fact, or at least in that particular instance.
1 would simply like to introduce to some Members opposite another Journal which is put out by the House called Votes and Proceedings. It would appear that some Hon. Members on the other side of the House do not read Votes and Proceedings as carefully as they should, because if they refer to Votes and Proceedings for yesterday, they will see very clearly in the fourth paragraph that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) did in fact give notice. I suggest, therefore, if a person reads the Journals properly and looks at Votes and Proceedings, that that really is not a very strong argument.
Finally, I suppose the bottom line is what is going on here in terms of the public. I think some people might get the impression that the axe has fallen, that the Government is trying to choke off debate and ram something through. Nothing could
Point of Order-Mr. Nielsen
be further from the truth, Madam Speaker. What is clearly happening is that the Official Opposition in particular is trying to frustrate the will of Parliament by a deliberate filibuster.
The Bill was first introduced on December 8, 1981. Since then 86 hours and 35 minutes have been spent in discussion of this Bill in the House and in committee. I could give the exact dates and the details at great length if that were in question, Madam Speaker.


An Hon. Member:: Go ahead!


David P. Smith: Anyone who wants to do the mathematics on it can do so. I have been invited to do that and perhaps I shall, if you think it is appropriate, Madam Speaker.
Second reading began on January 25, 1982 and was completed on February 5, 1982, taking five sitting days, 12 hours and 50 minutes. It then went to committee on March 23, 1982.


An Hon. Member:: That was to hear evidence.


David P. Smith: It was completed on July 15, 1982. It was reported on July 19, 1982. Twenty-seven meetings were held on this measure for a total of 71 hours and 45 minutes.
Hon. Members opposite are now suggesting that the Government is strangling and choking off debate when 27 meetings of the committee at which this matter was discussed were held.


An Hon. Member:: That is not relevant.


David P. Smith: Report stage began on July 29, 1982, and two hours have been spent on that stage. The total time spent on the Bill has been 86 hours and 35 minutes.


Mr. Blenkarn:: That is not so.


David P. Smith: What is really happening is that the Government is assuming its responsibility for leadership and is saying: "We are not going to allow the Opposition to filibuster this Bill and prevent the democratically elected Members of the House from coming to a vote". Hon. Members opposite can vote against the Bill, but we should make a decision and get on with it, one way or the other. The Government is living up to its responsibilities and is showing leadership in a proper and acceptable way, according to the Standing Orders.


Mr. Taylor:: It is dictatorship.


Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Madam Speaker, my remarks will not take long but I wish to address one point that has not been raised and which I think is relevant. Speaking of relevance, the final remarks of the assistant House leader of the Government are certainly in violation of Standing Order 34(2) which provides that when a Member is speaking to a point of order the argument should be relevant. The Hon. Member spoke of the number of hours the committee spent listening to witnesses regarding Canagrex. That can hardly be called relevant to the question that is being debated.

