1982-05-20

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, the Liberal government's economic program is a disastrous failure. Unemployment continues to increase, interest rates remain high, and inflation is rising. The country is sick unto death. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Simcoe South (Mr. Stewart):
That this House demands the resignation of the Prime Minister and his cabinet before Canada goes down the tube.
The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) and the PC Party are Canada's only hope.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine):: Madam
Speaker, the ill-advised VIA Rail cutbacks, the Canadian National Railways laying off of 1,200 at the Transcona shops in Winnipeg, and the disastrous economic policies imposed on Canadians by the government have caused the worst unemployment since the Depression. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp):
That the Minister of Employment and Immigration, who has ample evidence of the failure of his policies in his own home city, take immediate action to reverse the spiralling unemployment in Winnipeg and across the country by putting a halt to the laying off of 1,200 people at the CNR's Transcona shops in Winnipeg.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Hon. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Madam Speaker, I rise to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, which I believe will have the support of all hon. members of the House.
In 1972 the Ukrainian literary scholar and poet, Ivan Svitlychny, was given a 12-year sentence for alleged antiSoviet crimes. He spent seven years in a strict regime labour camp, and is currently serving five years in internal exile. In the past year he has suffered two strokes and is in grave condition. His left side is paralysed, he cannot talk, his spine is damaged, and he has severe kidney problems. If he is to survive it is imperative that he be released into the care of his sister in New Jersey so that he can obtain the necessary medical treatment. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Don Valley East (Mr. Smith) and the hon. member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. Rose):
That, in light of Mr. Svitlychny's serious condition, this House urge Soviet authorities to release Ivan Svitlychny under provision of Article 100 of the Russian SFSR Corrective Labour Code, which states that convicted persons suffering from serious illnesses can have their sentences commuted, and that Mr. Svitlychny be allowed to join his sister in New Jersey.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: Does the House agree to the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Miss Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Madam Speaker, I rise to move a motion under Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent necessity on this day of the Canadian women's petition for peace. Under the authority of

May 20, 1982
the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard), who is the minister responsible for emergency planning, the government continues to distribute civil defence information, including "Eleven Steps to Survival". Again and again at the SCEAND hearings on security and disarmament, members heard testimony that there would be no survival after a nuclear exchange. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mrs. Mitchell):
That the minister cease advising Canadians that there are 11 steps to survival after a nuclear exchange, that he heed the words of one of the government's own senior advisers, Dr. G. R. Lindsey, chief of the Department of National Defence operational research and analysis branch, that "a nuclear war would be effectively the end of life as known", and that the government promote survival by pressing for a nuclear weapons freeze and a no-first-use pledge at the UN next month, and an end to Cruise missile test plans in Canada.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT
Mr. Bill Yurko (Edmonton East):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgency. I move, seconded by the hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Anguish):
That all Members of Parliament voluntarily accept a 10 per cent cut in their basic indemnity during the remaining duration of the Thirty-second Parliament and that the $1.5 million per year arising from this salary cut be used to create 1,000 annual student summer jobs.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PIPELINES
Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has for months been promising Atlantic Canadians that the natural gas pipeline is going from Quebec to that region. The Prime Minister has stated that it is as vital a link in the unity of this country as is the railroad. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Carle-ton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain):
That this House invite the government to show its sincerity toward Atlantic Canada and endorse the pipeline to cross the St. Lawrence by unanimously
accepting this motion, or to show its scorn and contempt for Atlantic Canadians by rejecting it.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Madam Speaker, last evening hundreds gathered on Parliament Hill to join in congratulating the Polish Alliance of Canada as it observed its 75th anniversary. They listened with great expectancy to the words of the Minister of State for Multiculturism to hear some announcement on how a greater number of Poles might be admitted to Canada from the Austrian refugee camps, but none came. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson):
That the government strip the red tape and delaying bureaucratic tactics so as to admit to this country a greater number of Polish refugees from Austria, and within a much shorter period of time.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Madam Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 43 to ask this House to condemn the remarks alleged to have been made by the hon. member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans) when he accused Canadians who expected more from the November budget of trying to scrounge a free lunch. What other comments could one expect from a test-tube economist who has spent all his working life in text-book economics or lapping up free lunches himself at the public trough? I move, seconded by the hon. member for Cambridge (Mr. Speyer):
That the hon. member for Ottawa Centre, the former parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance, apologize to Canadians for his boorish and inaccurate comments on the intent and impact of that disastrous document the government had the gall to call a budget.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
May 20, 1982


CANADIAN ARMED FORCES
Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Madam Speaker, the pay and benefit scales in the Canadian Armed Forces are at a pitifully low level. The Liberal government adds insult to injury by significantly raising the rents on permanent married quarters and forcing occupants to pay for all utilities and heating costs. The vast majority of PMQs are over 30 years old and poorly insulated. This will result in extremely high heating costs during Canada's severe winters. This expense, added to the already high cost of living facing our Armed Forces families, with no compensating increase in pay, is nothing short of criminal. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Thomson):
That this House direct the Minister of National Defence to refer immediately the pay scales, allowances and benefits, including rental rates, of the Armed Forces, to the Task Force on Taxation and Northern Benefits as a very special and very urgent case so that we may restore the members of the Canadian Armed Forces to a standard of living they so richly deserve.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Madam
Speaker, meetings held yesterday and today with groups affiliated with the Canadian Federation of Agriculture further substantiate the need for lower-cost farm credit for those farmers in financial difficulty. Under the provisions of Standing Order 43, therefore, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Anguish):
That this House instruct the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Agriculture to introduce immediately legislation providing for loans at 10 per cent for such farmers through the Farm Credit Corporation as well as extending the small business bond concept to permit the use of funds available from the retiring generation of farmers to be reloaned at lower rates made possible through the deferral of capital gains tax on such funds.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance who is aware, I am sure, of the low level of consumer confidence as indicated by the Conference Board index which showed the level of confidence peaked at 96 in 1980 when his first budget came out. It is now down to 61, the lowest level in history. The minister surely must share some of the responsibility for this shattering drop in confidence.
In order to do something to reverse this serious lack of confidence, will the minister today hold out some hope concerning interest rates, by stating to Canadians that if rates in the United States drop, as is expected, he will allow Canadian rates to drop by an equivalent amount?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, there is absolutely no difference in principle between the hon. member and myself.


Mr. Crosbie:: That is a terrible thing to say.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I have taken the view he has implied in his question, that in order to have any chance of a quick recovery the first essential is a drop in U.S. interest rates. Obviously that would create conditions in Canada which would make it possible for a lowering of interest rates in this country.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, the minister did not answer the question. He did not say that he would allow interest rates to go down an equivalent amount.


REQUEST FOR COMMITMENT TO REDUCE INTEREST RATES
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, it was announced today that there was a drop in housing starts of 58 per cent in the first part of this year, specifically in single-family dwellings. Obviously this has created a tremendous loss of jobs, so the question of lower interest rates is absolutely critical. I ask the minister again: will he make a precise commitment that if U.S. interest rates-on which he blames all our problems in this country-go down in the near future, he will allow an equivalent drop in Canadian interest rates, including the mortgage rate which is so important to housing?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, may I assure the hon. member that the most welcome development from my point of view would be a drop in U.S. interest rates. It is my view that if there were a drop of several percentage points in the United States, that would make it possible for a drop to occur in Canada. That is clear.



May 20, 1982
Oral Questions
The hon. member has asked me to give an assurance that there would be an equivalent drop in Canada. I cannot give him a precise assurance of that kind. What I can say is that we have been making representations to the American authorities since the Summit of last August-most recently in Paris and Helsinki-urging them to reduce their deficit so that there can be a drop in interest rates. I have every expectation that the American administration is attempting to work out an arrangement with Congress in order to reduce the deficit and make lower rates possible in that country.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, for about 18 months now we have had the minister blaming everything on the United States, saying our interest rate problems are caused by the U.S., and our unemployment problems are caused by the United States. He cannot have it both ways. He either gives a clear commitment to get the confidence level in Canada moving up again, or he gets off this bandwagon of blaming everything on the United States which he has been on for the last 18 months.
Again the question is: will he give that clear commitment to Canadians of an equivalent drop in our interest rates when the U.S. rates come down? If not, will he admit that the problems in Canada are made-in-Canada problems resulting from his budget and his economic policies?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I find the hon. member's line of reasoning rather distorted. It was not myself who raised the question of the United States; it was not myself in question period today who attributed the high interest rates to the United States; it was the hon. member.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Every other day you have, Allan. You cannot get off like that.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It is a fact that is acknowledged by every finance minister in the industrialized world. I recently met with 22 finance ministers. Every one of them signed an agreed to communique, making the very point which the hon. member is making, namely, that very high interest rates in the United States are a block to recovery. No one wants lower rates in the United States more than myself. Now the hon. member talks about confidence. I think that the quickest way to create a greater lac1 of confidence in the country would be to accept the hon. member's suggestion and make a commitment today that, regardless of what happens or what the market forces are, there would be an equivalent drop in interest rates in Canada as in the United States.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: You cannot have it both ways.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The hon. member's suggestion is not the kind of confidence-building upon which I would like to embark.


SMALL BUSINESS AND FARMING SECTORS
Mr. Otto Jelinek (Halton):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Since it is very obvious that the minister is not prepared to take any action to ease his high interest rate policy generally, could the minister tell us now what he intends to do to ease the burden which he and his government created, specifically for the small-business man and farmer, or is the minister prepared to sit back on his bankrupt policies and watch the demise of these vital sectors of our economy which, as he knows, are responsible for over 60 per cent of the labour force in Canada? What action is he prepared to take specifically to aid those two very important sectors of our economy?


Mr. Paproski:: He could resign. That would be a start.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the hon. member's question was largely rhetorical. It was not a request for information of any kind.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: What's the matter with your hearing?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I would tell the hon. member that I am very conscious of the problems of the small-business sector and of the farming sector. We have taken special steps already to assist both sectors. When and if there are new measures to be taken, I will announce them in the House at the appropriate time.


Otto John Jelinek: Madam Speaker, if the minister is suggesting that the small business bond is the answer to this question, I can tell him that, according to the director of marketing for Canada for the Bank of Nova Scotia, that applications for the Small Business Development Bond are down 94 per cent compared to the number of applications made in the original Small Business Development Bond program. In fact, a poll taken of 20 banks in my own riding of Halton indicates that no loans have been written as a result of the ineffective bond that was created as a result of the minister's budget in November. However, if the minister wants a specific question, I will ask it now.


SMALL BUSINESS BOND PROGRAM
Otto John Jelinek: Madam Speaker, is the minister prepared to ease the restrictions on the current small business bond program and return it to its original state so that small businessmen and farmers can take advantage of that bond now when they need it, and before it is too late? Let us have some action from the minister.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the change in the Small Business Development Bond made at budget time was intended to ensure that the available funds would flow to the most needy groups in the country.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: No one is getting it, though.
May 20, 1982


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That was the intention. If the hon. member is asking me not to concern myself with the most needy cases and to restructure the bond in such a way that those who need the money less will get it more quickly, then it is a suggestion I would have to think about very deeply. I would urge the hon. member not to dismiss changes made in the budget to the bond as quickly as he has done. For instance, the change to apply the bond to unincorporated businesses and farmers was made as a result of representations from both sides of the House. Yesterday I was able to tell the Canadian Federation of Agriculture that $100 million has gone into the farming sector as a result of that specific change to the business bond. I think that is rather significant.


STATEMENTS ATTRIBUTED TO GOVERNMENT SUPPORTERS- REQUEST FOR ACTION
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. A short while ago ten Quebec backbench Liberals, and then the Solicitor General, complained bitterly about the government's economic policy. The Solicitor General put it somewhat euphemistically when he said that the budget was "a disaster".
Today La Presse revealed that another group of Liberals, this time 15, are very critical of the government's economic policy. In a leaked document, a copy of which I have here, these Liberals say that the economic situtation is "very serious" and that the government must demonstrate that it has "the will and determination to govern". Since these Liberal members have finally joined the rest of the people of Canada in acknowledging the disastrous economic performance of the government, when can the people of Canada finally expect some action from the Government of Canada?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is referring to a leaked document, as he said, which presumably appeared in the newspapers. I do not know what that document is, but 1 do not have any reason to believe that it was signed by members of this caucus. It was considerations that were being presented to them on the economy, but in a general sense, if the hon. member is quoting members on this side as believing that the economic situation is very serious in Canada and calls for remedial action, of course he is stating what the government has been saying all along.


John Edward Broadbent: No, Madam Speaker, they point out what we have been saying on this side of the House for months, that the government lacks the will to act, and needs to acquire that will. 1 would be happy to send this over to the Prime Minister. It has 15 Liberal names attached, including a minister of the Crown.


ROLE OF BUREAUCRATS
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I should like to quote to the Prime Minister one of the judgments they make. They say that the "structure of government
Oral Questions
departments frustrates effective action by ministers and prevents an imaginative, action-oriented approach". Given this very serious indictment of cabinet, does the Prime Minister agree that it is the bureaucrats who now have control of policy, not the elected members of cabinet? Has cabinet lost control?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Once again, Madam Speaker, I am speaking without having had the benefit, as has the hon. member, of reading that document. But it is a common thing in this caucus, at any rate, that we are very frank and open in caucus-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -and within ourselves we are constantly trying to improve the mechanics of government and the machinery of government.


An hon. Member:: By advertising!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Conservative members should not be jealous, Madam Speaker, because one question out of three goes to the NDP. They should let me answer the question, and they can bellow when their own leader is asking a question.


Jack Wendele Shields: Don't be so testy.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am not testy; I just think you are ridiculous, that is all.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I would urge members to answer the questions rather than the hecklers.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister should be aware that the people of the country are not particularly interested in whether he thinks people are ridiculous or whether he is testy; they would like a Prime Minister who is really interested in governing Canada. I think that is what they would like.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


WESTERN CANADIAN ISSUES
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, there is a final judgment on which I should like to ask the Prime Minister to express his opinion, testy or otherwise, today. In the document they say-and it is a particular concern to an important part of the country-that "western issues and concerns" are "still not properly reflected in the decisionmaking process" of the government. What a condemnation! I should like to ask the Prime Minister, more than two years after the 1980 election, whether he agrees with this document signed by 15 Liberal backbenchers, including one minister of the Crown, which states that the government has ignored western issues?

Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the hon. member offered to send the document over to me. I do not have any knowledge of that document and 1 do not even know if it is authentic.
I can assure the hon. member that the process of selfcriticism on this side of the House is one which I encourage. If the hon. member is so devoid of ideas that he has to reach back a couple of months to some statements made in the House-


John Edward Broadbent: Three weeks.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member quoted some incident that happened two or three months ago. He quoted from a letter from the Solicitor General which I believe was written before Christmas, and he says this is two weeks.


An hon. Member:: It was held up by the mail.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I repeat that the hon. member is searching back to before Christmas to find actions of members on this side of the House in order to develop ideas for him to ask in question period. If this is an expression of my testiness, I just do not know by what judgement this House abides.


PUBLIC WORKS
Hon. David Crombie (Rosedale):: Madam Speaker, my question is also for the Prime Minister. It relates to the selection of the architect for the construction of the new embassy in Washington. I am sure the Prime Minister recalls that when the selection panel for choosing the architect was set up there was a statement made by the government. That statement said at that time that the purpose, the mandate of the selection panel, was to "select by fair and objective evaluation, the firm considered to be the most suitable". That is a direct quote from the government's own statement.
What the government clearly had in mind at that time was to establish a panel to select-not a committee to advise. Why has the Prim . Minister acted in such a high-handed manner to overrule the mandate of the panel and to reject the unanimous choice of the selection panel, which was the world renowned Canadian architectural firm of Zeidler Roberts?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I have a statement by one of the members of the panel which appeared in a newspaper a couple of days ago. He is quoted as saying that the panel generally felt that any of the 11 was physically capable of handling that kind of project.


Mr. Clark:: Who said it?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: "The major weight was the firm's designabili-ty on that particular problem or what we foresaw as the
May 20, 1982
problem-" There is a misunderstanding, I believe, in the opposition's mind on this, because repeatedly-and this was true of a motion moved by the hon. member for St. John's a couple of days ago-there is somehow the feeling there was some plans or specific project submitted to this panel. That was not the case. There was no demand or request for a design, a mockup, a maquette, or any kind of detailed design. There was an assessment by this panel of some 300 possible candidates, and 11 were narrowed down as being able to do the job.
From then on, one has to ask oneself if the choice of four, and then one out of four, was to determine the government in accepting that choice. I have held from the beginning that there was no undertaking of that kind, and the government does not intend to give that kind of undertaking. We want to know, among a small group of architectural firms, which are competent to build a building such as this, and then we will make the choice.


David Edward Crombie: Madam Speaker, surely the Prime Minister understands by now that, by his action, he has hurt the professional reputation of a good number of very fine architectural firms.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Edward Crombie: Indeed, he has broken faith with the architectural community. He has corrupted a process which was objective and open to all. That is the process which he has corrupted.


AMBASSADOR'S MEMORANDUM
David Edward Crombie: Madam Speaker, in order to clear up any confusion whatsoever, will the Prime Minister now make public the memorandum which was written to the government by Ambassador Ritchie outlining the unanimous choice of Ambassador Ritchie's group of the architectural firm of Ziedler Roberts? Would the Prime Minister make that memorandum public?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is returning to the point I made the other day. The assumption seems to lie with the hon. member, as it did with the hon. member from St. John-


John Carnell Crosbie: St. John's West.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: St. John's West and other points.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The assumption seems to be that the unanimous choice number one would have to be the government's choice. That has been the position of the member for St. John's and seems to be the position of the member from Toronto, somewhere-Rosedale.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Edward Crombie: Very funny.
May 20, 1982


John Edward Broadbent: Why not just pack it in?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the rules ask for me not to refer to a member by name. I do not remember the riding of every member in the House.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. He will know that Canada's two national air carriers do not want their domestic long haul operations moved to the Mirabel Taj Mahal airport. Any such decision by the government will not only be costly and inconvenient to the airlines, it will be disastrous to the Canadian consumer, and any shift will be done at the expense of the Dorval area as well. In view of that fact that there is a gang of 18 Quebec Liberal Members of Parliament, including three Cabinet ministers, who are pressuring the Minister of Transport to make up his mind, will he leave the Dorval-Mirabel matter at the status quo and remove the uncertainty faced by both airlines and passengers?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, I was indeed aware of the fact that the carriers, united in the Air Transport Association of Canada, are unsympathetic to a move to Mirabel. I thank the hon. member for expressing the views of his party, as a whole, presumably, or are there other different views on the subject, and I will take them into account when I make a decision.


REQUEST THAT DECISION BE ANNOUNCED IN PARLIAMENT
Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Madam Speaker, can we get a commitment from the Minister of Transport that whatever decision he makes regarding a possible switch from Dorval to Mirabel will be announced while the House of Commons is sitting, and that he will not go the deplorable VIA Rail route and announce it during a recess? In addition, will the minister also table the comprehensive reports on the Dorval-Mirabel situation when he makes the decision so that the travelling public will know what motivated the government's resolution of this very important matter?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I am being more careful these days when I indicate dates for things I will do. I will not do so in this case. I want to assure the hon. member that when the decision is made it will
Oral Questions
be announced and fully explained so that everyone will have a chance to take a whack at it.


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Here, in the House?