December 14, 1982
Point of Order-Mr. Nielsen
The Hon. Member referred to Citation 732 in Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, giving great emphasis to the word "whenever". The Citation begins, "Whenever a Minister of the Crown has given notice". There is no doubt about that, Madam Speaker. Whenever proper notice has been given under Standing Order 75C, it is the obligation of the Chair to accept that notice. The arguments presented by the House Leader of this Party and the House Leader of the New Democratic Party show that notice was improperly given.
I should like to offer another reason why the attempt by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) to give notice last night was out of order. I refer to the question or relevance of speeches and relevance of subject matter raised on motions before the House. There are generally accepted rules of relevance, albeit not rigidly enforced as a certain amount of latitude is allowed. Certainly in the middle of debate on an income tax Bill one cannot speak of capital punishment or in the middle of discussion of an energy Bill speak about fisheries, and so on. There has to be some sort of relationship between speeches and the motion before the House.
1 should like to quote briefly from Bourinot's Parliamentary Procedure and Practice, Fourth Edition. At page 340 there appears the following statement:
But it is nevertheless the duty of the speaker of the house (or chairman of committee), to interfere when he finds that the member's remarks are not relevant to the question before the house. On such occasions, he may very properly suppose "that the member will bring his observations to bear upon the motion before the house" (m); or "that he will conclude with something that will bring him within order" (n). And he may find it necessary to caution a member that "he is approaching the limits of propriety which confine hon. members is speaking to that which is relevant to the subject in hand", and to express the hope "that he will be careful to confine himself to that which is relevant" (o). In other words, he must direct his speech to the question before the house or committee, or to the motion or amendment he intends to move, or to the point of order raised.
On that basis, it is perfectly in order, during Routine Proceedings or discussion of the subject bill, for a Minister to give notice under Standing Order 75C. At any other time it is irrelevant to the motion under discussion. It is certainly irrelevant to the income tax Bill for the Minister to bootleg in what he assumed was proper notice under 75C. It most certainly was not proper notice under 75C. Perhaps he should have been called to order immediately and instructed to confine himself to the motion before the House, which was second reading of an income tax Bill.
The Minister's whole statement last night was irrelevant to the motion being discussed. It was irrelevant to the income tax Bill. It was irrelevant to the motion that Bill C-139 be now given second reading, and therefore it was improperly placed in the debate and should have been ruled out of order on the spot by the Speaker. It is a nullity now and we cannot accept it.
If the Minister wants to rise on Routine Proceedings and give notice, or if the House Leader wants to declare that Bill C-85 will be the subject of debate this afternoon and during the course of that debate give notice, such actions would certainly be relevant to the subject matter under debate. Otherwise it is irrelevant and a nullity.
I humbly submit that that argument, coupled with the argument of my House Leader and that of the House Leader of the New Democratic Party, must bring you, Madam Speaker, to the conclusion that the Minister of Agriculture will have to start over again.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I have one brief suggestion to make. My hon. friend from Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) mentioned the solution. We are still on Routine Proceedings. I have made a very strong case in support of the right of any Minister of the Crown to give notice on Routine Proceedings. That is where it should be done and that option is open to the Minister now if he wants to rectify the matter.


Madam Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) for having given me sufficient notice of his point of order and a good idea of what his arguments would be in this case. I was able to look into the precedents in order to enlighten my decision.
The Hon. Member for Yukon has given us a very long list of precedents in favour of his argument that this notice of motion is out of order. Those precedents are real. I have found a number of precedents which go exactly another way, however. That is to say, they indicate that notices of motion to limit debate have been given at another time than those that the Hon. Member feels are indispensable. They were given at another time than under consideration of a certain bill.
I will not read the precedents at length but the first is a notice of motion to limit debate on Bill C-68 which was given in the House immediately after the dinner break, although not necessarily during the course of consideration of the Bill on which a limit was to be proposed. The Bill then before the House was Bill C-83 and the notice was given for limiting debate on Bill C-68.
In another instance, on Bill C-59 the notice of intention to limit debate on the measure was given at the end of a speech in a supply debate.
There is another precedent concerning Bill C-57, where notice was given immediately after the dinner break on a point of order, as the Hon. Member himself has pointed out.
A further precedent is Bill C-124 on which notice was given immediately after the dinner break. The business before the House then was Bill C-109 and notice of the intention to limit debate was on Bill C-124.
We rely quite heavily on precedents. I guess the Hon. Member was right in pointing out to me the numerous precedents which could be invoked in favour of his argument that notice to limit debate on a Bill must be given in the course of consideration of the very Bill. But these other precedents go the other way and indicate that notice of such motion can be given at other times. In fact, as we have seen from the precedents, the notice can be given during Routine Proceedings, during consideration of the Bill on which it is intended to limit debate, during debate on another Bill than the one on which
December 14, 1982