[Translation\


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Yves Demers (Duvernay):: Madam Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Transport. Early in 1979, at meetings the members for Laval and the northern Montreal area had with senior officials of the Department of Transport, the latter said that they were in favour of transferring all flights from Dorval to Mirabel, because if there was a transfer, foreign airlines, and more specifically the Japanese, would be inclined to make Mirabel the distribution centre for their air freight to North and South America. This would, of course, give a considerable boost to the economy and the metropolitan area. Would the airlines in question still be willing to do so?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, 1 would really need a map to visualize the distances involved, for instance, from Japan to South America. However, I would say that a distinction should be made between two kinds of air freight. There is specialized air freight, and from that point of view, there is no real advantage in transferring carriers from Dorval to Mirabel, since the Japanese could very well come to Mirabel without going anywhere else or they could use it as a stopover en route to other countries. However, in another scenario, carriers specialized in Japanese air freight would come to Mirabel and then rely on Mirabel to forward their cargo to other Canadian airports. In that case, of course, a transfer of all routes to Mirabel would possibly offer a number of advantages.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Madam Speaker, yesterday the CNR announced that it would be shutting down its main repair shops in Transcona, Point St. Charles, and Moncton for some six to eight weeks over and above the usual four-week shutdown. These lay-offs will affect 3,150 families across the system. Does the minister approve of this decision to have the CNR outdo the CPR by shutting down for an even longer period of time, or will he tell the CNR today that this

May 20, 1982
Oral Questions
kind of irresponsible behaviour on the part of a Crown corporation is no longer tolerable? Will he make an arrangement with the CNR to have it cancel the lay-offs and to continue to employ these many workers at doing the great amount of work waiting to be done?
People could be working at repairing existing equipment, or in building the Transcontinental equipment that the minister promised when he announced his ill-conceived VIA cutbacks last fall. There is no shortage of work, Madam Speaker. Why is the Minister of Transport not making that kind of arrangement with Canadian National Railways?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I am sure that if I did make that kind of decision, namely, if every day, as soon as I got to the office in the morning, 1 gave instructions to Air Canada, the CN and other Crown corporations for which I am responsible, then several members of this House would be the first to criticize me for doing so. The role of the minister, as far as Crown corporations are concerned, is to indicate general policy guidelines and not to try to butt into the day to day activities of these corporations. Of course I regret the situation that led to these lay-offs as much as the hon. member, but I would like to point out that as a result of unemployment insurance and collective agreements, these employees will, in most cases, be receiving up to 80 per cent of their salary during the lay-off period.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Madam Speaker, a lay-off of 1,200 people in one shop is not day to day activity, and the minister did not mind butting into VIA Rail when he saw fit to tear the passenger rail system apart.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: All those who work for the railway or those who are otherwise interested in the future of transportation in this country will not soon forget this particular Minister of Transport.


NOTIFICATION OF UNIONS
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Does the minister approve of the fact that the trade unions concerned in these lay-offs had to hear about them from the local radio news? If he does approve, are we to understand that the government has now instructed Crown corporations to treat trade unions with the same contempt as the Liberals treat Parliament?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, because I have already answered the rest of the question, 1 simply want to make a distinction between the
decision which the government made concerning VIA, which was a policy decision relating to the amount of money, the amount of subsidy the Government of Canada was willing to give VIA and the extent of the losses which could be sustained, and the policy concerning how many people should be laid off over what period of time which, in my view, relates to the daily operation of a Crown corporation.


PIPELINES
Robert Alfred Corbett: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister and to assist him, my constituency is Fundy-Royal. The Prime Minister will recall that he spoke to the Board of Trade in Halifax, Nova Scotia. During the course of that discussion he stated:
-that a Liberal government will take immediate action-
The Prime Minister said there would be immediate action.
-to ensure the full co-operation of all parties in the construction of a natural gas pipeline to Quebec City and the maritimes.
He went on to say that the gas pipeline would be reversible. He said that in January, 1980, nearly two and one half years ago.
Will the Prime Minister now tell people in Atlantic Canada his interpretation of the words "immediate action"? Will he instruct the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to take action now, forthwith, immediately, right away, instantly, to provide, without delay, a schedule for the natural gas pipeline to cross the St. Lawrence River into the Atlantic provinces and reinforce the Prime Minister's determination to have it reversible?


Mr. Lawrence:: As soon as possible!


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, I may refer the hon. member to the decisions handed down by the National Energy Board and confirmed by the Government of Canada, which include a schedule that is public knowledge. There has been some delay in getting the program started in Quebec, for all sorts of reasons connected with labour relations issues and obtaining the approval of the provincial government. We expect the gas pipeline to reach Trois-Rivieres this fall and Quebec City some time next spring in 1983.


Robert Alfred Corbett: Madam Speaker, it is quite obvious, upon examining the record, that the Prime Minister's pledge that the gas pipeline would go into the Atlantic provinces was as hollow as his pledge not to increase the price of gasoline.
May 20, 1982


DEVELOPMENT OF OIL SHALES IN NEW BRUNSWICK
Robert Alfred Corbett: I direct my supplementary question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Knowing full well that just a few weeks ago, in Charlottetown, the Prime Minister stated that, now that the Alsands project is dead, the government will be diverting funds to other areas of the economy to help make regions self-sufficient, will he recognize the viability and potential of the oil shales in the Moncton Basin in New Brunswick, which would amount to 10 billion to 20 billion barrels of oil, and be as generous with New Brunswick as he was with the province of Saskatchewan in setting up a pilot project to explore the possibilities of getting at that oil?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, these projects are being given careful consideration by my department on the basis of their respective economic viability, and in so far as projects such as the one mentioned by the hon. member can be expected to provide appreciable economic energy benefits in comparison with other projects, we shall obviously be examining them with great interest.


COMMUNICATIONS
Miss Pat Carney (Vancouver Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Communications who, I understand, is leaving shortly to go to Calgary to meet with his provincial counterparts on the issue of communications policy and Pay TV. I also understand that his officials have recently been meeting in Washington with members of the Federal Communications Commission with respect to changes to the 1972 letters of understanding between the two countries, which limit Canadian access to American satellites. Could the minister tell the House the nature of the amendments he is proposing? Specifically, is he proposing to allow the Americans to use our made-in-Canada satellites for direct-to-home broadcasting and rebroadcasting, an activity which is illegal in Canada? We have invented and paid for the technology, but we are not allowed to use it. Is it true that the minister will allow the Americans to use it first?


Hon. Francis Fox (Minister of Communications):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is quite right in saying that there was, indeed, a very high level meeting of Canadian and U.S. officials last week in Washington. They agreed to set up a joint working group at a very senior level to look at the whole question of transport of data flow, transport or use of satellites, and the whole issue of orbital separations for satellites. These discussions of last Thursday will be followed by further discussions over the next few months. I think it actually points
Oral Questions
out or highlights the fact that when one looks at the over-all range of communications issues between Canada and the United States, our relations are indeed going ahead and progressing on an even keel.
Concerning the possible use of Canadian satellites by the U.S., it is my position, and the position of the government, that as long as those satellites are not required for use by Canadians we should be in a position to export, so to speak, the use of Canadian satellite channels to the United States, thereby allowing Telesat Canada to increase revenue and, in the long range, make the use of satellites in this country cheaper.


TRANSMISSION OF SIGNALS FROM FLORIDA
Pat Carney: Madam Speaker, I would like to direct my supplementary question to the Minister of Communications. I would point out that the revenues which are being talked about barely cover the launch costs for the next five satellites. I would also like to point out to the minister that Telesat is so embarrassed by the amount of American capacity on Canadian satellites that it is selling, that it has renumbered the satellites backwards. Therefore, we will launch Anik C-3 first, then Anik C-2, then Anik C-l.


Madam Speaker:: Order.


An hon. Member:: It is an explanation. The minister should know that.


Pat Carney: I would like to point out to the minister that it was designed originally for Canadians, specifically northern Canadians. Can he explain why the system is being designed to pick up Florida?


Francis Fox: Madam Speaker, obviously once again if we do have excess capacity, and that is the view of Telesat and its board of directors, the strong recommendation to the government from Telesat is that we should, in this interim period when we have an excess capacity, rent this excess capacity to the Americans because there is no demand for that type of commercial service in Canada at this stage. When there is indeed a commercial demand in Canada, we will make those satellite channels available. I have great difficulty understanding the hon. member's position. On this side of the House we are indeed interested in exporting high technology products to the Americans. The use of the satellite channel is an example of exporting some high technology products.


MINES AND MINING
Mr. Thomas Siddon (Richmond-South Delta):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Mines. It is in relation to a telegram sent by the mayor and

May 20, 1982
Oral Questions
councillors of Labrador City to the Minister of National Revenue concerning the plight faced by mine workers in Labrador City, northern Quebec and surrounding areas because of the declining market for iron ore. Madam Speaker, has the Minister of State for Mines recommended to the Minister of Finance a response to the Minister of National Revenue which would bring satisfaction to the residents of Labrador City who are faced with a serious crisis in their local economy as a result of the iron ore cutbacks?


Hon. Judy Erola (Minister of State (Mines)):: Madam Speaker, the telegram has not been brought to my attention yet. I will answer the question when I am made aware of its contents.


EFFECT OF PROPOSED UNITED STATES LEGISLATION
Thomas Edward Siddon: Madam Speaker, the Minister of State for Mines will also know, I presume, of a bill introduced to the United States Congress by Senator Peter Domenici who has suggested that United States consumers of uranium have their allowable imports restricted to 20 per cent of consumption in any particular nuclear installation. That will have a tremendously devastating impact on uranium mining in places like Kirkland Lake where we might see as many as 2,000 mine workers unemployed as a result of such legislation. What action is the Minister of State for Mines recommending to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the government, to ensure that this type of countervailing measure in retaliation for the confiscatory aspects of the National Energy Program is stopped immediately?


Judith A. Erola: Madam Speaker, I should like to make one point very clear to the hon. member. There is no uranium mined in Kirkland Lake at all. It is gold, pretty well. The uranium mining that takes place in Ontario is in Elliot Lake.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Judith A. Erola: I should like to assure the hon. member that we are aware of the situation and are following it very closely.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. One of the problems in reaching a tripartite agreement with the Micmac people of Restigouche in the province of Quebec concerning fishing rights is the Quebec government's concern about too much pressure on salmon stock. It wants some assurance from the federal government
that funds will be made available for job creation so that the Indian people will not be completely dependent upon the fishing resource.
Will the minister assure the House that job-creation funds and a proper economic development program will be put in place so that the Micmacs and the Quebec government can agree on a fishing quota that will not harm the salmon stock? Will the federal government meet its responsibilities for economic development on this reserve which has had over 80 per cent unemployment?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member knows that one of the major economic issues of this government, as a result of the last budget, was to put a top priority on economic development for natives to the tune of $245 million over the next four years. Approximately $75 million is to be allocated this year. This is in addition to all the other moneys presently programmed which the hon. member will note in the votes in our estimates for economic development for native people. So, of course, Restigouche will be considered in that context.
I hope the hon. member is not misled. The feeling of the Indian chief at Restigouche is that they want the Quebec government to continue to agree to the quota it set some weeks ago and not try to alleviate the responsibility for changing its mind by switching the blame to the federal government at this particular time.


PROTECTION OF MIC MAC FISHING RIGHTS
James Douglas Manly: Madam Speaker, we have heard many times about the $75 million that is supposed to be allocated for Indian economic development. We have not seen any of it yet, and neither have the Indian people. In view of the deteriorating situation in the negotiations with the Micmac people and the Quebec government, will the minister assure the Micmac people that, if a mutually satisfactory agreement cannot be reached, the aboriginal rights of the Micmac people regarding fishing will be protected and that there will be no repetition of last year's disgraceful raid?


John Carr Munro: Madam Speaker, I would be prepared, and I am sure every member of this House would be prepared also, to take every possible step to avoid the unfortunate situation that happened at Restigouche last year. That is why my officials met with the Quebec officials yesterday and today, for that very purpose, to protect the quota that the Indian people regard as evidence of their Indian fishing rights in that particular area. That is a quota that was recognized some weeks ago by the Quebec government. We hope to reinstal that quota. We hope that Quebec will keep to its commitment on the previous quota that it agreed to some weeks ago. We feel that the Indian people then will regard this
May 20, 1982

as evidence of good faith in terms of their fishing rights in the Restigouche area.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Madam Speaker, you will recall a question I asked the minister responsible for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation with respect to the number of senior officials who have cashed in their optimum pension rights to change their status from that of employment to contractual arrangement. I thank the minister for a letter he wrote to me saying that only three of the former senior executives of the corporation have entered into this kind of arrangement.
I would like to address a question to the President of the Treasury Board with regard to the issue of persons receiving dual benefits in terms of pensions and salaries. Could he tell me whether the practice, now obvious in Canada Mortgage and Housing, is widespread throughout the Public Service? To refresh his memory, the question is with respect to senior civil servants who cash in their optimum pension rights and change their status from that of employment to a contractual arrangement, receiving two salaries from the Public Service.


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (President of the Treasury Board):: Madam Speaker, the practice has been, and continues to be, that where public servants are hired on contract after retirement, care is taken to ensure that they do not receive a benefit beyond that which they would have received had they continued as employees of the federal government. That has been the practice in the past. If the hon. member knows of other circumstances in that department, I would be glad to take this question as a representation and ask my colleague responsible for the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation to look into the matter.


REQUEST FOR MINISTERIAL INVESTIGATION
Frank Oberle: Madam Speaker, it would not be in anyone's interest for me to give names of people in several departments of the Public Service who are not only receiving the optimum pension rights but contractual payments which are higher than their salary was before they changed their status with the corporation. Unless the minister provides us here with a more positive answer, namely, that he will look into the situation and stop it, 1 will have to name some of these public servants who have entered into these arrangements with several departments of the federal government.


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, I would invite the hon. member to speak to me privately on the matter. I have told him what the policy of the government is and what the policy of the Treasury Board is. I have just explained to him that maybe that
Privilege-Mr. Crosbie
should not be the case. Obviously there are public servants who are very valuable and should be maintained on contract. However, they should not, by virtue of that arrangement, receive more than they would receive had they continued as employees in the Public Service. That is the policy. If there are abuses which have not been brought to my attention, I would like to know what they are. I invite the hon. member to bring them to my attention privately.


PETITION
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the Table the two hundred and forty-fifth report of the Clerk of Petitions stating that he has examined the petition presented by the hon. member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) on Wednesday, May 19, 1982, and finds that it meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


PRIVILEGE
John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege of which I gave you notice this morning and which arises out of events which occurred in this House on Tuesday and Wednesday of this week.
All the precedents and authorities indicate that it is a breach of the privileges of the House for a member deliberately to mislead the House and, in particular, for a cabinet minister to do so. Incidentally, I will move a motion when I conclude my remarks, which 1 trust will be succinct and to the point.
As I understand it, what I must do now is establish a prima facie case that this House was deliberately misled by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) and then, if Your Honour finds that the motion I will move is in order, there would be a debate on it and a vote as to whether this matter should be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member worded his notice to me very carefully, and I ask him if he would very kindly avoid referring to "deliberately misleading" the House. The hon. member can expose any facts he wishes to put forward without mentioning those words which, of course, I must consider to be unparliamentary. There have been numerous occasions when allegations of the kind the hon. member now wants to bring forward have been brought forward, and hon. members have been able to expose their questions of privilege without using this kind of language. Such language

May 20, 1982
Privilege-Mr. Crosbie
puts the Chair in a very difficult position, the Chair wanting to hear the case on the one hand but, on the other hand, not being able to accept unparliamentary language.
I am just warning the hon. member because he used those words in reference to a document. I am not saying he intends to use them during the remainder of his intervention, but it would be easier if everyone kept in mind that it would be difficult for the Chair to accept any unparliamentary language in the course of this question of privilege.


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Madam Speaker, I must rise and speak to that point because it is my submission-


Mr. Breau:: You can't speak on that point.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John Carnell Crosbie: Sit down.


Erik Nielsen: It is my submission, Madam Speaker, based on a very recent precedent of this House, that the course to be followed by the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) is quite in order.
Mr. Speaker Jerome gave a very lengthy and well reasoned ruling on February 28, 1978 on a similar question of privilege raised at that time by the then hon. member for Durham-Northumberland, and that is to be found at page 3293 of Hansard for February 28, 1978.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: And 3294.


Erik Nielsen: The ruling commences at pages 3293, but on page 3294, in an extremely well reasoned judgment, Mr. Speaker Jerome very carefully and in some depth went into the history of what to him appeared to be a Catch-22 situation.
It is not reasonable to expect a question of privilege, based as this one is on an accusation of deliberately misleading the House, to avoid the very pith and substance of the question of privilege, and that is the problem which confronted Mr. Speaker Jerome. As recorded in the left-hand column at the bottom of page 3294, Mr. Speaker Jerome said:
There are two other rather important precedents to which I would like to refer for the benefit of hon. members. 1 have them here and would be glad to have them copied and distributed to any members who might be interested in the discussion. One of them refers to a case in our own Journals which is reported on March 11, 1890, when Sir Richard J. Cartwright moved a motion of criticism of another member of the House which contained in it, first of all, an allegation of directly misleading the House and, finally, concluded by saying that the conduct of a certain member in the premises was and had been discreditable, corrupt and scandalous. That matter was debated by the House as a substantive motion-
And there will be a substantive motion moved here today by the hon. member for St. John's West.
-and after debate the decision was taken that the matter would be referred to a committee for further examination.
Mr. Speaker Jerome went on to consider a further precedent in the British House which occurred on June 15, 1965, and he briefly described it. The charge in that case involved racist propaganda. In the substance of his ruling Mr. Speaker Jerome said, as recorded in the right-hand column:
This does raise a very slight question as to whether or not in a substantive motion, since it is the very intention of the motion, language can be used which
appears otherwise to be prohibited. My preliminary decision is that since the motion directs itself to that kind of criticism, obviously that language would have to be embodied in a motion and certainly would have to be permitted during the course of the debate, because I cannot see how the House could address itself to a substantive motion making that kind of allegation and complaint unless it was prepared to deal with it in specific terms. That question seems to remain-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I would like to ask a question of the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) so that I can follow his argument.
I have looked at that particular ruling of Mr. Speaker Jerome, and it seems to me that the hon. member is now saying that he was referring to a substantive motion. If I remember that precedent, there was a substantive motion under another type of procedure which can be used in this House whereby the allegations or accusations made were quite clearly written out and spelled out.
We have a different situation just now whereby the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) is raising a question of privilege. That is why I cannot allow a reference to "deliberately misleading" because to the present time no one has found a prima facie case of deliberate misleading. If the Chair does find that, obviously some kind of motion will come forward and the language allowed to be used might be different. I am not saying it will without looking into the circumstances, but it might be different. I will now ask the hon. member for Yukon to answer my question because I do not have the ruling under my eyes at this moment.
The hon. member is referring to a substantive motion in which a clear accusation had been made about an hon. member. Therefore, since the accusation might have been that of deliberately misleading, then in the presentation of the accusation or in the defence thereof it is quite obvious that some of these words had to be used.
I refer the hon. member to the question raised by the then hon. member for Durham-Northumberland. He debated his question of privilege without using any of the words the Chair could not allow. He exposed the facts, which I am asking the hon. member to do now.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, the case is on all fours with that which was rised by the then hon. member for Durham-Northumberland in 1978. If Mr. Speaker Jerome's ruling is very carefully examined, it is obvious that the process we are embarked upon here today is precisely the process involved then, and I was present in the House at the time the then hon. member for Durham-Northumberland raised that question of privilege. Indeed, I participated in the debate on that occasion. What happened was that a notice of intention to raise a question of privilege was given by the then hon. member for Northumberland-Durham. In that notice, the words "deliberately misleading" were used.
The hon. member for St. John's West has meticulously avoided the use of those words in the notice given to the Chair
May 20, 1982

on this question. After having given the notice there was a debate in order to satisfy the Chair at that time that there existed a prima facie case of privilege.
At the conclusion of the submission by the hon. member for Durham-Northumberland he presented, as is the intention of the hon. member for St. John's West in this case, a motion which, if the Chair had found a prima facie case, would have been put to the House and the normal process would follow. That is precisely what we are doing here.
In that motion that was presented at the closing of his submission, the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham used the words "deliberately misleading". It was to that process that Mr. Speaker Jerome directed his attention in the precedent I am citing for the Chair today. It is clear from the preamble on page 3293 of Hansard that that is what took place on that occasion.
My submission is that we are following precisely that precedent in precisely that chronology.
The argument is an important one, Madam Speaker, and I should like to have the undivided attention of the Chair. I urge the Clerk to advise the Speaker, but in the meantime I want to be heard in an undivided way.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: I thank you for the courtesy of giving me that undivided attention, Madam Speaker.
In my submission, the circumstances here are on all fours with that case, and the proper course to be followed would be for the hon. member for St. John's West to be heard on his question, as clearly Mr. Speaker Jerome considered that there is no alternative other than to endure the use of words used in the debate to support his argument which would otherwise, as he said, be prohibited. At the end of that submission he will be proposing that substantive motion and it will contain those words which would otherwise be considered unparliamentary.
I have no doubt that the Chair will want to hear other submissions on the substance of whether a prima facie case exists. The thought occurred to me in the meantime that if the Chair wishes to have my copy of-


Madam Speaker:: I thank the hon. member. The Clerk was giving me a copy of that ruling so that I could follow the hon. member's argument. It would have been helpful if that process had not been disrupted. I do need the copy and I would ask the Clerk to give it to me now.


Erik Nielsen: The thought occurred to me that a way to ease the difficulty would be to put the motion right now and subsequent submissions could be made to you on the basis of that motion. That clearly has to be found to be in order.


Madam Speaker:: No, I do not think it is in order. Unparliamentary language cannot be used because, except under a certain procedure, members cannot be accused of having done
Privilege-Mr. Crosbie
certain things to the House. Therefore, I submit that I think it is entirely possible to do otherwise. The hon. member for St. John's West could expose the facts that he wants to expose to the House in view of his question of privilege without using those words which I would have to consider to be unparliamentary. Once the motion is before the House, the situation might be different and I would examine it then on its merit.
If I could have the co-operation of the House to clear this matter up, I hope it will be possible for the hon. member to submit his question of privilege in this way. Unless the hon. member gives me time to read this whole judgment and the whole question of privilege that was presented at another time,
I do not think in the first part of the presentation of the question of privilege by the hon. member for Durham-Northumberland in the precedent which the hon. member for Yukon has quoted that any kind of unparliamentary language was used. The matter discussed was very much related to the kind of allegation that we are looking into today, however.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I direct your attention specifically to page 3294 of Hansard for February 28, 1978. The Chair has the ruling now. On that page in the right-hand column, half-way through the second paragraph, Mr. Speaker Jerome had this to say:
My preliminary decision is that since the motion directs itself to that kind of criticism, obviously that language would have to be embodied in a motion-
Which it is.
-and certainly would have to be permitted during the course of the debate, because I cannot see how the House could address itself to a substantive motion making that kind of allegation and complaint unless it was prepared to deal with it in specific terms.
I have admired your position in the past, Madam Speaker, for not creating new precedents and for adhering religiously to precedents already on our books. I submit to you that those terms of Mr. Jerome's ruling, in such a specific fashion, would be very difficult to avoid in prohibiting now debate on language which he says is proper to debate in a motion which in this case stands on all fours with the question he had to deal with in 1978 and which we want to proceed with now.


Madam Speaker:: I would certainly want to follow the precedents which were established in this House by previous Speakers because I think they are a wealth of wisdom that I should rely on when I make decisions. But precisely because I want to follow those precedents and those traditions, it seems to me that what the hon. member is referring to is language that was permitted once the motion was before the House. We are not yet at this point. I will stand corrected if I am not following the hon. member's argument properly, but it seems to me that was permitted once the motion was before the House and not at the preliminary stage of the examination of the question of privilege. That is to say, once the Speaker found a prima facie question of privilege, then some language had to be admitted so that hon. members could make their case.

May 20, 1982
Privilege-Mr. Crosbie


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, you are absolutely right. In fact, the member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) quoted, out of context, part of the second paragraph of Hansard which I have here before me. It is important to remember that in this particular case, as you yourself said earlier, the Speaker of the House had ordered unparliamentary expressions to be removed from the notice of the question of privilege. Subsequently, the Speaker had second thoughts and said that he would accept unparliamentary language in a motion, provided the motion was before the House. However, today's situation is different. In fact, the onus is on the member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) to prove to the Chair that there is a prima facie case for a question of privilege, and a motion can be presented only if the Chair decides that such is the case. Therefore, as long as the motion is not before the House, the issue of whether or not a motion may contain an expression that otherwise would be unparliamentary does not exist.
In the circumstances, I fail to understand the point the member for Yukon is trying to make, because there is no motion before the House, and if the member for St. John's West had wished to put a substantive motion before the House, under the provisions of Standing Order 42, 48 hours' notice would have had to be given, which was not done.


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon West):: Madam Speaker, I should like to make a brief contribution to this question, if I may. I want to participate in the argument. As I see it, we have to face a simple, pragmatic problem. I ask you how the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) can establish a prima facie case of somebody wilfully misleading the House if he is not able to use those terms in the course of his discussion? That is the question we have to decide. If we want to make a prima facie case that there was deliberate misleading of this House, then I think it is almost impossible to do so unless we use euphemisms. Are we to say "dm" for "deliberately misleading", or use some other euphemism? We have to be able to use those terms, not in any unparliamentary sense, but simply to establish on a reasonable basis our prima facie case.


Madam Speaker:: There is a difference, depending on the way in which hon. members choose to present a problem to the House. If hon. members wanted to have the latitude of formally accusing another member of this House of doing a certain thing, then they could have followed the route of presenting a substantive motion before the House which could be debated in those terms. That substantive motion could have been worded so as to contain the kind of accusations which some hon. members would now like me to consider as having been made.
A question of privilege is being raised, which is quite different from a substantive motion where an hon. member exercises a very serious sense of responsibility in making his
accusations about an hon. member. That is a different procedure. If hon. members want to follow that procedure, I am in their hands. Under that procedure I can allow them to conduct themselves in a different way. However, since the hon. member for St. John's West chose to raise a question of privilege, I must rigorously follow the procedures which govern a question of privilege; that is to say, allow him to expose his question of privilege and warn him, as I did a few minutes ago, that since he was acting under this particular procedure he could not use unparliamentary language because I would then have to ask him to withdraw.
Therefore, I think the hon. member can, as some hon. members have done before in quite similar situations, expose the facts. That is what I need. The facts are needed in order to determine whether there is a prima facie case of privilege. A motion could then come before the House and I would judge that particular situation according to the circumstances. But for the time being it is either one route or the other. I am governed by our rules, which are quite clear on that, and I have to adhere to them or there will not be order in the House. I am sure the hon. member for St. John's West can expose his question of privilege in this manner and we can go on with the business of hearing him.


Mr. Mark Rose (Mission-Port Moody):: Madam Speaker, I hesitate to become embroiled in this matter because my party supported the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) yesterday in the vote. However, the opposition House leader invited other members to make submissions to Madam Speaker and I thank the hon. member for his Hansard reference of February 28, 1978. The whole text of Speaker Jerome's ruling was not revealed and I would just like to quote a couple of paragraphs, where he says:
My first reference is to the nineteenth edition of Erskine May at pages 367 and 428. At page 367, under the heading "Rules Governing Subject-Matter of Motions", it is stated that certain matters cannot be debated save upon a substantive motion which admits of a distinct vote of the House. Among these is the conduct of members of either House of Parliament. I am summarizing that slightly, but the reference is there.
At page 428 of May's nineteenth edition, under the heading "Reflections on the Sovereign, etc.", it is stated that unless the discussion is based upon a substantive motion, drawn in proper terms, reflections must not be cast in debate upon the conduct of the sovereign, etc, and among those enumerated are members of either House of Parliament.
Speaker Jerome goes on to cite a number of other references, but I will let the expanded text speak for itself.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Madam Speaker, I would like to clarify a misunderstanding which exists in my mind regarding the practices and traditions of the House. Perhaps you can clarify them for me.
As I understand the situation, whenever one complains about a breach of privilege in the House-it does not matter whether it is unparliamentary language or whatever-one has to give a notice of motion to the Chair. It has been the tradition and practice for as long as I can remember, both in the British House of Commons and in this House of Commons,
May 20, 1982

that the notice of motion has to contain the substantive motion which the member is going to rely upon if the Chair finds a prima facie case.
The difficulty back in 1978 which was clearly faced by Speaker Jerome was exactly the same situation you are facing today, with all due respect. It is a Catch-22 situation. How can a member complain of someone deliberately misleading someone else in the House but be unable to use that language? After exhaustively going into the precedents, spending at least a week, if I remember correctly, on the research involved, I think Speaker Jerome came out with the clear unequivocal position that obviously that language had to be permitted in a debate on the notice of motion-not on the substantive motion itself but on the notice of motion-and could be used in the notice of motion because it had to be used in the substantive motion.
As I understand the situation now facing the Chair, there is a claim that that language can be used in debate only after the substantive motion is put; in other words, only after the Chair finds there is a prima facie case. I feel compelled, Madam Speaker, to draw your attention to rule 81(2) which, as I understand it, requires the substantive motion to be included in the notice of motion.
As a matter of fact, if there is any doubt whatsoever in your mind, I point out to you that in 1978 I was permitted to use that language in the debate in this House; I was permitted to use that language in the notice of motion, and in the subsequent substantive motion. In actual fact the Chair found there was no prima facie case at that time. So we never reached the stage where the motion was actually put, because the Chair found there was no prima facie case.
Under those circumstances, Madam Speaker, I feel that if you are following-as I am sure you desire to-the precedent of such an eminent Speaker with the legal training and background which Mr. Speaker Jerome had-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Shame, shame!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: -with the training and background that Speaker Jerome had, Madam Speaker, I feel that the precedent and tradition is that we should follow the results of the exhaustive research carried out by the Speaker at that time.


Madam Speaker:: In answer to the hon. member for Dur-ham-Northumberland (Mr. Lawrence) I will have to point out to him exactly what happened in these particular circumstances. First of all, the motion sent to me by the hon. member for St. John's West does not contain any language which I could consider to be unparliamentary. It is very carefully worded and does not contain a reference to "deliberately misleading" the House. Therefore, I could find that this question of privilege was raised in a very legitimate manner.
Secondly, the hon. member for Durham-Northumberland I think forgets that my esteemed predecessor, Mr. Speaker
Privilege-Mr. Crosbie
Jerome, who was very highly trained in the legal profession, asked the hon. member to change the wording of his motion because he felt he could not accept the wording "deliberately misleading". He concluded by saying:
I would think, therefore, that the action would be to strike out the hon. member's notice of privilege because it contained the word "deliberately", on the basis of clear precedents.
That is why the hon. member was able to proceed, because he concurred with this demand from the Speaker. Mr. Speaker Jerome went on to say:
It is entirely without prejudice to the hon. member to raise the matter again in a substantive motion after he has had the opportunity to consult these precedents.
It seems to me that I am following exactly what my predecessor had suggested to the House to do.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, you used a phrase twice which I am sure you did not intend to use.


Yvon Pinard: Be serious.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: You referred to receiving the "motion" from the hon. member for St. John's West. I am sure you intended to say "notice". You also referred to Mr. Speaker Jerome's request in his ruling that the hon. member for Durham-Northumberland change the wording of his "motion". I am sure you intended to use the word "notice", as Mr. Speaker Jerome used that word.


Mr. Smith:: That's what Madam Speaker said.


Erik Nielsen: No, I am afraid that when the "blues" come to Madam Speaker she will notice those two observations. I am sure she intended to say "notice".


David P. Smith: You are wrong.


Erik Nielsen: I just want to make one or two brief points, Madam Speaker. First, it has always been ruled, in my experience here, that a question of privilege has to contain a motion. I cannot recollect any instance other than that if a charge is made the nature of the charge is usually right up front so that people know what they are dealing with, particularly those who are participating in a discussion as to whether or not a prima facie case exists. You yourself have said that you have to know the facts. One of the principal facts in this whole discussion is going to be the deliberate nature of the misleading. That fact is central to all of the discussion that will flow here.
Second, 1 cannot recall any ruling-there may well be one but I cannot recall it-that requires a substantive motion, such as the one intended to be moved here and the one moved on the occasion of the question raised by the then hon. member for Durham-Northumberland, to be moved at the end of the argument rather than at the beginning. Indeed, I cannot recall any instance where the motion followed the finding of a prima

May 20, 1982
Privilege-Mr. Crosbie
facie case. Indeed, it was always up front because that was part of the finding. Once a case is found, then the very motion is put to the House.
My friend the hon. member for Durham-Northumberland (Mr. Lawrence) quoted Beauchesne's Citation 81(2). In my submission, Citation 81, Subparagraph (2), should not be read as a mandatory direction that a motion can only follow the finding of a prima facie case or can only follow the submission of argument by the hon. member phrasing the quesiton of privilege. The proper interpretation of Citation 81(2) in my submission is that, unless there is a substantive motion moved by at least the conclusion of the argument, then the question of privilege is not well founded and, indeed, there is nothing to put to the House.
I submit very strongly that Citation 81 (2) which I have cited to you does not rule out the practice of putting such a substantive motion up front in the argument. I can recall no precedent in this House to prevent that course being followed.
In any event, just to deal very briefly with the point raised by the government House leader in his very brief, and in my respectful opinion ineffectual, intervention, he made the point that a substantive motion had to be preceded by 48 hours' notice. That, of course, is nonsense. Mr. Speaker Jerome found it to be nonsense. As reported on page 3294 of Hansard for February 28, 1978, Mr. Speaker Jerome said:
If the action was deliberate and was then the subject of a substantive motion-
As this will be.
-as required by the precedents, it might be argued by the mover of that substantive motion that rather than having the substantive motion dealt with in its regular place under private members' notices of motions, for example, it ought to enjoy the precedence accorded to privileged motions.
That is why, because of the uniqueness and rarity of substantive questions of privilege arising in the House of Commons, it enjoys the kind of precedence that Mr. Speaker Jerome points out motions based on privilege ought to enjoy.
Just so there is no inferences left that I am leaving anything out with respect to the brief and slight intervention by the acting House leader for the New Democratic Party, Mr. Speaker Jerome's judgment starts on page 3293 of Hansard for February 28, 1978 and concludes on page 3295.
There were other subsequent interventions based on that question of privilege. 1 commend not just the reading of that ruling to the hon. member who made the brief intervention, but a study of it, which I have given to the ruling.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I will try not to be too long, despite the good advice given by my colleague from the Yukon. Very briefly, may I draw your attention to Beauchesne's fifth edition, Citation 85. It describes the kind of motion that usually follows a complaint of a breach of privilege. Citation 85 reads:
A complaint of a breach of privilege must conclude with a motion providing the House an opportunity to take some action. That action is normally the reference of the matter to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections for examination.
That is a substantive motion which does not require any other notice but a notice to raise a question of privilege, as was done by the hon. member for St. John's West. On the other hand, if the hon. member for St. John's West was to move another substantive motion accusing a minister of deliberately misleading the House, we would have to take into consideration a quote from Erskine May found on pages 367 and 368, which reads:
"Matters to be dealt with by a substantive motion."-Certain matters cannot be debated, save upon a substantive motion which admits of a distinct vote of the House. Among these are the conduct of the sovereign-
And so on. We have also the conduct of:
-members of either house of Parliament and judges of the superior courts of the United Kingdom-
Therefore, there are two separate points. First, if hon. members opposite choose the procedure of complaining of breach of privilege, then members are not allowed, according to a ruling by Mr. Speaker Jerome, to use unparliamentary language in exposing facts. If you come to the conclusion that there is a prima facie case of privilege, Madam Speaker, then you allow a motion to be put. This type of motion does not contain any offensive language because it is a mere reference to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections for consideration of the matter.


Erik Nielsen: Not at all.


Yvon Pinard: On the other hand, if the hon. member for St. John's West was a little more courageous and had the courage to move a straightforward motion accusing the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) formally of deliberately misleading the House, then he would have had to give the normal notice under Standing Order 42 and suffer the consequences of his motion. But we would not be allowed to debate that today.
Hon. members opposite have chosen an indirect way to do this and they must live with the procedure as it is. Therefore, hon. members opposite are ill-founded in their approach in trying to seize this opportunity to add to the offence and insult of yesterday against the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) and against this institution by trying to use more unparliamentary language through pleading a case wherein they pretend to suffer a breach of privilege.


Madam Speaker:: It is quite obvious that we are really confusing two types of procedure. The hon. member for Yukon has just quoted precedents about notices of motions and different types of motions, but he confused the two types of motions in indicating to the Chair what the conduct of the Chair should be. It is quite obvious to me, having looked into the rules and precedents of the House, that having chosen the route of raising a question of privilege, the hon. member for St. John's West should now expose his question of privilege, but of course he should not use unparliamentary language. At this point or during the course of his presentation, or even in the notice he has given-he has given me notice but he has not given the motion he would like to move-he could give the
May 20, 1982

Chair or the House an idea of the kind of motion he would be prepared to move if the Chair finds a prima facie case of privilege.
The other procedure would require quite different behaviour and conduct on the part of members and on the part of the Chair. If the hon. member wants to conform to the procedure which I think is well established in the House, if he would deal with his question of privilege, accept the warning I have given him, and follow the example of some hon. members on that side who have previously dealt with matters of this nature, then I would hear him and I would be delighted to hear him.
I caution the House that indeed this is a very delicate situation wherein members using strong language to make their arguments must be reminded that unless they make a formal charge under a different procedure, they have to give up something. What they have to give up is the use of strong language which the Chair cannot accept if they use a particular type of procedure.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I will be very brief but I do not want the record to stand as it is. With great respect to your remarks, I was not confused when I was making my submissions. I was not referring to a notice of motion when I referred to the notice of privilege which was given to you today by the hon. member for St. John's West. I am quite aware of the distinction between a notice of privilege and a notice of motion. We are talking about a notice of privilege and a substantive motion which will follow upon that notice of privilege. No confusion exists in my mind. I just wanted to put the record straight on that score.