the limit is proposed to be imposed, and also on a point of order, as the Hon. Member pointed out.
In looking at the long list of precedents which the Hon. Member gave me, one might think the Chair must absolutely find in favour of those arguments which he has given, but I think Hon. Members would agree that other precedents exist.
Now, why do we find ourselves in this situation? I believe the Hon. Member for Yukon was invoking precedents against an argument which does not exist in regard to this particular situation, as 1 think Members will realize on reading very carefully Standing Order 75C:
A Minister of the Crown who from his place in the House at a previous sitting-
Those are the two conditions which are imposed upon the notice to propose a limit on a debate. Those are the only conditions which are written up in the Standing Orders; that is to say, that the Minister must be in his place in the House, and that he must do this at a previous sitting. He stated at that previous sitting and standing in his place:
-that an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 75A or 75B in respect of proceedings at the stage at which a public bill was then under consideration either in the House or in any committee-
The Hon. Member for Yukon uses that as referring to the fact that notice is only in order if it is given during consideration of the Bill on which it is proposed to impose a limit. That particular phrase describes exactly what we want to do and does not constitute a condition under which that notice has to be given.
I will read it in French where I think it is a little more clear because of the French language which requires punctuation. In French it says:
Un ministre de la Couronne qui, de son siege a la Chambre, a declare a une seance anterieure qu'il n'avait pas ete possible d'en arriver a un accord, en vertu des dispositions des articles 75A ou 75B du Reglement, relativcmcnt aux deliberations .. .
The punctuation indicates quite clearly to what the remainder of that sentence relates, that is to say:
... relativement aux deliberations a l'etape de l'etude d'un bill...
I am afraid that disposes of the argument made by the Hon. Member for Yukon. In reading the Standing Order it is quite clear that the phrase stated by the Hon. Member, that is to say, "at the stage at which a public bill was then under consideration", does not constitute a condition under which a notice of motion can be given.
I think the Hon. Member has probably destroyed his argument by telling the Chair that these notices had been given sometimes when a quorum was reached in the House, or on a point of order or during Routine Proceedings. It does indicate that notice can be given on many occasions and in many circumstances, not only in the unique circumstances which he has cared to mention, that is to say, only when we have under consideration the particular Bill on which the limit is to be imposed.
The Hon. Member is smiling, but 1 think he has to read the Standing Order very carefully, and I think he will agree with
Privilege-Mr. Mayer
me that "A Minister of the Crown who from his place in the House" and "at a previous sitting has stated" are the conditions. I believe they were fulfilled in this particular case.
I thank other Members for their interventions, in particular the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans), who said that this procedure was unacceptable. It might be, but if Hon. Members find it unacceptable, I think they should proceed to change the rules because the Chair unfortunately cannot accept judgment values on the rules; the Speaker has to read the rules and interpret them as rigorously as possible. If it is not acceptable to the Hon. Member, I must tell him that it is in accordance with the rules.
The Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker) made an intervention with which I have a lot of sympathy. How can a Member know what is going on in the House all the time? Also the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain referred to that. Of course Hon. Members would not be required to read all of Hansard; that indeed could be too much punishment for them. But if they want to challenge something, obviously they have to read everything in Hansard which is relevant to the challenge they want to make.
The Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills would appreciate that there is a distinction between the notice given last night and the fact that the motion would come forward under "Motions" during the course of Routine Proceedings; therefore, Members would be in the House, if they chose to come only during Question Period, and they would be aware of the motion and, furthermore, they could debate it. The rules also provide for a fair chance of debating something if Hon. Members wish to do so.
As for the Hon. Member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre), I have to tell him that his argument on relevance was interesting. I agree with the Hon. Member that we should perhaps look at the rule of relevancy and apply it more often. It is an extremely difficult rule to invoke because Members are bound to say to the Chair: "Yes, I will be relevant; in two minutes the Chair will see how relevant I have been, despite the fact that what I am saying appears not to be relevant". The particular argument of relevance in this case, I am afraid, was not altogether relevant.
I have to rule that the notice of a motion to be made later this day by the Hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) was in order, and I so rule.


PRIVILEGE
Charles James Mayer: Madam Speaker, I have what I believe is a serious question of privilege of which I have given you prior notice. I should like to outline it briefly before I attempt to amplify my case.