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, naturally I want to restrict myself to whatever the Chair dictates, no matter what contortions that might require. I am alleging or suggesting that on last Tuesday, May 18, there was a breach of the privileges of the House due to the misconduct of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) in certain answers he made to certain questions. 1 would like to establish now, if 1 can, the prima facie evidence that this occurred.
I refer to Tuesday's Hansard at page 17533. That afternoon at around 2.55, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) asked a question because-and this is part of the factual background-there had been a report on CJYQ radio in St. John's, Newfoundland at one o'clock Newfoundland time-which is, as Madam Speaker knows, 11.30 Ottawa time-that the Government of Canada had made a decision to refer the question of offshore mineral resources to the Supreme Court of Canada. I also tell the House that the basis of that story came from the office of the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Rompkey), who is a minister from Newfoundland.
Then following that broadcast by CJYQ radio in St. John's, CP sent out a story stating the same thing. I have the CP story here. At 1.31 on Tuesday afternoon before question period started, Canadian Press sent out a story to the same effect. 1 have it in my hand, as a matter of fact:
Privilege-Mr. Crosbie
The federal government is considering a unilateral reference on offshore resource ownership to the Supreme Court of Canada as early as this week, federal sources said Tuesday.
It referred to a secret meeting on Friday between the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) and the Newfoundland minister. It continued:
Sources said Prime Minister Trudeau and Lalonde met Monday night with the five Liberal MPs from Newfoundland to discuss the government's options, including a quick Supreme Court reference.
At my request, the Leader of the Opposition asked the Minister of Justice the following question, as reported at page 17533 of Hansard:
Madam Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice who will know that there are news reports today indicating that the federal government is considering a unilateral reference on offshore resource ownership to the Supreme Court of Canada, and is considering doing that as early as this week. Is that the case?
The answer of the Minister of Justice was:
Madam Speaker, if the government does make a decision to that effect, this will be announced as soon as the decision has been made. No decision has been made at this time.
Then on the next page, after other supplementary questions, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition asked:
Madam Speaker, is the Minister of Justice and the Government of Canada considering a direct unilateral reference of the offshore question to the Supreme Court of Canada? It is a simple question. Yes or no?
The Minister of Justice answered:
Madam Speaker, I said that there has been no decision made by the government at this time on that question.
Then he went on with the rest of his answer.
Later on that Tuesday, or I guess it was probably early Wednesday morning, there was a report in The Globe and Mail of Toronto that the minister was proceeding to St. John's that morning to inform the people of Newfoundland-


Mr. McGrath:: That paper is out at nine o'clock.


John Carnell Crosbie: It was reported in The Globe and Mail of May 19 that he was going down to Newfoundland to inform them that the government was asking the Supreme Court of Canada to decide who owns the rich Hibernia oil field. It read:
Sources in Ottawa told The Globe and Mail that the question the federal government will be putting before the Supreme Court will be restricted to Hibernia rather than the more comprehensive question-


James Aloysius McGrath: That paper was printed the night before.


John Carnell Crosbie: Yes, that paper was printed on Tuesday evening. The next morning, that is the morning of May 19, the Minister of Justice flew to Newfoundland with the Minister of National Revenue. They arrived there at twelve noon or 10.30 Ottawa time, which indicates that they left here at 7 to 7.30 a.m., less than 24 hours after the Minister of Justice said that no decision had been made on the issue.
Not only that, but just before twelve noon on Wednesday, officials from the Department of Justice appeared in the Supreme Court registry in Ottawa and filed a reference with the registry containing the question on the offshore and all

May 20, 1982
Privilege-Mr. Crosbie
other necessary documentation. It would strain credulity to believe that all the intricate work necessary to prepare those documents could have been done by the Department of Justice between 2.55 Tuesday afternoon and the next morning at twelve noon.
In any event, on the same Wednesday the minister, after having had lunch with the defeated leader of the Liberal Party of Newfoundland who announced all this at 2.15, or 15 minutes before the minister called a press conference in Newfoundland to give to the public the letter from the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to Premier Peckford and went on to say that this reference was being made. At 2.45 Newfoundland time, a telex started to arrive in the war room in the Confederation Building at St. John's from the Prime Minister to Premier Peckford. The minister had started 15 minutes before the Premier started to get the letter from the Prime Minister, who was so fastidious here yesterday about tabling that letter in the House. He wanted to ask Premier Peckford whether he should table it, the Premier who did not even get the letter before the Minister of Justice made it or the substance of it public in Newfoundland last Wednesday.


Mr. Chretien:: I did not make it public.


John Carnell Crosbie: In any event, Madam Speaker-


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1 rise on a question of privilege.


Some hon. Members:: We are on one now.


Madam Speaker:: Order. The hon. minister might rise on a point of order, but he cannot rise on a question of privilege because I cannot hear two questions of privilege at the same time.


John Carnell Crosbie: The minister-


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1 did not have the letter.


John Carnell Crosbie: 1 will not argue about that.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Then don't say it.


An hon. Member:: Your microphone.


John Carnell Crosbie: I am telling you, Madam Speaker, that whoever operates these microphones has a lot to answer for.
This telex started to arrive at a quarter to three on Wednesday afternoon, just 24 hours after the minister said in the House of Commons that no decision had been reached on this most important and sensitive question.
In order to keep the time in sequence, Madam Speaker, I refer you to Wednesday's Hansard, May 19, in which the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition had an opportunity to question the Prime Minister, who entered the House at about ten minutes to three-in fact, at three o'clock since it is marked "1500". The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition
asked the Prime Minister this question at page 17592 of Hansard:
I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether that response by the Minister of Justice yesterday was a truthful response, and, if so, would he tell the House of Commons at which time, what time yesterday or today, did the cabinet of Canada meet to make a decision to refer the offshore jurisdiction question to the Supreme Court of Canada?
The reply of the Prime Minister was:
-the decision became effective when the order in council was signed some time this morning. I cannot say exactly at what hour.
That was an evasion, of course, so the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition asked several more questions. 1 read from page 17952 of Hansard where he asked:
When did the cabinet of Canada meet to make this decision?
And:
-was the Minister of Justice telling the truth to the House of Commons yesterday when he gave his answer?
The reply by the Prime Minister was:
Madam Speaker, the cabinet met yesterday, yesterday morning. It took what in effect was a conditional decision, and that decision became effective this morning.
The Prime Minister himself has confirmed that there was a cabinet meeting on Tuesday morning where they made a decision which he chooses to call conditional. The Prime Minister went on to say that "the decision became effective this morning." That is, Wednesday morning.
It is a peculiar thing, but I am advised that the copy of the order in council sent to Newfoundland-the copy that the Newfoundland government has-is dated May 18. That is my advice.
In any event, at three o'clock in the House the Prime Minister said that there was a cabinet meeting Tuesday morning, before the Minister of Justice answered the questions in this House that this decision was made which he calls conditional. A decision is a decision, conditional or not. The matter had obviously been discussed. It is like getting pregnant. You cannot get half or a quarter pregnant; you are either pregnant or not. You make a decision or you do not. You do not make a half pregnant decision. But that was the Prime Minister's response.
In order to establish my prima facie case we must remember that the minister said that there was no decision made and that about 17 hours later he left for Newfoundland in a government aircraft. There must have been a fantastic flurry Tuesday afternoon and night in cabinet offices and in the Department of Justice that the minister had to hurtle to St. John's on a jet on Wednesday to advise them that the government was referring this question to the Supreme Court of Canada.
Could I just point out to you, Madam Speaker, what the ordinary person understands by the word "decision". The ordinary person understands a decision to be a decision, not when some order in council is signed. I refer to the large Oxford dictionary which says this about the word "decision".


John Edward Broadbent: The large one, John?
May 20, 1982


John Carnell Crosbie: That is the small one. I am quoting from the large. The large Oxford dictionary says "decision" means "the action of deciding (a contest, controversy, question) a settlement, a determination or the action of deciding". It goes on to say "the making up of one's mind on any point or on a course of action; a resolution; determination".
Why do I refer to the definition of "decision"? Because there is an attempt to quibble about what that word means. There was already an attempt made by the Minister of Justice, as he is quoted in a Canadian Press story today, to say: "When it is not signed it is not a decision." There is a new principle now. You do not make a decision until something is signed. If I decide to walk across the street, it is not a decision until 1 sign it. If I decide to leave this building to go somewhere, it is not a decision until it is signed. If the government or one of its committees makes a decision, it is not a decision until somebody produces written evidence of the decision. They no longer have memories or no longer know what they have decided. It is nothing until somebody puts it into writing and it is signed as an order in council. That will not wash with the people of this country.
What does all this add up to? What it does add up to is that this House was not given a true and correct answer to the question that was asked by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition on Tuesday which dealt with a most serious public question. Is this a breach of privilege? How can the parliamentary system of government function if members of the House, and the public, cannot obtain or no longer expect to obtain factual, true and correct answers from ministers-not equivocations which will be based on the minister later saying that there was no decision because there was no order in council passed. Everyone in the country knows that a decision was made when the cabinet met on Tuesday morning. Suppose the decision was conditional as the Prime Minister said it was, conditional on what?
There was no communication between the Prime Minister or his ministers and the Newfoundland government from Friday of last week when the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources met with the Newfoundland minister of energy, mines and resources until the Minister of Justice flew to Newfoundland to have his press conference. The decision was not conditional upon the government of Newfoundland agreeing. It was not conditional on the government of Newfoundland being asked to do something. It was not conditional on the government of Newfoundland being informed. The Newfoundland government was not informed. It heard about the decision after the defeated Liberal leader of the opposition in Newfoundland heard about it. He has repudiated the whole course of action which, of course, is irrelevant.
After just having laid out these facts as I know them, I want to end by saying that these facts naturally can only be prima facie until someone with the power to investigate and look into this matter can do so and summon witnesses to be heard.
If our system has reached the point where we can no longer trust what we are told by ministers of the Crown in the House, if we have come to the point where evasion, half-truths,
Privilege-Mr. Crosbie
specious reasoning is given to us instead of factual answers to questions-because all the Leader of the Opposition asked for was facts-then the parliamentary system of government can no longer work in the House. It can no longer work if we have to study every answer and refer to the dictionary after answers to all our questions in order to look up every word they have used, to see what the dictionary says it means or what the Liberal cabinet minister understood it to mean in the twisted confines of that cabinet minister's mind.
I would like to end by quoting from Macbeth:
I pull in resolution, and begin
To doubt the equivocation of the fiend
That lies like truth; Fear not till Birnam wood
Do come to Dunsinane;-
Birnam wood is coming to Dunsinane because we doubt the fiend that lies like truth. Therefore, after we are concluded here, if you find there is a prima facie case-which I hope you will because this has to be put a stop to and we owe it to the people of Canada to see that this is put a stop to-I will move:
That it is the opinion of this House:
That in stating to the House on Tuesday, May 18, at page 17534 of Hansard in reply to a question from the Leader of the Opposition, that "there has been no decision made by the government at this time on that question," the Minister of Justice was deliberately misleading the House;
And, that this House therefore resolves: That the matter of the deliberately misleading statement made to the House by the Minister of Justice on Tuesday, May 18, be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections;
And that the committee report to the House as to whether the statements of the Minister of Justice constitute a contempt of the House, and whether the conduct of the minister is consistent with that expected of a minister of the Crown.
That is the motion I will move because I believe this kind of sharp practice and pretence must be stopped. This deviousness and this kind of answer must be stopped.
Let me also say that I am quite prepared to put my seat on the line, and if there is a proper forum to investigate this matter I charge that minister with deliberately misrepresenting the truth to the House. I am prepared to back that up. I am prepared to resign if a fair and proper forum finds that he did not knowingly and deliberately mislead the House. I am prepared to run again when the government sets a date for a by-election, if they dare to set a by-election date. I will then be back here again with ten times the majority I had the last time.
I also want the Minister of Justice to put his seat on the line. I want him to resign if such a committee finds that he deliberately misled the House, as he in fact did yesterday in a disgraceful and pusillanimous manner.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Resign!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

May 20, 1982
Privilege-Mr. Crosbie


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, I do not know why the hon. member becomes exercised, makes a big fuss and tries to be a little bouffant as he did yesterday, because the facts themselves today just prove what is the problem. I would like very clearly to say that when I answered the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) in the House on Tuesday, I stated the truth. There was this problem concerning the offshore which has been in front of the cabinet for a long time. The hon. member knows that some months ago I communicated with the minister of justice in Newfoundland, Mr. Ottenheimer, and suggested that we go directly to the Supreme Court in order to shorten the process and make sure that there was a decision. There was an election, and so on, so the decision was not made. There were discussions, there were some procedures which had to be followed, and the matter was reviewed from time to time.
Therefore, when I rose in the House on Tuesday afternoon it was one of the plans, and we had obviously been ready for a long time because all of the documents were ready. I hope the opposition will not start to blame a minister because he does his work properly and gets ready to act when the time comes. So I was ready, and I came to the House. The Leader of the Opposition asked me a question and I said there was no final decision, and it was confirmed-


Charles Joseph Clark: No decision at all; don't weasel.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: No decision, yes, were the words I used. So, no decision was made. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) very clearly described it. There was a decision which had been made with some conditions attached. Of course, I did not want to mislead the House. I just said that there was no decision because some conditions had to be met.
In the afternoon when I left this House at three o'clock and went back to the cabinet-because the cabinet was sitting-I had to entertain some more discussions, with my officials and with some ministers and, by the end of the afternoon, I was satisfied that 1 could proceed. But by that time it was around seven o'clock.


Erik Nielsen: Making it worse.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: So the order in council could not be passed until the morning after. Because no one was in their office, I gave instructions for the processing of the order in council only in the morning. In fact, the order in council was passed at ten o'clock on Wednesday morning by the Deputy Governor General.
1 did not want to mislead the House. There was no final decision. The hon. member said that I purposely wanted to mislead the House. Yesterday he misled the House, and I am sure it was involuntary, because he rose in the House and he said:
Today the Min ster of Justice met with the leader of the Liberal Party of Newfoundland ... rather than with the minister of justice for Newfoundland. He refused to meet with the minister of justice-
I do not say that the hon. member wanted to mislead the House, but that is, in fact, what he has done, because 1 left on Wednesday morning and I had given instructions on Tuesday
night to make an appointment for me with Mr. Ottenheimer. His office was called. When I arrived in St. John's, 1 asked my assistant to call the office of Mr. Ottenheimer. Mr. Otten-hemier agreed to meet me at 3.30 in the afternoon. Later on he called and cancelled the meeting.
The hon. member for St. John's West accused me of refusing to meet Mr. Ottenheimer.


James Aloysius McGrath: Before the press conference!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I did not call him to cancel the meeting. He did not attach any condition. I went there and informed him that I was in St. John's and that 1 wanted to have a meeting. 1 did not personally talk to him. A time was set for 3.30. I have worked with Mr. Ottenheimer for years. I have no grievance against him. We might disagree, but I respect him as the attorney-general and I wanted to see him. But he cancelled the meeting.
I do not say that the hon. member for St. John's West wanted to mislead the House of Commons. He probably interpreted that the meeting had been cancelled, or perhaps he was not even aware that the meeting had been agreed upon. So he said the same thing this afternoon. What was his intention a minute ago? He withdrew what he said. He said that I was there, giving the letter of the Prime Minister to the press, before the Premier of Newfoundland had received the letter. I am sorry, 1 did not have the letter. The letter was sent by the Prime Minister to Mr. Peckford. 1 was not a messenger. I do not say that the hon. member wanted to deliberately mislead the House, but he did not state the truth, because 1 did not have the letter.
When we are debating in the House and replying to questions, I think it should be understood that if 1 had been satisfied when I rose in my seat that there was a decision, and that I was to proceed the same day, the day after, or Wednesday, if 1 had been sure 1 would have said so. I have been a member of this House for 19 years, 15 years in the cabinet. I have always dealt with the House on a reasonable basis. 1 know that there are some affirmations made on a daily basis which are sometimes contradictory.
The hon. member for St. John's West tries to define when a decision has been made. I am telling hon. members that, in my own mind, there was no final decision because 1 had to meet certain conditions. If these conditions had not been met in the afternoon, I would not have been in Newfoundland the day after. I would have had to wait and perhaps would never have gone. I am not privileged to discuss what goes on in the cabinet, nor why I was not ready to proceed. That is part of cabinet confidentiality. Hon. members have been here long enough to realize that there is some constraint when one is in the cabinet. I just say that I stated the situation as it existed in my mind. I did not want to mislead anyone.
I was surprised at the hon. member yesterday, because when I heard about what he said, I said I found it a bit ridiculous. I said: "It is too bad I am not there because the members of the
May 20, 1982

House will realize that there was nothing done to deliberately mislead the House at all."

Madam Speaker, the House of Commons is recognized as an institution that respects its members. When the Leader of the Opposition asked me the question, I was not particularly aggressive. In any case, I thrive on aggressive questions and I enjoy Parliament. I have spent nineteen years in the House, and I am very fond of parliamentary debate. I certainly never run away from a debate. So if I had wanted to start a debate at three minutes to three-it takes time for the Leader of the Opposition to make up his mind to ask a question-at three to three I might have tried to engage in a little skirmish with the Leader of the Opposition. However, I merely said: The decision has not been finalized. That is clearly what was in my mind. I then continued consultations with my department and my colleagues, and at the end of the afternoon, I decided to go to Newfoundland, and the order in council was passed Wednesday morning.
1 am not going to split hairs about the exact instant of legality and all that, but that is what happened. 1 had no intention of doing anything that would be in contempt of the House. Today, Madam Speaker, I could actually rise on two questions of privilege before this House, if I really wanted to make a nuisance of myself as some people do occasionally. The hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) accused me just now of having given the letter to the press before it reached Mr. Peckford. That is not true. I did not even have the damned letter. Excuse me, Madam Speaker, 1 withdraw that word. I did not have the letter. I could accuse the hon. member for St. John's West and like him, do nothing but talk, talk, talk, and I could do it but it is really not worth it. I did not have the letter.
Furthermore, the hon. member accused me of having refused to see Mr. Ottenheimer, which is totally ridiculous, since Mr. Ottenheimer himself cancelled the meeting. I did not have to see him, but I felt that although it was a difficult situation, it was my duty, on arriving in St. John's, to try to meet my colleague Mr. Ottenheimer in order to explain to him personally why we were proceeding in this way and during our meeting perhaps try to find a way to settle the problem. We have heard any number of speeches on certain issues, as the House will recall. I would rather not look back, but hon. members are aware that we have had incredible arguments about the Constitution in the House and with the Newfoundland government. And we managed to settle our differences. Perhaps this is going to help speed up the process of finding a solution. I hope so, but it does not mean that I wanted to lie to the House and break the rules of Parliament. It does not make sense. This is ridiculous. It is really childish. Today we have not heard a single question on the substance of what we have done.
Privilege-Mr. Crosbie
A member of the opposition wanted to know why we had done it, if there was any reason to do that.


Charles Joseph Clark: We cannot believe what you say.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Joe, come on!


An hon. Member:: Come on again.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Joe, I said there was no final decision. The hon. member-


Charles Joseph Clark: You did not say that. You did not say that. That is a lie.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Joe, I just say-Madam Speaker, it is quite clear that I have been very candid this afternoon with the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I have been candid. I said exactly what happened. They can laugh if they want to; I am not impressed at all. I just say that yesterday-on Tuesday-I did not mislead the House. I had no intention of doing that. I said what was in my mind and is still in my mind, just the plain truth.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I have some obligations to my colleagues. When they authorize you to do something and they say, "You do that when you meet certain conditions", in my mind, until the conditions are met, it is not authorized.


An hon. Member:: Right on!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: It is the basic principle of cabinet solidarity-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: -that you respect the decision of the cabinet.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: That is exactly what 1 have done. Madam Speaker, if I look at the question of legality, there are a lot of people on the other side who have been members of the Privy Council. You yourself, Madam Speaker, have been a member. Of course, at times, before the moment that there is a conditional decision made by the cabinet and an order in council, there is some change. The legal decision is made when the order in council is passed.


Charles Joseph Clark: You did not say the "legal".


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I could have just sat back on that today. The facts are there. Nobody can say that the order in council was not delivered, and signed too, signed by the Deputy Governor

May 20, 1982
Privilege-Mr. Crosbie
General of Canada before ten o'clock on Wednesday. So there was no decision until that time.


Charles Joseph Clark: When was it signed by cabinet?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: There are some decisions of the cabinet that come back, that do not turn into orders in council.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: When was it signed by cabinet?


Yvon Pinard: Conditional decisions.


Charles Joseph Clark: When did the minister sign it?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Since when does cabinet sign decisions? It is recorded but not signed.


Charles Joseph Clark: Orders in council are signed.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: What is very disappointing is that after two days there is no question on the substance. They just want to make a big fuss about procedure.