Privilege-Mr. Mayer
It involves the Department of Agriculture publishing a very extensive and elaborate defence of the Bill about which we are talking respecting Canagrex. I find that it interferes with my privileges as a Member of Parliament in the sense that the Government has used the full weight of its printing press and the Minister has used the weight of his Department to make a one-sided case for a Bill before it has in fact become the law of the land.
I should like to quote from a December 10, 1979, ruling of Mr. Speaker Jerome, as reported at page 2180 of Hansard, in which he said:
The support of public funds, where applied to parliamentary activities, ought, I think, to apply across the floor of Parliament-
I submit, Madam Speaker, that parliamentary activities include the enabling of Members of Parliament to make their case properly for or against pieces of legislation that are in front of the House. When Speaker Jerome suggested that that ought to apply across the floor of the House, it implied to me that the Opposition ought to have access to the kinds of funds and expertise which the Minister had in preparing well over a 100-page document in both official languages in making what I consider a biased case for the Canagrex legislation. If I could go on for a minute-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Yes, the Hon. Member can go on as long as he comes to the point and tells me immediately where he feels his privilege has been affected. He is now discussing something but it does not constitute a question of privilege as he has argued it now, or from what I gathered from his notice. If the Hon. Member does have a specific point of privilege, I would like him to announce it now so that I can follow his arguments. There is a difference between grievances and privilege and I am sure the Hon. Member is quite aware of that.


Charles James Mayer: Very briefly, Madam Speaker, I feel that what I am discussing here today is very similar to what has become known in our Party as the Neil report, which report was undertaken during the brief period of time when we were the Government. At that time a Member of Parliament conducted a study on behalf of the Government of the day. Speaker Jerome at that time ruled the report could not be used in the House. In fact, the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada ended up paying for the report.
I suggest that the Government should not be using its high offices to publish the type of report that is more suited to the kinds of activities done by research departments. I can give you some quotes from Speaker Jerome where he points out that those kinds of activities based on party policies, not on the law of the land, are much better financed by what we consider to be each party's very adequate research funds.


Madam Speaker:: I know the case very well. Research was done by a caucus committee and the matter was ruled on by my predecessor. I know what subsequently happened. A department felt that the particular information would be
December 14, 1982
useful to it and it was decided to reimburse the Conservative caucus for its research, which was then distributed widely to the country or to the Members. However, the fact that the Government tried to distribute certain material one way or the other is not a matter on which the Chair can rule. It does not enter into the zone of what can be considered privilege.
How has the Member's privilege been affected? The Hon. Member knows the definition of privilege and I would like him to address that very shortly in his arguments, because he is telling me about a case of which I am aware. I know what the ruling is and I think the Hon. Member understands what it means as well. I would like the Hon. Member to come to his point of privilege.


Charles James Mayer: Madam Speaker, basically I am asking you to uphold the principle that each Member in this House has the same opportunity as the next; equity among Members, if you will. The Minister of Agriculture, through the weight of his Department, is able to mount argument for a piece of legislation that is not in fact the law of the land, to which I happen to be opposed and to which many of the people whom I represent are opposed, and I consider my privileges, as a Member of the House as equal as the Minister, have been severely interfered with. The Minister of Agriculture, through the weight of his department, published a 140-page document. I, as an individual Member of Parliament, have no access whatsoever to the kinds of resources or facilities by which I could put out that kind of document. This interferes with the performance of my job as a Member of Parliament. On the other hand, the Minister of Agriculture has these resources and facilities available to him. Specifically, that is why I think my privileges have been interfered with.
If you agree with me and let me go on, Madam Speaker, I can cite some examples for you from past rulings. If you disagree with me, I would find it incomprehensible for you to suggest that an individual Member of Parliament, such as myself, cannot have access to the same research and production facilities as a Minister of the Crown, because it puts me at a great disadvantage to my constituents.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. That particular point does not come within the purview of privilege. It does not constitute a question of privilege. If that is the Hon. Member's point, which he is telling me now it is, then I must tell him that is not in the realm of the practice which would allow me to find a prima facie case of privilege. Government spending, the way money is spent, the way documentation is distributed and the way Goverment chooses to announce certain policies might grieve Hon. Members considerably. They might want to protest that and debate it, which is quite legitimate and I would allow that under the proper proceedings. But I cannot allow this to be done by way of raising a question of privilege.


Charles James Mayer: Madam Speaker, may I then ask you what are the proper proceedings through which I can raise this issue? Let me further ask you if you think by your ruling today-and I take it by implication that you are in favour of allowing a
December 14, 1982

Minister of the Crown to propagandize my constituents in a fashion that I am not able to-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I never said that I found that legitimate. That is not my concern. 1 am telling the Hon. Member that the way in which the Government determines that it will publicize its policies, its instructions, its directives or its regulations is not of concern to the Chair. The freedom of expression of the Hon. Member has not been tampered with. He has not been molested. Privilege deals precisely with these kinds of things. I do not think that a publication published by the Government-which the Hon. Member, by the way, was able to consult, I suppose-constitutes a question of privilege. His freedom has not been tampered with. Perhaps he is saying that he has not had a fair chance. He is able to expose and discuss that in the House, but the Chair cannot arbitrate in these matters.


Charles James Mayer: With all due respect, Madam Speaker, to paraphrase or to quote you, you said that under the proper proceedings you would allow me to raise this issue. What are the proper proceedings?


Madam Speaker:: 1 am willing to coach Hon. Members on the procedure which they can use in order to do whatever they want to do in the House, but not in the House. Perhaps the Hon. Member could discuss this with me in another place and I could indicate times and proceedings which are available to him; but I am sure he knows them very well.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. When a Government uses public money to advertise one side of a Bill before it becomes law-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. If the Hon. Member wants to raise a point of order, he may do that, but I have now ruled that the Hon. Member for Portage-Marquette does not have a question of privilege. As a matter of fact, the Hon. Member for Portage-Marquette has accepted my ruling. He asked me alternatively what proceedings could he use because he has accepted my argument.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I am speaking to the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) now. The Hon Member may not comment on my ruling. There was no question of privilege in the case of the Hon. Member for Portage-Marquette.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. What I am saying, if you will just hear me out, is that when a Government advertises one side of a Bill before it becomes law, then it is not fair-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. That is not a point of order. The Hon. Member is debating the question; he is not raising a point of order. This is not the time for debate. He can use
Time Allocation
many other occasions on which to debate that point, as he knows very well.


Charles James Mayer: Madam Speaker, you said that I accepted your ruling.


Madam Speaker:: Is this a point of order?


Charles James Mayer: Yes, it is a point of order, Madam Speaker. You said that I accepted your ruling by implication. With great respect and deference to the Chair, 1 certainly accept your ruling on my point of privilege, but that does not mean that I accept the despicable conduct of the Minister of Agriculture in publishing this document.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Marcel Roy (Laval):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour of tabling, in both official languages, the Sixth Report of the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Eugene Whelan: That, in relation to Bill C-85, an Act to establish a corporation called Canagrex to promote, facilitate and engage in the export of agricultural and food products from Canada, one sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of each of the report stage and the third reading stage of the Bill; and
That fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government business on those days, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required, for the purpose of this Order and, in turn, every question then necessary in order to dispose of the stage of the Bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.


Madam Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? The Hon. Minister of Agriculture.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Friesen:: A point of order, Madam Speaker.

December 14, 1982
Time Allocation


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen) on a point of order.