Erik Nielsen: About lying.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: We have lost an hour and a half, an hour and fifteen minutes of the House's time again today on a question like that. I do not want to accuse the member for St. John's West of misleading the House. I could, but I understand that he made two mistakes within one day. It should be a lesson to him not to speak that much. I stated the truth, Madam Speaker, and I said that 1 had no intention of misleading the House. The decision was not final. The final decision was made on Tuesday night and the order in council was passed on Wednesday morning. I went to Newfoundland. I wanted to meet with Mr. Ottenheimer, but he decided to cancel the meeting. I was very disappointed. I hope that the decision is made, as that is important in substance, and that his decision will lead to an agreement. There was a lot of discussion on the Constitution and we got an agreement. So I hope this will help us to make a decision. As far as I am concerned, Madam Speaker, I say all this is a tempest in a teapot.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mark Willson Rose: Madam Speaker, I want to be very careful about the words I use today, and contrary to some other times I am probably going to be much more dependent upon a text than 1 usually am.
As you know, Madam Speaker, yesterday I and my party supported the member for St. John's West. We regret that yesterday we could not support the Speaker on a vote, but because we disagree with the Speaker on one instance-on one ruling-it does not follow automatically that we have no respect for the Speaker or that the Speaker has not done an excellent job over the past two very, very trying years.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mark Willson Rose: We do believe, Madam Speaker, that the House was misled Tuesday afternoon when the Minister of Justice
(Mr. Chretien) stood in his place and first tried to evade the question posed to him by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark). I will not go through the quotes on that, but it had to do with a unilateral Supreme Court reference regarding the Newfoundland offshore jurisdiction. Later in the same question period the Minister of Justice stated, as reported at page 17534 of Hansard-and this is not the entire quote but 1 think is the significant part:
There has been no decision made by the government at this time on that question.
The timing of the justice minister's statement immediately followed a cabinet meeting in the morning. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), on the other hand, yesterday, not on Tuesday but on Wednesday-and I think he said this to protect his minister-after first attempting to fudge the question again, had the following to say, and 1 quote Hansard at page 17592:
-the decision became effective when the order in council was signed some time this morning-
Meaning Wednesday morning.
I am not going to go through the elaborate sequence of what went on here, as expressed by the hon. member for St John's West in the Privy Council office, or in the minister's office in Newfoundland regarding the Supreme Court reference. It has been adequately covered and I have no need to repeat that again. But later in the same question period, again in an answer to the Leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister said this, and I quote from Hansard at page 17592:
-the cabinet met yesterday, yesterday morning. It took what in effect was a conditional decision, and that decision became effective this morning.
The decision was taken; therefore there was no question about whether there was a decision there, but it was a decision that was conditional. Note the adjective. But it became effective only "this morning". Here I think we have the crux of the question whether or not we have a case of privilege. The Minister of Justice is on record as saying that there was no decision whatsoever, and I supported that with a quote; no decision had been arrived at. He did not use any qualifying word with "decision". We have a contradictory one by the Prime Minister the next day, saying that a conditional decision was taken.
Surely, Madam Speaker, the essential question here is not whether a decision is conditional or not. If it is a decision, it is a decision. A decision is a decision regardless of what modifiers you put in front of the word, and what other legalistic manoeuvring you might use to explain what happened.
All the Minister of Justice needed to do on Tuesday to avoid the charge that has been levelled at him, the charge that is under dispute at the moment, was to state on Tuesday what the Prime Minister said on Wednesday, that a conditional decision was reached-he did not have to say what the decision was-instead of saying there had been no decision.
May 20, 1982

Thus, I feel that the members of this House and the people of Canada were misled, and I do not put an adverb in front of "misled" because I follow Your Honour's ruling on that matter earlier.
There is no doubt that the Hibernia question is important and vital to our economy and to our energy self-sufficiency, especially since the tar sands megaprojects have collapsed around the head of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The jurisdiction questions need to be settled quickly; there is no question about that, and that may have caused a frantic deathbed reference to the Supreme Court of Canada by the government, I do not know. The government does not confide in me very often, in spite of what my hon. friends to my right might think. However, that is not the question either. That is not the question we are dealing with here. The point is that in this place we can only operate on trust and openness. Members of Parliament must never doubt and must never be given cause to doubt the veracity of a minister of the Crown. We voted to support the member for St. John's West, and we contintue to do so because I and my party are sick of contempt for this Parliament by the government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mark Willson Rose: Day after day in this House we are treated to evasive answers or non-answers to legitimate questions put to ministers.


Mr. Cullen:: You should hear the questions.


Mark Willson Rose: Legitimate questions are put to ministers of the Crown by the opposition.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Pointless.


Mark Willson Rose: We have an inability to cross-examine important ministers of the Crown because they are not in this House. They are spirited away to the Senate, and that also frustrates us. Ministers talk out the clock in committees. That is another of their practices which we find extremely irritating. Their answers are designed to confuse, obfuscate or generally twist or reshape questions, and that is unacceptable. That is what I think has led to the most hostile, rancorous and inefficient Parliament we have had certainly in my memory, which goes back to 1968.
I am almost ready to conclude, Madam Speaker. We sympathize with your position and understand that unless the Minister of Justice admits that his reply was designed intentionally or deliberately to mislead, Your Honour will have some difficulty proving it. Nevertheless, I request that the Speaker's office review the facts as I have presented them, and once that is done, I am convinced a ruling fair to all parties will result.
We agree with the intent of the motion put forward by the hon. member for St. John's West and, if it is found that there is a prima facie case with respect to this issue, we will support a reference to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
Privilege-Mr. Crosbie


Hon. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Madam Speaker, I will be brief. Every Member of Parliament who wishes to rise in this House on issues such as this must proceed carefully because this issue is important and critical. That being the case, a Member of Parliament has to search his mind carefully in preparing his intervention for a debate such as this.
As 1 understand it, the matter before the House is not the conduct of the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie). The matter before the House is the answers of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien), nothing less and nothing more, and whether those answers conformed with the truth.
The Minister of Justice made a number of arguments designed to obfuscate. He raised questions about the presentation of the hon. member for St. John's West. That is not the issue. The issue is whether the answers the minister gave in the House on Tuesday of this week were the truth. In his answer recorded at page 17533 of Hansard, at no time did the minister put any conditions before the word "decision". He did not use the words "a final decision". That did not enter Hansard. He did not use the words "a legal decision." That did not enter Hansard. He did not use the words "a conditional decision". Yesterday the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) tried to put that image on the decision referred to last Tuesday, but last Tuesday the minister was quite clear. He said "no decision", and that is the issue. Was there a decision or was there not a decision?
I appreciate the remarks of the hon. member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. Rose). He said that in order to protect the privileges of members of this House the truth must prevail in this place. That matter goes beyond whether the hon. member for St. John's West or, for that matter, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) receive truthful answers to whether, by extension through this House, the people of Canada receive truthful answers as well. That is extremely important for our country at this time.
I am not talking about political or regional differences. When members of this House and ministers of the Crown rise and speak in this place, they must be believed and what they say must be the truth. That is a very serious matter as we look at our country at this moment. It is too easy to say that the answer given was in tune with the political times or that the end justifies the means-


Yvon Pinard: Be serious.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: -or that situational ethics are the order of the day. The issue is whether the words of the minister were the truth.
The situation the Chair now faces is the question of a decision. If it was not a decision, as the minister likes to put forward-it was not a decision until the order in council was signed. By extension, do we then use the same argument in the legislative process that the cabinet has made no decision until a bill has been proclaimed?

May 20, 1982
Privilege-Mr. Crosbie


Yvon Pinard: Ridiculous.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: If that is so, what are we debating when the government brings forward a bill which, as I understand it, is a motion based on a cabinet decision? At what stage does it become a decision? Up to that time what is it, only an opinion?
The minister had a choice other than the one suggested by the hon. member for Mission-Port Moody. The hon. member for Mission-Port Moody correctly stated that the minister could have said it was a conditional decision, that it was not finalized or whatever, but no conditions were placed before the word "decision". The minister could have chosen another action; he could simply have said he would not answer the question or that he had no answer.


Erik Nielsen: Or he could have apologized.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: That is right. He has the right in this House simply to give no answer, but he did not choose to take that route. The route he chose was to say there had been no decision. Now he lives with it and this House has to live with it.
I do not want to burden you any further by getting into what I feel is another natural point in this argument, Madam Speaker, and that is the federal-provincial argument and what it means in terms of the extension of truth from this place to the partners of the federation. That is another issue and I know you have narrowed this to the issue that I believe I defined; it is not a matter of the conduct of the hon. member for St. John's West but the word of the Minister of Justice. I believe the chronology has been put forward very well by the hon. member for St. John's West and it has been confirmed by the hon. member for Mission-Port Moody.
As an individual member, as I see it the question is on the word "decision" without qualifiers, without conditions, and what members of the House would naturally draw from the use of that word by a minister. When the minister used the words "no decision" and later found out that a decision had been made, I can come to no other conclusion but that, in the chronology of the use of the minister's words, a decision had been made and that it had been made prior to his rising in the House to deny it.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, 1 should like to submit to you very strongly that we do not have before us what amounts to a prima facie case for a question of privilege. What has been suggested to you yesterday and today is that the words used by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) amounted to deliberately misleading the House. I think the key word is the word "deliberately".
What we have to do is look at how the phrase "deliberately misleading the House" entered parliamentary precedents. It will be found at page 142 of Erskine May in reference to the well known Profumo case in England in 1963 in the following statement:
The House may treat the making of a deliberately misleading statement as a contempt.
In 1963 the House resolved that in making a personal statement which contained words which he later admitted not to be true, a former member had been guilty of a grave contempt.
In order to come to the conclusion that the House has been deliberately misled, that has to be established as a fact. In the Profumo case it was quite clearly established as a fact when the former minister stood up in the House-and it was almost unprecedented in parliamentary history-and said that he had lied to the House. Is that the case we have today? No, we have the exact opposite. We have the Minister of Justice standing up in the House just a few minutes ago and saying that he did not intend to mislead the House; he did not mean to mislead the House. He said it exhaustively, he said it repeatedly, he said it clearly, and he could not have been more specific about it.
Let us see what Bourinot has to say about the matter. Bourinot is not often referred to these days but at page 351 of the fourth edition there appears the following statement:
A member's words, in explanation or relating to the meaning of his speech or in a statement of fact as to his own position or intention, are to be taken as true and not afterwards in debate to be called in question. The words which he states himself to have used, are to be considered as the words actually spoken; and the sense in which he says they were uttered, as the sense in which they are to be taken in debate. If a member disavows the use of words attributed to him, and objected to, the matter must end.
It has frequently been formally ruled by speakers in the Canadian Commons that a statement by an honourable member respecting himself and peculiarly within his own knowledge must be accepted but it is not unparliamentary to temperately criticise statements made by a member as being contrary to the facts; but no imputation of intentional falsehood is permissible.
What are we dealing with here? Are we dealing with someone who was elected to this House last week in a byelection? No. We are dealing with a man who has given 19 years of his life to this House. We all know this man. Hon. members opposite should be fair; they know this man and what the House of Commons means to him, what Canada means to him. No one fought more valiantly for Canada in the referendum in Quebec than the minister. He stood in this House today and said that he did not mean to mislead the House, but hon. members opposite doubt him. I accept his word and anybody in this House with guts and integrity will accept his word.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David P. Smith: Once he has clarified the situation, that is the end of it. We have a tradition in this House that we accept the word of an hon. member, and if there is anyone in this House whose word I am glad to accept, it is that of the Minister of Justice. He has proven himself as a man of integrity in over 20 years in this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David P. Smith: Today we have a dispute about the facts. I suppose you might say that. We all know the reference on page
May 20, 1982

12 of Beauchesne that says that that certainly is not a question of privilege. There may be some confusion about when a decision is made. Is a decision made when a consensus is reached in cabinet? Is it when four ministers, or whatever number, sign it? Is it made when the Deputy Governor General signs the order in council?
Quite frankly, Madam Speaker, I do not think it is particularly pertinent when the decision was made. That is not the issue; the issue is whether the minister intentionally and deliberately misled the House. He has given us his word that he did not.


John Carnell Crosbie: Yes, he did.


David P. Smith: That is the end of it. Quite frankly, Madam Speaker, I am disappointed, when this man of integrity has given his word that he did not mislead the House, that we even have any continuation of this debate.
There certainly is not a prima facie case of privilege here and the sooner this question is disposed of the better. Then we can start treating our colleague with the honour and dignity that he deserves.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Smith), who just took his seat, put his finger right on the problem: We have to be able to rely on ministers giving truthful and factual answers in this House. That is what we are talking about.
It is interesting that the hon. parliamentary secretary cited the Profumo case. It might be well for us to remember that Mr. Profumo, who was minister of war in the British government, resigned from the House not because his actions were a threat to national security, not because he was found to be consorting with a prostitute, but because he was found to be lying to the House.


Yvon Pinard: And he admitted it.


James Aloysius McGrath: That is a very serious matter.


Charles Joseph Clark: He was honest.


James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, my privileges are affected by the question put before the House by the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie). If I cannot be satisfied that I can rely on receiving honest and factual answers to the questions that I raise in this House, then I cannot function as a member of this House, and I cannot effectively serve my country, my province or my constituency. It is as simple as that.
1 listened to the Minister of Justice, for whom I have great respect. From his seat he says "Come on!" and tends to cast some doubt upon that. The fact of the matter is, however, that the record shows, in my view, that there is a prima facie case to be made that the minister deliberately misled the House.
That is all you have to decide, Madam Speaker. You do not have to decide if the minister deliberately misled the House;
Privilege-Mr. Crosbie
that is for the House to decide. You merely have to decide that there is a prima facie case that the minister deliberately misled the House.
When is a decision not a decision? On May 18, the Minister of Justice stood in the House and said:
Madam Speaker, I said that there has been no decision made by the government at this time on that question.
It was not "no conditional decision"; it was "no decision". That was in reply to a very simple and straightforward question put to him by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark).
The following day in the House the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said, and I quote from page 17592 of Hansard:
Madam Speaker, the cabinet met yesterday, yesterday morning. It took what in effect was a conditional decision, and that decision became effective this morning.
We are not concerned about when the decision became effective; what is at issue here is when the decision was made. And we have it on the authority of the Prime Minister that the decision was made on the morning of the day that the Minister of Justice stood in his place in the House and told the House that no decision had been made. That is the whole question we have before us here today.
The question of the implementation of the decision is irrelevant. The question of the decision being conditional is irrelevant. Conditional on what? Madam Speaker, it is obvious that the decision had been made. The implementation was conditional on the Minister of Justice getting on an airplane and going to St. John's and announcing it at a press conference. That was the process of implementation, but that is not our concern. Our concern here is that the decision had been made on the day the Minister of Justice stood in his place in this House and said that no decision had been made.
I believe, Madam Speaker, and I submit to you with great respect, that this is a very important question. I do not want to talk about the substance of the question in terms of the impact it will have on federal-provincial relations, on the future of my province or the future of the development of the important Hibernia field, important though that may be. I am concerned with the effect it is going to have on how I can continue to function as a member of this House if I cannot rely on ministers to give honest, factual answers to the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, that is what is at issue here. The record shows the minister's answer in this House to the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition at page 17534 of Hansard on May 18. There is the subsequent action of the Minister of Justice in preparing the documents, ordering an aircraft, going to St. John's, Newfoundland, and then arranging a press conference and announcing the decision.

May 20, 1982
Privilege-Mr. Crosbie
Then, Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister himself, at page 17592 of Hansard on May 19, talks about a decision having been made the previous morning. Ele calls it "a conditional decision", but the fact is that the decision had been made by cabinet. Whether or not it had been signed as an order in council by the Governor General in Council, whether or not other conditions had been met such as placing certain documents before the Supreme Court of Canada, whether or not there was a meeting with the defeated leader of the Liberal Party in Newfoundland, whether or not the press conference in Newfoundland had taken place, all that is irrelevant because that is the process of implementation. What is relevant is the fact that the decision was made on the morning of the day that the Minister of Justice stood in his place in this Elouse and staked his reputation on saying to this House that in fact no decision had been made.
Therefore, Madam Speaker, I submit to you that there is a prima facie case that the minister has deliberately misled the House.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I shall try to be very brief. It would be difficult to add much to what has already been said by my parliamentary secretary, and I shall try not to waste the time of the House by repeating what he has said so well. I must point out that the references he indicated are very apt, and that it is a long-established practice in this House that when an hon. member, who is also a minister of the Crown, gives explanations and above all gives his word that he did not intend to deliberately mislead the House, that hon. members should take him at his word and that should be the end of it. I submit that the insistence of the members opposite on trying to continue the debate is offensive and insulting, when the Minister of Justice of Canada (Mr. Chretien) has given his word that he did not wish to deliberately mislead the House in answering a question. Therefore, the references brought to your attention by my parliamentary secretary should be sufficient to settle the issue once and for all.
I shall, if I may, add the following. The minister's reply, which is being used to accuse the Minister of Justice, should be taken in context. In the light of the explanations given by the minister today, this should be sufficient to settle the issue, because he said that what was in his mind when he said that no decision had been made at that time, was that no final decision had been made. He did not use the word "final" but that is what he intended to say and what he meant, in view of the fact of parliamentary procedure and law that a cabinet decision which requires an order in council is not final until the order in council is signed by the Governor General or his deputy.
And in what context did he give his answer, since the members opposite are putting so fine a point on the words used by the Minister of Justice? Anyone who reads the question put by the Leader of the Official Opposition and what follows will
realize that, in fact, there was nothing, considering both the question and the answer, there was nothing false in what was indicated by the Minister of Justice. The question was, and I quote from page 17534 of Hansard, May 18, 1982:
Madam Speaker, is the Minister of Justice and the Government of Canada considering a direct unilateral reference of the offshore question to the Supreme Court of Canada? It is a simple question. Yes or no?
The Leader of the Opposition asked whether we wanted to go before the Supreme Court of Canada. The Minister of Justice said, and I quote:
Madam Speaker, I said that there has been no decision made by the government at this time on that question.
"No decision made ... at this time on that question" means that in fact, nothing has been decided as yet, and any decision, if there is one, has to be conditional, as explained the next day by the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). However, the words of the Minister of Justice should be sufficient to settle the issue, since he himself said:
There has been no decision made by the government at this time on that question.
This means that there was nothing final. That is clear. To go on with the quote:
The question that the right hon. member is asking me today is a very surprising one. He used to tell us that the best thing to do in difficult circumstances was go to the Supreme Court.
And Madam Speaker, what really spoiled the opposition's so-called case-the icing on the cake, as it were-is that the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) said just two words too many after the reply given by the Minister of Justice. He said, and I quote:
Are you?
In French this reads, and I quote:
Allez-vous le faire?
Does this indicate some concern on the part of the Progressive Conservative House Leader? It means that he believed the Minister of Justice when the latter said nothing final had been decided as yet, since the hon. member for Yukon felt the need to come back and ask the Minister of Justice: But are you going to do it? And he did so, because he understood that no final decision had been made. Madam Speaker, if we look at the English text and read the comment reported in Hansard on page 17534, the Minister of Justice said at the end of his reply, and 1 quote:

He used to tell us that the best thing to do in difficult circumstances was to go to the Supreme Court.


Erik Nielsen: Are you?