Benno Friesen: Madam Speaker, I have a point of order concerning the statement that you have read in the name of the Minister. I listened to the Minister last night and I was prepared to raise a point of order on the content of his motion because I think it violates the Standing Order in question.
I heard him say last night that he intended to invoke Standing order 75C, and I quote, "to allocate one sitting day to each of the said stages of the said Bill". I wanted to wait until I heard the motion today to make sure that it was going to be the same as what the Minister presented last night.
In the interest of the accuracy of the Standing Orders, if Madam Speaker will refer to Standing Order 75C, she will note that the order reads:
-one sitting day and provided that for the purposes of this Standing Order an allocation may be proposed in one motion to cover the proceedings at both the report and the third reading stages on a bill if that motion is consistent with the provisions of Standing Order 75( 13).
The language is very important here because the Standing Order reads:
-at both the report and the third reading stages-
The phrase "at both" discriminates between the two stages. If the motion had been intended to include both stages, it would have read "of both the report and third reading stages". The fact that the Standing Order reads "at both" indicates that this motion under Standing Order 75C must be presented at each of the two stages. Otherwise, it would have had an inclusive word, the preposition "oP\ Since it reads "at", it says very definitely that the Minister of the Government House Leader (Mr. Pinard) must present this motion at both stages.
I recognize that precedents indicate that historically it has been including both stages. I suggest to you, Madam Speaker, that even though it has been done in that way, the violations do not sanctify the condition. If the Minister wants to invoke Standing Order 75C, if we want to read this ruling accurately as it is presented in the Standing Orders, he must present 75C at each of the two stages.


Madam Speaker:: As I read the Standing Order, I do not feel that the Hon. Member is right in his reading of it. The words "at both" in fact do not discriminate but mean that it is applicable to both those stages. If you read in French, it says:
... une seule motion peut prevoir ('attribution d'une preiodc de temps pour les deliberations tant a I'etape du rapport .. .
If I translate literally-
... tant a I'etape du rapport qu'a celle de la troisieme lecture ...
"As much the report stage as the third reading", is exactly what it says in the French. Even in English, it is clear to me
that "at both the report and third reading stage" of the Bill is not discriminating.
The argument made by the Hon. Member is that up until now that particular Standing Order has been violated. 1 suggest to the Hon. Member that it has not been violated but must be read the proper way. That is to say, that this particular phrase "at both the report and third reading stage" does not discriminate between the two stages of the bill but includes both of them.
At any rate, the Hon. Member may vote against the motion if he does not like its wording. I do not think he is reading the Standing Order properly and 1 cannot accept his point of order.
The Hon. Minister of Agriculture.


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, I am rising to speak on the motion you just called for the business of the day.


Madam Speaker:: Does the Hon. Member have another point or order?


Harvie Andre: I am rising to speak on the item of business before the House.


Madam Speaker:: 1 have recognized the Hon. Minister.


Erik Nielsen: No.


Madam Speaker:: Order. I had recognized the Hon. Minister when the Hon. Member rose on a point of order. Therefore, in my view I must go to the Hon. Minister.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I was following the proceedings quite carefully. I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis):
That the Hon. Member for Calgary Centre be now heard.


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Restigouche (Mr. Harquail) is rising on a point or order.


Erik Nielsen: That cannot be done.


Some Hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Harquail:: Madam Speaker, in the interest of assisting the House and the Chair-


Erik Nielsen: There is a motion on the floor.


Madam Speaker:: Order. It appears that the Hon. Member for Restigouche wishes to speak on that particular point of order.


Erik Nielsen: No. It is not debatable.


Maurice James Harquail: That is incorrect.


Erik Nielsen: Standing Order 29 is quite clear. The motion has to be put forthwith. It is not debatable.
December 14, 1982


Maurice James Harquail: Madam Speaker, you have given me the floor.


Madam Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member cannot be debating the motion at the present time because 1 have not put it before the House. He is raising a point of order on the proceedings which are suggested by the Hon. Member. At the present time there is not a motion before the House.


Erik Nielsen: The Chair must rule on it.


Madam Speaker:: This does not call for a ruling.


Erik Nielsen: Standing Order 29 applies.


Madam Speaker:: The motion moved by the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) does not call for a ruling; it calls for a vote.


Erik Nielsen: That is right, forthwith.


Madam Speaker:: Could I ask the Table if I can entertain a point of order before a vote.


David P. Smith: As I understand it, the Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) moved his motion after he rose on a point of order, and I would refer you to page 78 of Beauchesne, Citation 234, which says that a Member cannot rise on a point of order to move a motion.


Some Hon. Members:: No, no.


David P. Smith: I submit his motion is therefore out of order.


Erik Nielsen: I did not rise on a point of order. That is precisely why-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please, I hope we can resolve this without creating chaos in the House. I understand that I can entertain points of order on the motion that was proposed by the Hon. Member for Yukon, and I will entertain the point of order for the Hon. Member for Restigouche.


Maurice James Harquail: Madam Speaker, 1 want to thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to speak in this House. The Members to your left have been very belligerent in not wishing to show any respect for other Members' rights-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An Hon. Member:: A point of privilege, Madam Speaker.


Maurice James Harquail: Just a moment, I want to get to my point of order.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Time Allocation


Madam Speaker:: Order, order. If the Hon. Member has a point of order, I would like him to expose the point of order forthwith.


Maurice James Harquail: The point of order that 1 want to make, Madam Speaker, is the fact that you indeed had recognized the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan); you have indeed given him the floor.


Some Hon. Members:: No, no.


Maurice James Harquail: This is something that is trying to be glazed over, something that is trying to be railroaded in another direction. What I want to state for the benefit of the House is that I, as a Member sitting here, witnessed the fact that you had given the floor to the Minsiter of Agriculture, and I want to support this particular point-


Gordon Edward Taylor: That is not a point of order.


Maurice James Harquail: -to keep the record straight before the House. You had indeed recognized the Minister, and we were underway with his presentation when the Member from British Columbia asked for the floor.


Mr. Epp:: 1 have a point of privilege.


Madam Speaker:: We do have some business before the House that 1 have to deal with. Apparently two Members had risen-


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I want to be heard on the point of order that you have entertained.


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Yukon.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: It is a point of privilege.


Erik Nielsen: It has been asserted, Madam Speaker, by the candy-back kid, the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: -that it is not possible to move a motion under Standing Order 29 on a point of order. I did not do that and the record will clearly show that I did not do that. I put the motion, after having been recognized by the Chair, without any preliminaries. It will show that quite clearly.
Even if I did, the Hon. Member is wrong. Even if I did rise on a point of order, which I did not, and the record will clearly show that, he is wrong. 1 would like to cite for the convenience of the Chair Hansard for October 26, 1981, commencing at page 12170, where a similar situation arose when the then Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier) was in the chair. At that time he recognized the Hon. Member for Willowdale (Mr. Peterson). This is the exchange that took place:

December 14, 1982
Time Allocation


Erik Nielsen: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. If government members speak now, they will have an opportunity of moving that we move to orders of the day. I therefore move that the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) be now heard.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The only time to move a motion such as that which the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) has just raised is when he has been recognized and given the floor. Had he been recognized and given the floor to participate in the debate, he could-


Some hon. Members:: No, no!


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Not so!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Again, I must say that had he been recognized on a point of order, debating again whether there were two hon. members getting up to speak at the same time, and-


Donald Alex Blenkarn: There were several.


Mr. Lawrence:: I stood up.


Charles James Mayer: I stood.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The Speaker, in the usual fashion, had been alternating. I saw the hon. member for Willowdale (Mr. Peterson) and I have recognized him. There could have been others seeking the floor whom I did not see; but at the time I alternated, as I do in all debates. The first hon. member to speak was from the official opposition, the second was a member from the NDP, and then we go to the other side. That has been done all the time. I did not choose between any hon. members. 1 recognized the hon. member for Willowdale, whom I saw rising. That now being the question, I will hear the hon. member for Yukon on his point of order.


Erik Nielsen: 1 refer the Chair and his advisers to Hansard of December 11, 1975, at page 9938, where this precise question came up. After Mr. Allard had finished speaking, the then House leader for the opposition spoke. I draw Your Honour's attention to the fact that it was on a motion to concur in the report of a standing committee. Immediately after the mover had finished speaking, the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) said this:
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Under the Standing Orders of this House, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave):
"That the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe be now heard."
We don't want to hear him now.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) has risen on a point of order under Standing Order 29-
That is my motion, under Standing Order 29.
-at page 24 of our Standing Orders, which reads as follows: "When two or more Members rise to speak"-
That was the situation here with the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) rising and the Member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) rising.