Yvon Pinard: In the circumstances, it seems obvious that the hon. member for Yukon, in the light of the answer given by the Minister of Justice, did, in fact, understand that the Minister
May 20, 1982

of Justice had just said nothing final had been decided as yet, and that should be sufficient to set aside all their complaints and grievances concerning the intentions of the Minister of Justice or the meaning of the words he spoke in answer to the question put to him in this particular context.
Therefore, Madam Speaker, considering the facts and on the face of the answer provided by the Minister of Justice, it would seem that the minister has not said anything that conflicts with reality. And if his words were ambiguous or incomplete or confusing, if there was any lack of precision, he has today, as a minister and a member of this House, given his word that he did not intend to mislead the House, and he has given explanations for his answer. It seems to me that on the basis of parliamentary practice, this is sufficient to settle the matter once and for all. His words must be accepted, and his answer interpreted in the light of the additional explanations given today, which I feel were not even necessary, but which he thought it was his duty to give. In the circumstances, I must say once more that I find it unconscionable and offensive that opposition members with the status of those who have risen in the House up to now, should wish to continue to doubt the word and undermine the credibility of the Minister of Justice of Canada and to misuse our parliamentary institutions, in that they refuse to take into account a simple aspect of parliamentary practice according to which, when a member gives his word in the House, it is to be accepted as such and casting doubts as to the reputation and the intentions of the hon. member in question must cease.
Therefore, for all these reasons, Madam Speaker, including the references produced so eloquently by my parliamentary secretary and which are extremely apt and deal with the matter, and also the facts themselves and the explanations provided by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) with respect to his reply, and considering the redundant comments of the member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) following the reply given by the Minister of Justice, and finally, considering the Minister of Justice for Canada gave his word, I suggest, with due respect, that the matter should be settled immediately, and that there is absolutely no prima facie case for a question of privilege and that we should proceed with consideration of the motion proposed by the New Democratic Party.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, 1 want to be brief and deal precisely with the issue before us. What I think both the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) and his parliamentary secretary have asked you to do is unacceptable in this House. They have asked you to make a ruling as to whether or not you believe the minister has been telling the truth. I do not think that is your role and function, Madam Speaker. I do not think the minister can stand up now in answer to a question of privilege raised by my colleague, the hon. member for St.
Privilege-Mr. Crosbie
John's West, and give reasons and excuses why he said what he said.
If he really intended to persuade us in this House that the statement was actual fact, he would have taken the first opportunity and instructed the House at three o'clock today that he would be making a statement of clarification. He chose not to do that. He chose not to take the initiative in this matter, and only in response to the case put forward by my colleague from St. John's West did he then try to explain exactly what he did mean by his answer.


Yvon Pinard: He had no choice.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The question here is not whether you or 1 or the member for St. John's West was questioning the word and the truth of what the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) said. It is not any of us who do that. Rather it is the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) who has put into question the veracity of what the Minister of Justice said on Tuesday last. It is nothing that the member for St. John's West has said. The Prime Minister said that a decision was taken with respect to the whole issue in cabinet prior to the minister coming into the House. For a minister now to stand up and insert a word such as "final", or for the Prime Minister to try to explain it by using a word such as "conditional", has absolutely no relevance to the question here at all.
The Prime Minister by his words has indicated that what the Minister of Justice said was untrue. That is basically what you have to consider, Madam Speaker, in determining whether or not there is a prima facie case. It is not for you to consider whether or not the Minister of Justice said that he did not mean that or that he did not mean to deliberately mislead the House.
You have to determine in your responsibility whether or not the statement made by the Minister of Justice on a very important issue, a very complex issue, the matter of the control of the offshore resources, of which you can take judicial notice, was in fact a correct statement made by the Minister of Justice, of whether there is a reasonable basis to conclude that was a false answer, that there was knowledge on the part of the minister that a decision had been made by cabinet.
I ask you, Madam Speaker, to consider the length of the reference to the Supreme Court of Canada. The reference contains three pages and a map of the Hibernia area. This is a complicated and detailed reference to the Supreme Court of Canada with supporting documentation, which is not a matter on which a decision is made overnight or conditionally.
The minister will have the opportunity, if we have the matter referred to the committee, to explain precisely what did transpire, what actions took place and at what time meetings took place. He will have the opportunity to explain himself. But that is not our role in the House today. Our role is purely and simply to determine whether or not the Prime Minister was right in saying that the Minister of Justice was not telling the truth when he said in answering a question in the House that no decision had been made.

May 20, 1982
Privilege-Mr. Crosbie
The Minister of Justice says that this is all a procedural matter. I, for one, do not accept the fact that whether a statement made in this Elouse is true or not is exclusively a procedural matter. Quite the contrary. I think it is fundamental that we in this Elouse can believe statements by members on all sides of the House. Certainly the Minister of Justice has a greater and an exceptional responsibility in this House with respect to the matter of truth, whether it is a question of misleading us and whether the misleading information is deliberate or not.
I ask you to look at this question as a fair and reasonable person on the basis of the record alone, quite apart from any explanations about aircraft, times of consultation and conditions that were to be discussed, conditions which the Minister of Justice did not specify, although he had an opportunity to do so. We gave him a wide range. All of those things can come out in committee. If you look at the record, Madam Speaker, the minister has ex post facto said to us in this House that he did not intend to mislead us. But that is the decision for another forum, another committee.
For the minister to say in his statement that no decision had been made is tantamount to us in the House of Commons saying that if we pass a particular bill which is then passed by the Senate, somehow we have not made a decision in this House until Royal Assent takes place. That is what the Minister of Justice is asking us to believe. That should not be believed by any reasonable person.
I simply say in my humble submission to you, Madam Speaker, that a reasonable prima facie case has been established to have the committee consider exactly what has transpired and, to return with a recommendation to this House as to whether the statement was true or not. The only thing you have before you on which to make that determination is the statement made by the Minister of Justice on Tuesday last and the statement made by the Prime Minister yesterday. 1 submit there is a prima facie case here in which a wrong and untruthful answer was given to the House of Commons, and it is for the committee to determine what the circumstances were.


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Lincoln):: Madam Speaker, my contribution will be brief and I hope it will be important. It may surprise even my Liberal friends when I say that I share the same sentiments in what has been said by virtually everyone who has spoken.
Per1' ^ps what impressed me the most was the contribution made by the hon. member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. Rose) who, I think, reminded us that there are really two sets of rules which govern the effectiveness and reflect on the integrity of the House of Commons. First are the written rules. We have many experts, whether advocates of Erskine May, Beauchesne or whatever. As one who has been in this House a long time, what are equally important to the written rules are the unwritten rules of tradition and procedure. They are the rather mysterious chemicals that make this place operate. I suppose those of us who have been in the House for many years appreciate that tradition and procedure are even more important than the written rules. I often listen to members in this
House who are lawyers by profession who interpret rules, who define words and who quote one expert, only to have everything they say contradicted. The rules are there and it is up to members of the House to interpret them. 1 am speaking now about written rules.
Like many members here, 1 have sat in the opposition, I have sat in the House as a government member and as a member of cabinet. 1 have the dubious distinction of sitting here for two years listening to the question period and noting its evolution. I come to the acrimony which the hon. member for Mission-Port Moody thinks is creeping into the question period. I worry about that. In recent years questions in the question period seem to be preceded by rather long preambles, semi-speeches, if you want, perhaps because of television. Also answers tend at times to be a little vague, a little less forthcoming and a little less explanatory than we would perhaps like them to be. That is not really new, but the unwritten rule which keeps this place going is important to me-the right of an hon. member to stand in his place and say: "What I am telling you is the truth". I am surprised that that prerogative is even questioned.
I can remember many years ago when I was a minister that one of my favourite members, Mr. Stanfield, was sitting opposite and I was in the embarrassing situation of a document having been leaked to the Toronto Star. Mr. Stanfield, as House leader of the day, and Mr. Baldwin immediately jumped up to criticize and complain that the document had been leaked before it had been released in the House-the usual thing. I simply rose and said to Mr. Stanfield, "You will have to accept the tradition and the custom that I, as an honourable gentleman, am telling you that I did not leak the document; I had no knowledge of the document being leaked". It was significant that tradition in those days was so strong that it put an end to the very debate and an end to the whole question. If I recall, Mr. Stanfield withdrew the motion to send the whole issue to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
I, too, was conscious of my responsibilities as a minister not to hide specifically behind the tradition, but to be as forthright, open and expansive as possible in my answer; otherwise tradition would be abused and disappear. This is one of the privileges of hon. members. We are talking about privileges which have accumulated over hundreds of years of parliamentary practice, privileges which we want to see retained. One privilege we have as members is that when we rise in our places to make statements, the statements are accepted as the truth if we insist that they are.
The significant thing which brought me to my feet was that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien), who in my mind is one of the most professional, honest and forthright members of the House, rose to his feet, understanding the full implications of his words, and categorically said: "I did not intend to mislead the House". To question that bothers me as an individual
May 20, 1982

member worried about my privileges. We should think about it for a moment, particularly the hon. member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn) who has just left the chamber. The hon. member quoted Shakespeare, that Brutus was an honourable man. Either he believes that the minister's word is not to be challenged or he challenges it.
Personally, I could see the House disintegrate if some of these unwritten rules are flaunted, taken advantage of by the minister, ignored by the member, by innuendo or what have you. 1 do not think the record of the Minister of Justice warrants the type of doubt which has been expressed. It seems to me that the moment the minister said: "My word as an honourable gentleman is that I did not deliberately mislead the House", that should have ended the matter. The key word is ''deliberate". It is not whether a conclusion or a decision is final or qualified or whether a cabinet decision is a cabinet decision.
I can remember as a new member of cabinet being very pleased because a decision of cabinet-or at least I thought it was a cabinet decision-gave me certain latitude in a collective agreement to give a particular group a COLA clause. I spent my day quite excitedly, preparing my negotiations based on that, only to find when 1 read the fine print that there were important qualifications to the decision.
Perhaps Parliament wants to address itself-and perhaps it should-as to when a decision is not a decision. Is a decision a decision when it is qualified? Is a decision not a decision until it is described by the minister as the final decision? It seems to me that all of these matters are important, but not nearly as important as the parliamentary tradition that when a member rises in the House of Commons and says "I am telling the truth", it is the word of an honourable gentleman and it should not be questioned in the House. The moment a member or a minister rises in his place and says that, the inference is clear that he will pay the price when and if it is ever determined that he has lied. There are historical precedents in other Houses for that. If hon. members opposite are willing to rise in their places to say that he lied, not just deliberately misled the House, when the minister stood in the House today and said that he had no intention of misleading the House, then they are entering into a very dangerous area.
Perhaps Madam Speaker will want to take into consideration when a decision is not a decision, but that is not the issue. The issue is whether the Minister of Justice in his answer yesterday deliberately misled the House. In his defence he said that he did not, and based upon precedent, that is the word of an hon. member of the House. No one in the House can tell me that the Minister of Justice is not an honourable gentleman, that his 20 years in the House do not comprise a mignificent record. It grieves me that anyone in the House would want to leave the impression, by inference, that the hon. minister is not so honourable and is prepared to lie. I cannot bring myself to believe that, but it is really what Madam Speaker must decide over the course of events-whether the minister deliberately lied when he said that he had no intention of misleading the House, either deliberately or unintentionally.
Privilege-Mr. Crosbie


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Madam Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. Since you have been in the chair since two o'clock and you have to occupy it on a permanent basis, perhaps there would be all-party consent to have a ten minute break.


Madam Speaker:: I thank the hon. member very much, but I think I can continue.


Mr. John Gamble (York North):: Madam Speaker, my remarks will be brief. I listened with some considerable interest to the comments of the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Mackasey), falling as they did upon the general line of argument established by the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader and the government House leader himself. In terms of their submission, it really amounts to this; Once a minister of the Crown has risen in his place and said, "I did not intentionally mislead the House", that is the end of the issue and Madam Speaker's function has ended. I hardly think that that is the approach which should be taken, having regard to some inconsistencies to which I will draw Your Honour's attention. However, let me just deal with some of the remarks which have been made in terms of long service.
We are dealing not only with a member of government and a minister of the Crown, but with the Attorney General of Canada, the chief legal officer of the country. The hon. member for Lincoln said that in the event the House cannot rely upon some of the unwritten rules, it will disintegrate. I submit that it will disintegrate if we cannot, as members of the House, come to rely upon the truth of statements made here. If we as members are persistent in this issue, it is because the arguments presented and the evidence given heretofore at least arouse a suspicion in our minds. The timing is extremely close, but if it were timing alone, I am sure Your Honour's decision as to whether there is a prima facie case of the minister intentionally misleading the House and accordingly depriving all hon. members of their rights and privileges would be easily reached. However, I direct your attention to a quotation which has already been made, a quotation from Hansard of yesterday, as reported at page 17592, in the answer of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), wherein he said:
Madam Speaker, the cabinet met yesterday, yesterday morning.
I am sure Madam Speaker will recall the statement made by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) today. In response to questions of members on this side of the House concerning when the cabinet met, the Minister of Justice said: "The cabinet was meeting when I left the room on Tuesday and it met until seven o'clock in the evening". There is a clear contradiction in the two statements. Is the Prime Minister telling us the truth and, in fact, did the cabinet meet on Tuesday morning as it normally does; or are we to believe the Attorney General when he tell us that the cabinet was meeting when he left the House after question period on Tuesday and continued to sit until seven o'clock? There alone, without any explanation, are sufficient grounds, in my submission, for finding that there is a prima facie case that you might then conclude represented an intentional misleading of the House by the Minister of Justice and Attorney General which should

May 20, 1982
Privilege-Mr. Crosbie
result in the reference of the entire question for debate and the gathering of sufficient evidence to substantiate the claim made by the Attorney General when he stands in his place and says on his own: "Believe me when I tell you that I did not intentionally mislead the House". If that is all that is required, we should not have wasted this time. This entire matter should have been concluded with that statement.
I submit that that kind of proposition is ludicrous and makes light of the entire process. There is sufficient evidence before you now which should lead you to the conclusion that there is at least a prima facie case to be referred for further evidence. That other evidence might include such issues as what were the alleged conditions attached to the decision that had already been made but was not final to which the Attorney General referred on three occasions when he spoke this afternoon. He gave us no indication what they were. I submit that that issue would not have been pertinent had it not been for the clear contradiction in evidence which is gained from an examination of the Prime Minister's response to this issue yesterday and the contradictory statements, which have been made by the Attorney General today.


Mr. Jim Peterson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development):: Madam Speaker, as I understand it, the charge which has been levelled by the member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) is one of the most serious charges which can be laid against a member of the House, that of deliberately misleading the House. Many members, including the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Smith) and the government House leader, have gone through the legal precedents which prevail and have been honoured for many years.
I would merely like to restrict my comments to the facts as they exist. The precise question asked of the minister in the House on Tuesday afternoon was; "Is the federal government considering unilateral action?" The Minister's response was that if the government does make a decision to that effect, it will be announced when it is made. "No decision has been made at this time."
In his role as the Attorney General of Canada, it would naturally be his obligation and responsibility to pursue before our courts the interests of the Government of Canada on behalf of all Canadians.
Neither I, nor any member of the House, to my understanding, is privy to what goes on in cabinet because that is not how our system operates. Decisions could not be made under the confusion which would exist if we had to release verbatim transcripts of every cabinet meeting. Therefore, let us hypothesize that for many months the issue of offshore ownership has been a very important part of our National Energy Program and that it has been before cabinet and discussed there. Let us
assume that many options have been canvassed and that one of those options, as I am sure all intelligent people will realize, has been the question of having the Supreme Court of Canada determine once and for all who owns those offshore resources. Let us hypothesize that cabinet at one point would have said to the minister responsible that it is his responsibility should he make the decision to pursue that action; it would lie in his hands and within his capability. Therefore, the answer to the question when the decision was made to take that course of action is that it would have been made at the precise time that the Attorney General of Canada, acting on behalf of Canadians, decided that he was prepared to act on that particular matter.
He has told us in the House today that he did not make up his mind on that precise matter until about 7 p.m. on Tuesday evening, I think the objective facts will probably support that statement. Had he made up his mind at an earlier time it probably would have been prudent for him to organize his transportation to Newfoundland prior to having made that decision.
No, the facts as brought out indicate that the decision to which we are referring-the decision regarding which the question was asked-was made on the evening of Tuesday, May 18, after question period. Therefore, I fail to see how on the narrow question before the House, that of the minister having misled the House, we can have any doubt.
As to the question of deliberately misleading the House, the minister indicated that he has not ever intended to mislead the House. Therefore, I submit two points: first, on the facts there is not even a prima facie case that he misled the House; second, there can be no doubt that he could not have done that deliberately.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Madam Speaker:: Order. In accordance with Standing Order 40, it is my duty to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser)-Search and Rescue-(a) Tax exemption sought for West Coast helicopter (b) Position of minister; the hon. member for Argenteuil-Papineau (Mr. Gourd)-Airports-Transportation between Dorval and Mirabel-Inquiry respecting date of minister's announcement; the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow)-Canadian Pacific Railway-(a) Announcement of lay-offs (b) Request that employees be retained in employment.
May 20, 1982


PRIVILEGE
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed the question of privilege of Mr. Crosbie.
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I will try to be brief in my intervention. I hope that 1 can assure the Chair and other hon. members that my intervention will be the last one from the members of my party in this discussion in the hope that we might be able to proceed with the allotted day by 5.30 p.m.
I might say at the outset that because of the serious nature of the question which the Chair has to decide, I submit most strenuously that when you have heard all the representations that you intend to hear in your discretion, you take the matter under serious and careful advisement.
I would like to lay the groundwork for what I have to say by once again emphasizing the statements that were made last May 18, by the Minister of Justice. I read from page 17533 of Hansard. While great emphasis has been placed on the phraseology, and 1 quote, "No decision has been made at this time'', not so much emphasis has been placed on an earlier phrase which appears in the same sentence of that answer by the minister. The whole answer is:
Madam Speaker, if the government does make a decision to that effect, this will be announced as soon as the decision has been made.
The clear inference there is that there has been no decision made, that when the decision is made it will be announced as soon as it has been made. I leave it to the Chair to determine whether the announcement was made as soon as the decision was made, whenever the Chair might find that to have occurred.
But by far the stronger wording of the minister's answer is that last sentence: "No decision has been made at this time". The minister did not say that no final decision had been made at that time. He did not say that no ultimate decision had been made at that time. He did not say that no conditional decision had been made at that time. He did not say that there had been any provisional decision made at that time. He did not say that there was no absolute decision made at that time. He did not say that there was no conclusive decision made at that time, or unalterable decision, or definitive decision, or complete decision, or last decision.


Mr. Nowlan:: Or ironclad decision.


Erik Nielsen: Or ironclad decision, as I hear my colleague remind me. There was no qualification whatsoever on the words that the minister used, a minister who is very skilled in the use of words, he being of a profession which earns its living from the use of words, and he being the Minister of Justice in this House. Also, Madam Speaker, I might remind you that he had the experience before which he is once again going through. This is not the first occasion on which this minister
Privilege-Mr. Crosbie
has been involved in circumstances of this kind. Indeed, he was the subject of the precedent to which I referred the Chair when a question of privilege on the same subject matter was raised by the then hon. member for Durham-Northumberland.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Smear, smear.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: What was the decision?


David P. Smith: What was the outcome of that?


Erik Nielsen: Well, the minister can read the decision; I have given him the quotation.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Yes, I would like the decision of the House and the Speaker.


Erik Nielsen: I refer the House again to page 3294 of Hansard, to the decision on February 28, 1978-


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: The second time you have tried to smear him.