Some Hon. Members:: No, no.


Erik Nielsen: Here is the Acting Speaker of the day listening with great interest to what I have to say. 1 continued at page 12170 as follows:
Then the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Blais), along with the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave), intervened in the debate. Mr. Deputy Speaker, who was in the chair at that time, put the motion.
I suggest to you sir, that that is the obligation of the Chair now unless-I want to be fair because we all want to be fair on this side of the House-
And we still do, in this new spirit of collegiality and in the adoption of the experimental rules of reform.
-we can have the assurance of government members that their participation in the debate will be had without moving any motion-
And so on. The important part is this ruling by the then Acting Speaker. Madam Speaker, I know that you have the highest possible regard for the knowledge of the rules and practices and precedents of this place which resides in the Hon. Member who served in that very distinguished post of Acting Speaker and who is now with us today, 1 am sure, to give us the benefit of his advice once again, as he did on October 26, 1981. This is what he had to say at page 12170 of Hansard:
After referring to the Standing Orders, 1 want to correct something I said earlier. The hon. member for Yukon had the right to rise. I recognized the hon. member whom I saw rising, namely the hon. member for Willowdale.
1 draw that to the Chair's attention. In that case the Chair recognized the Hon. Member for Willowdale, and went on to
say:
It is very difficult for the Chair to argue. 1 am told other people were seeking the floor, and that could be debatable.
It certainly is not here.
When things such as this happen, the point made by the hon. member for Yukon is in order. The hon. member for Yukon has made a proposition. Nevertheless, I would have to put the motion before the House if anyone wants to be heard. There is a motion before the House that the hon. member for Vegreville be now heard.
Madam Speaker, I submit that there is no other way to invoke the provisions of Standing Order 29 except upon a point of order, but not to burden the Chair with that complication, I did not rise for that purpose. I was recognized without any preliminaries and moved the motion right off.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: I just want to summarize the situation. In my view, the Hon. Minister of Agriculture, who had risen when I read the motion to the House, had the floor. He was interrupted by another Member who invoked a point of order. Immediately after that point of order was heard, I felt I had to go back to the Hon. Minister of Agriculture in order again to give him the floor.
This is contested by the Hon. Member for Calgary Centre, whom I recognized supposedly on a point of order but who said he wanted to debate the motion. I feel that at that particular time the Hon. Minister of Agriculture had the floor, and therefore I wanted to recognize the Hon. Minister.
I now have a motion. This is contested by a Member of the House. The Hon. Member for Yukon rose quite properly under Standing Order 29 and proposed a motion, which I will now read and put to the House. It has been moved by Mr. Nielsen, seconded by Mr. Lewis:
That the Hon. Member for Calgary Centre be now heard.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
December 14, 1982


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 to the motion 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.


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, on a point of order. I believe I heard the Clerk call out my name, and I wanted you to know that in view of the fact I am the subject of the motion I abstained from this vote.


Madam Speaker:: The motion is lost. The Hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) has the floor-


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker-


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, Madam Speaker-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An Hon. Member:: No way.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


Erik Nielsen: I rise on a point of order. Point of order. You cannot, Madam Speaker, with great respect-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

December 14, 1982
Time Allocation


Erik Nielsen: With great respect-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member-I am not sure whether the Hon. Member rose before 1 adjourned the House-


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


Erik Nielsen: Yes.


An Hon. Member:: Yes, two of them did, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker: -but it seems from the protest-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An Hon. Member:: No way.


Madam Speaker:: Therefore, if the Hon.-


Erik Nielsen: I cannot be heard until they turn the mike on.


Madam Speaker:: Let us not get excited.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker-


Madam Speaker:: 1 did not see the Hon. Member rise before 1 adjourned the House.


Erik Nielsen: Yes.


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


Some Hon. Members:: No, no.


Madam Speaker:: Then, the House is adjourned and I will hear the Hon. Member's point of order tomorrow.
At 10.08 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Wednesday, December 15, 1982