Erik Nielsen: -wherein Mr. Speaker Jerome said, in the right-hand column:
The last area of guidance which the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham sought related to my own ruling of April 19, 1977, in which I indicated that-
I underscore the following words:
-in order to found a question of privilege, the allegation would have to be not simply that the House had been misled, but had been deliberately misled.
It does not say anything about a motion there, Madam Speaker. Mr. Speaker Jerome said "in order to found a question of privilege". That is what we are doing right now. He stated:
-in order to found a question of privilege, the allegation would have to be not simply that the House had been misled, but had been deliberately misled.
I took the trouble to look up the previous ruling of Mr. Speaker Jerome on April 19, 1977, which is to be found on page 4766 of Hansard for that date, in the right-hand column, the second paragraph from the end, wherein he stated:
If it is to be pursued by way of a question of privilege, I wish to stress again that in order to qualify as a question of privilege the Chair would have to find that not only had there been actions by the minister to mislead hon. members, but that those actions were calculated and deliberate by the minister for that purpose.
What evidence is there before Your Honour in order to come to that conclusion? There is the evidence of the words used by the minister and the clear evidence, in my submission, that a decision had in fact been made at the time by the government, and the government is the cabinet. To quote the words accurately, "a decision by the government" had been made at the time that the minister used those words in the House of Commons.
It has been asserted here today by the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Mackasey) and others that the matter has been completely disposed of because the minister rose and said that he did not intend to mislead the House. Those who favour that argument suggest that that disposes of Your Honour's obligation-

May 20, 1982
Privilege-Mr. Crosbie


David P. Smith: That is what "deliberate" means.


Erik Nielsen: -and that Your Honour then has no alternative but to find that there is no longer a prima facie case of privilege in view of the statement of the minister that he did not intend to mislead and in view of what the parliamentary secretary called "explanations given by the minister", as he put it in a second point.
In my respectful submission, that does not dispose of the obligation of the Chair. In my submission, the sole obligation of the Chair is to determine whether or not there exists a prima facie case of privilege. To adopt the point of view of the hon. member for Lincoln and of the parliamentary secretary would mean that we would be accepting a practice wherein Your Honour would be making a decision which is under the sole jurisdiction of this House to make. Because if you find that there is a question of privilege, then, of course, the House would vote on the substantive motion. Naturally, that would carry in the government's favour and would dispose of the matter. However, it would not dispose, in my respectful submission, of the obligation of the Chair to take that intervening step and to deal with the question as to whether or not, on the basis of what you have heard, there exists a prima facie case of privilege.
What Your Honour has heard is that the government, in fact, made a decision before the minister made those statements in the House. I respectfully submit that nothing could be clearer on the face of the record itself. I therefore suggest that the evidence is quite compelling that there does exist that prima facie case.
All the minister had to say last Tuesday was, "Yes, the government has made a decision on that matter, but it has not been finalized. The Governor General or his aide must sign it in order to perfect the decision." He did not say that. The Prime Minister tried to say it the following day, but that was a little too late.
The cure is not for the Chair to duck its obligation, as suggested by the hon. member for Lincoln and the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Smith). Indeed, if your reason and logic tell you, Madam Speaker, that a decision is not a decision until the Governor General signs it, you would have to accept the proposition that no decision was made with respect to the patriation of the Constitution until Her Majesty signed it on that day last month, that it was not a decision until she signed it. That is where the kind of logic of the parliamentary secretary and the hon. member for Lincoln takes one. Surely we cannot adopt that kind of Alice in Wonderland reasoning.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: You are missing the point.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: It was when Mr. Chretien decided.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1 am the Attorney General. 1 made the decision.


Erik Nielsen: I would like to make one final point. If Your Honour finds that there is no prima facie case of privilege and, subsequently, no motion to put to the House, where are we left
on this side? Every single day in question period we hear the type of question as was asked by the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) on May 19, when he directed a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Gray) concerning canvas footwear. The response by the minister, as reported on page 17590 of Hansard, was:
Madam Speaker, the existence of the canvas footwear loophole was taken into account by the government when it made the decision-
The hon. member for Spadina would have the right to ask, if Your Honour does not find a prima facie case of privilege exists here, "How can I believe that the cabinet has made a decision on this question? It may not be final." That is where that kind of reasoning leads us if we are to accept the position advanced by government members.
At page 17586 of Hansard the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Dingwall) in response to a question of the member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell), said as the parliamentary secretary:
-a complete review is taking place at present as to whether or not we will pursue this particular program.
How can we believe that that is a decision that has been taken?
Madam Speaker, clear logic compels us to come to the conclusion that there was in fact a decision made by the government before the minister made his statements in the House that no such decision was made. I would ask, Madam Speaker, that you take the matter under advisement and that you come to the conclusion, the compelling conclusion, that there is indeed a prima facie case of privilege in the right of the member for St. John's West, and that his motion be then put to the House and the usual procedure adopted of calling for a vote on that motion.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am not sure the hon. member is quoting me correctly, unless 1 check the "blues". I have no recollection of having said that this disposes of the case. The points needs emphasizing that the word of an hon. gentleman has been an unwritten rule, Madam Speaker. My point was to remind the House and the Chair that there was a new element here that was not there yesterday, that is, the word of a minister. The statement of the minister today that he did not deliberately mislead the House is an additional argument that you must take into consideration and give the weight it deserves.


Madam Speaker:: That is not really a point of order. Since the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) did tell me he would be the last speaker on this side-


William J. Yurko: Madam Speaker, 1 want to have my say on such an important matter.


Madam Speaker:: The Chair feels now that it has been sufficiently informed and has heard all of the views that need
May 20, 1982

to be heard to enlighten the Chair on this particular question of privilege.
I will, of course, take this question under advisement, taking into account the importance of the contributions that were made.


William J. Yurko: On a point of privilege, my privilege is in this House.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Yurko).


William J. Yurko: Madam Speaker, I want to suggest that before this House is the personal integrity of a member-


Madam Speaker:: Is the hon. member rising on a point of order, because I did say that I would not allow any more speakers on this particular question of privilege?


William J. Yurko: Madam Speaker, I have been trying to speak on this matter for the last three-quarters of an hour and I have been popping up in my place. As the only independent member in this House, when the personal integrity of a member of this House is in question it is incumbent upon an independent member who has no affiliation with the political parties to say something. I have demanded the right to say something when the personal integrity of a member of this House is in question. I think it is a very important matter, so I demand the right to speak on the issue.


Madam Speaker:: I do not deny that the hon. member might have a right to express himself in this House, but on this particular question, as the hon. member knows, it is left to the discretion of the Chair to determine when the Chair is sufficiently enlightened or informed on a particular question and to cut off the debate at a certain point. That is precisely what I did, use my discretion.


William J. Yurko: Other people have spoken several times. Under the rules a member does have the right to speak in this House at a certain point on a matter as important as this is before this House.


Madam Speaker:: I do not deny that right but I used my discretion. The hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) on a point of order.


POINT OF ORDER
[Stage Direction]
MR. McGRATH-TABLING BY MR. MacEACHEN of letter to PREMIER OF NEWFOUNDLAND
James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, it is just to clear up a matter that was raised yesterday. In our proceedings at page 17587 the Acting Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen), in replying to a question from the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Privilege-Mr. Nowlan
Crosbie) quoted extensively, and that can be found in Hansard, from a letter that had been sent to the Premier of Newfoundland. Indeed, it is worth noting that he quoted from the letter before it had even been received by the Premier of Newfoundland. In any event, Madam Speaker, if you quote from a document, under our rules and I give you Beauchesne's, citation 327, if you quote from a document, it is incumbent then upon the minister who quotes from the document to lay it on the Table of the House, and I so ask.


Madam Speaker:: 1 did look into that matter and it seems quite clear from Hansard that the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) identified an official document and quoted from it quite extensively, twice, I believe. Therefore, I believe the document should be tabled if asked for, and the hon. member is doing just that. But the hon. minister is not in the House at the present time. Probably he will want to conform with that at some later time.


PRIVILEGE
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) is not in the House. I have given you notice of a question of privilege that I would raise following the question of privilege that was raised today. It is not going to be as long as the one you have just heard. However, as the minister is not here, I would ask that it be stood until the minister is here. He was here for part of this debate, and it is not going to affect it. I would prefer also, as I said in my letter to you, Madam Speaker, so as to check a few of the facts regarding my blind constituent who was affronted by the Metric Commission, to have my question of privilege stood over until Tuesday when I again will see him personally.


Madam Speaker:: Yes, I have a letter here from the hon. member but it does not really constitute a notice of a question of privilege. I will read it back to him and he will understand the position. He writes:
I am writing to give you notice of my intention to raise a point of privilege, fully aware of the difficulty of proving it in terms of forming a precedent and also the wisdom of raising it today.
Then he goes on to say:
I would like to delay the formal presentation of my point of privilege until next week.
Therefore, when the hon. member feels that he wants to raise that question of privilege, he will have to give me another written notice.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

May 20, 1982
17644__________________________________________
Order Paper Questions MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE


Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill S-25, an act to amend the act of incorporation of the association known as the Army, Navy and Air Force Veterans in Canada, to which the concurrence of this House is desired.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Pauline Jewett: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased and honoured today to present to the House of Commons the women's petition for peace which represents the desire of the women of Canada for world peace and disarmament. The names of thousands of Canadian women will be added to the petition to be presented at the United Nations special session on disarmanent in June where the goal is for 500 million women from many countries of the world to speak out for peace.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gordon Edward Taylor: Madam Speaker, I have great pleasure in presenting a petition on behalf of some 400 Canadians living in or near the village of Gibsons, British Columbia, in the federal constituency of Comox-Powell River. This petition requests that capital punishment be reinstated for murder and that the lash be returned for rape. Our society is built on crime being punished. When the ultimate crime of murder occurs, the punishment should be the ultimate punishment, death. A person who deliberately plans and executes a murder of another human being has no right to live. My petitioners pray that the House of Commons will reflect the thinking of the majority of the people of Canada, and reinstate capital punishment for murder and the lash for rape of innocent women and girls.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 2,827, 2,828, 2,862, 2,863, 2,869,
2,908, 2,911, 2,912, 2,914, 2,918, 2,919, 2,942, 2,957, 2,967, 2,979, 3,128, 3,134, 3,135, 4,181 and 4,274.


Mr. Clarke: 1.	With reference to the education leave costs recorded by the Department of National Health and Welfare at page 13.6, volume I of the 1979-80 Public Accounts of Canada, what guidelines were used to determine (a) which employees should obtain educational leave and whether such employees should be granted (i) leave with pay (ii) travel expenses (iii) payment for tuition (b) whether the skills to be acquired were needed on a permanent basis?
2.	What percentage of the education leave cost of $777,155 was necessitated by the acquisition of new equipment and by the need to have new skills in order to use the equipment?
3.	What percentage of the education leave was necessitated by reason of job redundancy because of the (a) acquisition of equipment (b) change in the role of the employing agency (c) change in the capabilities of employees?
4.	What percentage of employees granted such leave in the past three years have subsequently left the public service?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. (a) and (b) Treasury Board Policy: chapter 110 sub-chapter 5 of the Personnel Management Manual- Conditions Governing Education, Training and Development, including Subsidization.
2 and 3. Nil.
4. Over 60 per cent of the employees granted educational leave during the period 1977 to 1980 are still with the department. It cannot be determined if the other 40 per cent have left the public service or only the department for reasons such as: to work for another department, being included in a transfer of services outside the public service such as the Charles Camsell Hospital which transferred to the Alberta government in 1980.


Mr. Clarke: 1.	With reference to the education leave costs recorded by the Department of National Revenue, customs and excise at page 13.6, volume I of the 1979-1980 Public Accounts of Canada, what guidelines were used to determine (a) which employees should obtain educational leave and whether such employees should be granted (i) leave with pay (ii) travel expenses (iii) payment for tuition (b) whether the skills to be acquired were needed on a permanent basis?
2.	What percentage of the education leave cost of $17,193 was necessitated by the acquisition of new equipment and by the need to have new skills in order to use the equipment?
3.	What percentage of the education leave was necessitated by reason of job redundancy because of the (a) acquisition of equipment (b) change in the role of the employing agency (c) change in the capabilities of employees?
4.	What percentage of employees granted such leave in the past three years have subsequently left the public service?


Hon. William Rompkey (Minister of National Revenue):: 1.
(a)	and (b) Please refer to Treasury Board Policy, Personnel Management Manual, Chapter 110-5, "Conditions governing education, training and development, including subsidization".
2, 3 and 4. Nil.
May 20, 1982


Mr. Clarke: With reference to the professional and special services recorded by the Department of Transport at page 32.38, volume II of the 1979-80 Public Accounts of Canada, with particular reference to hospitality services (a) what is a list of each contract of a value more than $2,000 (b) are guidelines used to determine when the department will pay for hospitality and, if so, what are they (c) of the $16,343 paid for hospitality, what percentage was principally used to entertain (i) foreign visitors (ii) Canadian businessmen (iii) provincial public servants (iv) federal public servants (v) ministerial exempt staff (vi) Members of Parliament (vii) Members of Provincial Parliaments, Legislative Assemblies and the National Assembly (viii) Canadian dignitaries, such as the Governor General and Lieutenant Governors General (ix) federal Crown corporation executives (x) provincial Crown corporation executives (xi) members of federal commissions, boards and councils (xii) any other categories?


Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: (a) None.
(b)	Guidelines used are those stated in chapter 360 of the Treasury Board Administrative Policy Manual as it applies to hospitality.
(c)	The information on hospitality requested in this question is not readily available. We do not maintain records of hospitality payments by nature or by class of recipients.


Mr. Clarke: With reference to the professional and special services recorded by the Department of Transport under the Marine Transportation Program at page 32.39, volume II of the 1979-80 Public Accounts of Canada, with particular reference to hospitality (a) what is a list of each contract of a value more than $2,000 (b) are guidelines used to determine when the department will pay for hospitality and, if so, what are they (c) of the $8,529 paid for hospitality, what percentage was principally used to entertain (i) foreign visitors (ii) Canadian businessmen (iii) provincial public servants (iv) federal public servants (v) ministerial exempt staff (vi) Members of Parliament (vii) Members of Provincial Parliaments, Legislative Assemblies and the National Assembly (viii) Canadian dignitaries, such as the Governor General and Lieutenant Governors General (ix) federal Crown corporation executives (x) provincial Crown corporation executives (xi) members of federal commissions, boards and councils (xii) any other categories?


Jesse Philip Flis: (a) None.
(b)	Guidelines used are those stated in Chapter 360 of the Treasury Board Administrative Policy Manual as it applies to hospitality.
(c)	The information on hospitality requested in this question is not readily available. We do not maintain records of hospitality payments by nature or by class of recipients.


Mr. Clarke: With reference to the professional and special services recorded by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development under the Northern Affairs Program at page 32.15, volume II of the 1979-80 Public Accounts of Canada, with particular reference to hospitality services (a) what was the name of each type of service (b) what was the amount paid for each service and, for contracts of a value more than $2,000, to whom was it paid (c) are guidelines used to determine when the department will pay for hospitality and, if so, what are they (d) of the $26,286 paid for hospitality, what percentage was principally
Order Paper Questions
used to entertain (i) foreign visitors (ii) Canadian businessmen (iii) provincial public servants (iv) federal public servants (v) ministerial exempt staff (vi) Members of Parliament (vii) Members of Provincial Parliaments, Legislative Assemblies and the National Assembly (viii) Canadian dignitaries, such as the Governor General and Lieutenant Governors General (ix) federal Crown corporation executives (x) provincial Crown corporation executives (xi) members of federal commissions, boards and councils (xii) any other categories?


John Carr Munro: (a)	(b)
(i)	Official discussions with non-government employees (includes recruitment into public service)	$ 714(ii)	Visitors to Canada, as members of national or international organizations	22,178(iii)	Conference sponsored by Government of Canada where other governments or business groups are represented	1,036(iv)	Honouring of distinguished Canadians	Nil(v)	Service rendered without remuneration by non-government employee	723(vi)	Ceremonies (sod-breaking, laying of corner stones)	Nil(vii)	Departmental program-oriented work planning committees, departmental conferences, etc.	1.635Total	$ 26,286(c)	Yes. Departmental Financial Directive No. 11 derived from Treasury Board Administrative Policy Manual, chapter
360.
(d)	Hospitality costs can be broken down as follows: Entertainment of foreign visitors, 84 per cent; Conferences attended by provincial and federal public servants, 10 per cent; Other recipients 6 per cent.


Mr. Clarke: With reference to the professional and special services recorded by the Department of Transport under the Air Transportation Program at page 32.41, volume II of the 1979-80 Public Accounts of Canada, with particular reference to other types of services (a) how does the department explain the increase in expenditure for the item over that for 1978-79 (b) what was the name of each type of service (c) what was the amount paid for each service and, for contracts over $2,000, to whom was it paid?


Jesse Philip Flis: (a) The dollar amount for other types of services in the 1979-80 Public Accounts was included with other professional, technical and special services in 1978-79.
(b)	(c)	Over	Less thanType of Service	Total	$2,000	$2,0001. Accounting services	$ 1,300	$	$ 1,3002. Architectural services	278	2783. Aerial survey	13,123	187Public Works Canada	12,936	4. Scientific services	20,631	4,732B.H. Levelton Associates	12,892	Government of Canada (NRC)	3,007	5. Refund tuition fees	(660)	(660)6. Firefighting services	565	5657. Assessor & appraiser	3,470	193Douglas Wren	3,277	
80114 39

May 20, 1982
Order Paper Questions
8. Collection, landing &
parking fees	3,450	3,4509. Bond & insurance services Dale & Co. Ltd. Nanisivik Mines Ltd.	12,457	3,115 8,905	43710. Storage warehousing Shell Canada	4,179	2,179	2,00011. Accident countermeasure	34	3412. Compliance testing	45	45Public Works Canada tenancy 13. services	5,632	5,632Total	$ 64,504	$ 46,311	$ 18,193Fulkner Placement Limited	5,039Grady's Secretarial Services	29,946Harrington Personnel	127,260Kelly Girl Service of Canada	2,779Key Personnel Limited	3,767Marie Selick Associates Limited	15,302Office Overload Limited	9,815Pollack Personnel Limited	6,851Selective Placements Limited	12,603Technical Overload	4,069The 500 Selection Services Ltd.	162,740Total Employment Services	46,021Victor Temporary Services	18,237


Mr. Clarke: With reference to the professional and special services recorded by the Department of Transport under the Marine Transportation Program at page 32.39, volume II of the 1979-80 Public Accounts of Canada, with particular reference to court reporting services (a) how does the department explain the 225 per cent increase in expenditure for the item over that for 1978-79 (b) what is a list of each contract of a value more than $2,000?


Jesse Philip Flis: (a) The increase in the cost of court reporting services in 1979-80 over the previous year was prompted by additional formal investigations into shipping casualties which had to be carried out in 1979-80.
(b) Angus Stonehouse & Company Ltd., $41,514; Boisjoly et Associes Inc., $45,967; International Reporting Inc., $22,903.


Mr. Clarke: With reference to the professional and special services recorded by the Department of Transport at page 32.39, volume II of the 1979-80 Public Accounts of Canada, with particular reference to temporary help, including stenographic and secretarial services (a) how does the department explain the 78 per cent increase in expenditure for the item over that for 1978-79 (b) what is a list of each contract of a value more than $2,000?


Mr. Clarke: With reference to the professional and special services recorded by the Department of Transport at page 32.39, volume II of the 1979-80 Public Accounts of Canada, with particular reference to other professional and special services (a) how does the department explain the 79 per cent increase in expenditure for the item over that for 1978-79 (b) what was the name of each type of service (c) what was the amount paid for each service and, for contracts over $2,000, to whom was it paid?


Jesse Philip Flis: (a) Increases in costs were recorded at Transport Canada training facilities as follows:
Amount of Increase $
Transport Canada Training Institute (TCTI) Cornwall, Ontario
Laundry, dry cleaning and related services	44,734
Messing and food services	528,184
Building cleaning services	307,858


[Stage Direction]
The newly erected residence was not fully occupied for the major part of 1978-79, however a considerable increase in the use of the facilities took place during 1979-80. The revenue collected for training costs by TCTI showed a similar increase.
Jesse Philip Flis: (a) The increase in temporary help costs in 19791980 is mainly attributable to the effects of a staffing moratorium announced by the President of the Treasury Board on June 8, 1979. At that time, staff strength was lower than planned and continued to fall during the extended moratorium period, particularly in the secretarial, stenographic and clerical categories where turnover is high. Outside agency help was used to alleviate the resulting backlog wherever internal arrangements proved inadequate.
(b) Contractor	Amount


Mr. Clarke: With reference to the professional and special services recorded by the Department of Transport under the Air Transportation Program at page 32.40, volume II of the 1979-80 Public Accounts of Canada, with particular reference to messing, lodging and food services (a) what was the name of each type of service (b) what was the amount paid for each service and, for contracts over $2,000, to whom was it paid (c) for what reason does the Department require these services?


Jesse Philip Flis: (a and c)	(b)	Over	Under(1) Felec Services Ltd., Colorado Springs, Colorado. Felec Services Ltd. provides meals to Transport Canada employees at Flight Service Station, Tuktoyaktuk, N.W.T. The company is part of the United States Air Force complex and is the sole provider of cafeteria facilities	Total	$2,000	$2,000at this location.	$29,889	$29,889	
Order Paper Questions
(2)	Dorothy Brown,
Ottawa, Ontario.
Dorothy Brown provides beverage and clean-up service
to Transport Canada aircraft.	3,386	3,386
(3)	Province of Quebec (Public Works)
Poste-de-la-Baleine, Quebec.
Province of Quebec (Public Works) provides meals to single employees of Transport Canada at Flight Service Station, Poste-de-la-Baleine,
Quebec. This is the only food service available and there is cost recovery from the
employees.	14,585	14,585Miscellaneous	1,094	1,094
Total
$48,954	$47,860	$1,094


Mr. Clarke: With reference to the professional and special services recorded by the Department of Transport under the Air Transportation Program at page 32.40, volume II of the 1979-80 Public Accounts of Canada, with particular reference to training and educational services (a) what was the name of each type of service (b) what was the amount paid for each service and, for contracts over $2,000, to whom was it paid (c) what services did the board of trustees-School District No. 85 provide (d) what services did Pace Incorporated provide?


Jesse Philip Flis: Training and Educational Services	1,390,334
(i) School Fees	89,513	
(ii) Student Transportation Fees	12,163	
(iii) Apprenticeship Training	8,330	
(iv) Tuition Fees	12,525	
(v) Vocational and Technical Training	1,254,200	
(vi) Teachers and Instructors	13,603	
	Over 2K	Under 2K
(i) School Fees	72,939	16,574(ii) Student Transportation Fees	11,364	799(iii) Apprenticeship Training	8,330(iv) Tuition Fees	6,780	5,745(v) Vocational and Technical Training	1,161,546	92,654(vi) Teachers and Instructors	12,060	1,5431,264,689	125,645School Fees	Kelsey School Division-The Pas, Manitoba Board of School Trustees-Queen Charlotte,	22,551	B.C. Board of School Trustees No. 85-Port	14,883	Hardy, B.C.	35,505	Total	72,939	Student Transportation Fees	Province of Manitoba	11,364	Tuition Fees	Harvard University	6,780	Vocational and Technical Training	Sikorsky Aircraft	2,881	Helicroft Limited	20,096	Province of Alberta	3,425	Cranfield Institute of Technology	3,255	Beaver Air Spray Inc.	2,250	Execaire Aviation Ltd.	9,890	Chalifour/Marcotte	6,100	Vicking Helicopter	3,145	
May 20, 1982
Order Paper Questions
(b)	Over 2K	Under 2K
United Air Line	7,755
Dictaphone Canada Ltd.	5,753
Perimeter Aviation Ltd.	3,600
Ahern-Soper Ltd.	6,250
Airgana Ltd.	2,475
Quebec Air	15,472
Nordair	2,050
Public Service Commission	116,107
University of Southern California	5,933
HMR International	3,514
Integrated Computer System	3,204
Eastern Provincial Airways	81,923
Waterloo Management Education Centre	5,665
Flight Safety Int'l. Inc.	183,312
Algonquin College	5,015
Professional Development Institute Ltd.	4,505
University of Western Ontario	2,100
Air Canada	325,502
Memramcook Institute Ltd.	4,247
Digital Equipment	6,620
Manitoba Institute of Management	6,000
Business Flight Ltd.	3,000
U.S. Department of Transportation	11,185
Lome Plunkett & Associate	2,520
Advance Management Centre	2,960
People Development	3,000
St. John's Ambulance	5,528
Pacific Western Air Line	18,045
CP Air	41,472
M. Zeitoun	3,400
Pace Incorporated	37,415
Okanagan Helicopter	19,391
Electro Lab Ltd.	7,434
Government of Canada	2,267
Province of British Columbia	10,724
American Institute for Professional Education	3,581
Picker Canada Ltd.	17,374
Associated Helicopter Ltd.	3,933
Total Loss Control Ltd.	5,440
Institute of Advanced Technology	2,675
Transport Canada Training Institute	44,175
Douglas Aircraft	25,971
Software Enterprise Corp.	12,864
Honeywell Inc.	21,000
Lasarre Air Service Ltd.	3,430
Norcanair	2,300
Cottrell Survival Consultant	2,418
Total	1,161,546
Teachers and Instructors	
Trinity Communication Ltd.	3,150
Jack D. Langley	3,000
Paul Delhanty	2,400
Fort Ignition Ltd.	3,510
Total	12,060
(c)	Teaching services for Transport Canada employees who do not pay normal school taxes for school facilities.
(d)	Pace Incorporated prepared and presented four training courses on high reliability soldering and repair.


Mr. Clarke: With reference to the professional and special services recorded by the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission at page 32.6, volume II of the 1979-80 Public Accounts of Canada, with particular reference to diagnostic services (a) what services does this entail (b) what is a list of each contract of a value more than $2,000?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: (a) This program provides for the purchase of diagnostic services for CMC/CEC clients who have considerable
difficulty participating in the labour market. These services are purchased from agencies or individuals in the public sector under professional service contracts. Diagnosticians provide written reports and consultations to employment counsellors for which fees are paid in accordance with contracts.
An elaboration of the service is as follows:
(i)	Identify the client for whom these services are appropriate.
(ii)	Determine if the commission has a standing contract (for the current year) with an appropriate diagnostician. (These contracts are usually negotiated by area or regional staff.)
(iii)	Determine if the client is willing to undergo diagnosis relating to his/her inability to obtain employment.
(iv)	If a diagnostician is available and the client is willing, complete the Diagnostic Services Requisition.
(v)	Refer client to diagnostician.
(vi)	The diagnostician assesses the client, prepares a report and discusses it with the client.
(vii)	The diagnostician sends his/her report to the counsellor who referred the client to him/her.
(viii)	Upon receipt of the diagnostician's report, the counsellor continues his/her employment counselling sessions with the client.
(ix)	If the diagnostician indicates that there is no reasonable prospect of assisting the client through the CEIC, and the counsellor(s) handling the case concurs that the client's employment prospects cannot be improved through available employment services, the client is referred to another appropriate agency.
(b) Name	Amount

Andrews & Samunda	Toronto, Ont.	7,569Applied Psychological	Toronto, Ont.	10,135A.T.C. Clinics Psychological Service Winnipeg, Man.	7,367Brisson, Legris Associates	Montreal, Que.	10,060Canadian Psychological Consultant Westmount, Que.	3,060Centre de Consultation/B.M.V.	Montreal, Que.	6,065Centre Interdisciplinaire	Montreal, Que.	3,640Claveau, Jacques	Ste-Foy, Que.	8,740Clinique Specialist	Shawinigan, Que.	2,922Coulombe, Estelle	Ste-Anne des Monts, Cte.Gaspe, Que.	7,225Crainer, Dr. D.	Toronto, Ont.	4,905Dudley & Associates	Victoria, B.C.	5,710Eaton, Dr. Philip	Calgary, Alta.	5,423Horseley, Dr. F.R.	St. John, N.B.	2,940Howard, K.G. Associates	Winnipeg, Man.	8,200Jewish Vocational Service	Toronto, Ont.	5,255Kell, Dr.	Toronto, Ont.	2,715Kingston General Hospital	Kingston, Ont.	3,116Laverdure, Jacques	Arvida, Que.	4,060McPherson, Dr. A. Blair	Edmonton, Alta.	8,399Michaud, Jacques Andre	Montreal, Que.	39,135Papillon, Dr. Simon	Pointe-au-Pere, Que.	2,669Posthuma, Alan B., Ph. D.	Vancouver, B.C.	6,100Saucier-Brule, Sylvie	Ste-Julie, Que.	2,865Scherer, Dr. S.	Toronto, Ont.	28,974Spence, N.E.	Saskatoon, Sask.	4,750Tragakis, C.	Antigonish, N.S.	2,181Vocational Counselling Service	Vancouver, B.C.	5,000
May 20, 1982

Wilkinson, S.	Toronto, Ont.	7,195Woods, George T.	Victoria, B.C.	3,260Wyspionski & Associates	Toronto, Ont.	3,510Young, Ferris	Burnaby, B.C.	13,945
Order Paper Questions
2. The buoys assure navigational security and prevent loss of life and material. The buoys also protect the marine environment from pollution by petroleum products which could result if ships strayed from the main channel.


Mr. Clarke: With reference to the professional and special services recorded by the Department of Justice for the Canadian Human Rights Commission at page 32.17, volume II of the 1979-80 Public Accounts of Canada, with particular reference to service contracts (a) what services did the National Film Board perform for the amount of $63,719 (b) what was the name of each type of service (c) what was the amount paid for each service and, for contracts over $2,000, to whom was it paid?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: (a) Development and production of audio-visual presentations.
(b) The audio-visual presentations covered the following
topics:	(1)	Canadian Human Rights Act
	(2)	Systemic Discrimination
	(3)	Equal Opportunity in Employment as regards to (1) race
	(4)	(2) physical handicap Equal Pay for Work of Equal Value
	(5)	Employment of the Disabled
	(6)	International Year of the Child
(c)	(1)	$15,852
	(2)	15,000
	(3)	14,966
	(4)	13,950
	(5)	1,777
	(6)	2,174
		$63,719
All payments were made to the National Film Board.


Mr. Clarke: 1.	With reference to the uninsured losses of more than $1,000 of equipment recorded by the Department of Transport in footnote No. 20 at page 13.4, volume 1 of the 1979-80 Public Accounts of Canada, under what circumstances were the barrel buoys and anchors lost and (a) who was culpable (b) were any convictions made and, if so, what sentences were imposed (c) are any trials or appeals pending (d) was the equipment replaced (e) did the Department undertake steps to ensure that such a loss does not recur and, if so, what were they?
2.	What use does the department make of the barrel buoys?


Jesse Philip Flis: 1. The loss of the barrel buoys and anchors was attributable to bad weather (storms, strong winds, and ice) and the normal wear and tear of such material, (a), (b) and (c) Not applicable, (d) Yes. (e) A recovery procedure is in effect for material such as chains, counterweights, and sinkers, whereby a Coast Guard vessel equipped to locate such material is dispatched to the locations of the losses when the amount of material involved is sufficient to justify the recovery effort. In 1978, chains, sinkers and counterweights at a value of $81,000 were recovered.


Mr. Clarke: With reference to the professional and special services recorded by the Department of National Health and Welfare under the Health and Social Services Program at page 32.23, volume II of the 1979-80 Public Accounts of Canada, with particular reference to motion picture production and distribution (a) what was the title and total cost of each film produced in the fiscal year 1979-80 (b) at what audience was each film aimed (c) what cost recovery is anticipated from the distribution of all the films?


Mr. Doug Frith (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: (a) The department contributed towards the cost of Health and Welfare production of the following films and film program:	Contribution
1.	Challenge for Change	$100,000
A series of films depicting Canadian society produced by the National Film Board under a program administered by a committee of seven departments and the National Film Board and funded through annual departmental assessment with an equal amount being provided by the National Film Board.
2.	Rehabilitation Film	49,049
A film was created within the context of the International Year of Disabled Persons for the purpose of increasing the awareness of the general public towards the problem of integration of the handicapped.
3.	Adoption Film	$ 26,111
A film created to give an understanding of the current adoption situation in Canada, by explaining changes, by outlining the role and responsibility of agencies, and by examining the background and attitudes of adopting couples. The production cost was shared with seven provinces.
The Department also contributed $60,878 to the National Film Board, towards the cost of creating a captioning centre capable of responding to the needs of the hearing impaired, in both official languages. The program deals with feature films and other films of current interest and the cost includes the purchase of films for captioning purposes.
A further $63,657 was expended for booking promotional films on nutrition and drug information and a series on child abuse.
(b) With the exception of the Captioned Film Program, which is specifically directed toward the hearing impaired, all films are directed toward the general public and professional groups and include such topics as nutrition, alcohol, tobacco and drug abuse, rehabilitation of the handicapped and child adoption.

May 20, 1982
Order Paper Questions
(c) As the films are made available to interested parties free of charge, no cost recovery is anticipated.
are made. Contracts provide for cancellation clauses to minimize any potential loss due to possible cancellation of major projects.


Mr. Clarke: With reference to item 7 in the notes to the financial statements of the Northern Canada Power Commission for the year ended March 31, 1980 at page 141, volume III of the 1979-80 Public Accounts of Canada, concerning cancelled projects (a) how did the loss of $59,000, relating to losses on assets not put into production occur (b) does the commission anticipate that any or all of these assets will subsequently be put into production to reduce the loss and, if so, at what location and on what date (c) for what reason was the Snare Cascades Project cancelled at a cost, in 1979, of $633,000 and what is the total cost of the cancellation (d) is the commission likely to recoup any of the loss by a redeployment of assets which would otherwise have been used in the project (e) has the commission taken steps to ensure that such cancellations will not be necessary in future and (i) if so, what steps (ii) if not, for what reason?


John Carr Munro: (a) Loss results as follows:
Write-off of development costs for emergency generating equipment	$ 44,481.28
Residual cost of disposal of electrical control panels after removal of all usable instrumentation	30,704.85
Less: gain on disposal of assets Cancelled projects as per note 7
(16,421.13) $ 58,765.00
The project was cancelled following a review of the emergency standby program. The physical dimensions of the alternator control panels did not meet current design specifications. As well, certain aspects of the instrumentation were not applicable to forecast service installation. All usable instrumentation was retained in stock.
(b)	None of the above will be put into production. Credit for any salvage parts is taken into account in the $59,000 cancellation amount.
(c)	The total of the cancellation of the preliminary construction costs of the Snare Cascades project amounted to $1,842,689.13. This cost was reported in financial statements as follows:
March 31, 1978	$1,209,673.16
March 31, 1979	$	633,015.97
Total:	$ 1,842,689.13
The project cancellation was related to a reduction in load growth combined with forecast inflationary cost factors which would have an unfavourable impact on the unit cost of electrical generation.
(d)	Yes, based upon independent consulting advice, the commission has retained the two hydro turbines originally purchased for the project in contemplation of future small hydro development.
(e)	The economic viability of all projects is continuously monitored, and the best possible forecasts of future demands


Mr. Clarke: With reference to the statement of operations of the Seaway International Bridge Corporation Ltd. for the year ended December 31, 1979 at page 162, volume III of the 1979-80 Public Accounts of Canada, which notes that the corporation operated at a net income of $205,124, for what reason did the corporation recently increase the tolls for round trip traffic by 33 per cent from $3 to $4?


Jesse Philip Flis: The Seaway International Bridge Corporation, Ltd., a subsidiary of The St. Lawrence Seaway Authority, advises as follows: The corporation increased its tolls to ensure that self-sufficiency will be maintained. The 1979 operating profit had diminished to $70,493 in 1980, and financial projections indicated that, without a toll increase, net losses estimated at $175,000 would be incurred in the years 1981 and 1982.
JACQUES CARTIER & CHAMPLAIN BRIDGES INC.


Mr. Clarke: With reference to the statement of operations of the Jacques Cartier and Champlain Bridges Incorporated at page 123, volume III of the 1979-80 Public Accounts of Canada (a) how does the corporation explain the $5,519,409 net loss as a result of operations (b) does the corporation intend to take any steps to eliminate this loss and (i) if so, what will they be and how long does the corporation anticipate it will take to eliminate this loss (ii) if not, what rationale does the corporation have for continuing this net loss (c) what amount of the operational expenses are incurred in the collection of tolls?


Jesse Philip Flis: The Jacques Cartier and Champlain Bridges Incorporated, a subsidiary of the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority, advises as follows:
(a)	The revenue of the corporation amounted to $5,840,687 and the expenses to $11,360,096 for a net loss of $5,519,409. The main reason revenues have not kept pace with expenses is that tolls on the Champlain Bridge have not been increased since 1962.
(b)	Yes. (i) The corporation has reviewed its financial situation and the matter is under active consideration. It has not yet been determined how long it will be before losses are eliminated. This will depend on whether future losses can be made up either by increased tolls or parliamentary appropriations, or a combination thereof, (ii) Not applicable.
(c)	Operational costs amounted to $8,547,423 of which $1,193,678 were incurred in the collection of tolls.


Mr. Robinson (Burnaby): Is there any mention of the Security Service of the RCMP or the department's response to the McDonald Royal Commission in the 1980-81 Annual Report of the Department of the Solicitor General and, if not, for what reason?
May 20, 1982


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):: Mention of the Security Service of the RCMP appears at page 13 of the 1980-81 Annual Report of the Ministry of the Solicitor General. There is no mention of the ministry's response to the Commission of Inquiry into the RCMP in the 1980-81 Annual Report, because the commission's final report to the Governor in Council was not published until August 25, 1981. The 1980-81 Annual Report of the Ministry of the Solicitor General is for the period from April 1, 1980 to March 31, 1981.
Supply


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


Madam Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	Is a study into the "Improvement in the spreadability of butter" being conducted by Dr. A. Boudreau on behalf of the Department of Agriculture as listed in the Department of Supply and Services Bulletin No. 108?
2.	Did Dr. Boudreau submit a detailed budget and (a) if so, what are the main projected expenditures (b) if not, how was the project cost generated?
3.	Was the study tendered and (a) if so, how many applications were received (b) if not, what selection process was used ?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: 1. Yes.
2. Yes, Dr. Boudreau of Laval University did submit a budget on December 14, 1981 and the main projected expenditures are as follows:
1.	Salaries and wages
2.	Materials and supplies
3.	Direct charges (chemical analysis)
4.	Equipment
5.	Travel and living
6.	Overhead
(estimated) $ 66,258 (estimated) $ 5,000 (estimated) $ 14,142 (estimated) $	1,300
(estimated) $ 3,700 (estimated) $ 21,451 Total estimated cost $111,851
3. This study was the result of a submission by Dr. Boudreau of Laval University, in response to an invitation appearing in the R & D Bulletin of March, 1981, to submit proposal to Canadian Dairy Commission Research Program for various research subjects. Thirty-one submissions were received and this proposal is one of the fourteen, which were approved by the Canadian Dairy Commission, Department of Agriculture, under the Product Research and Market Development Program.
This study and similar ones funded by Agriculture Canada aim at finding ways to stop the dramatic decline in the per capita butter consumption in Canada over the past 25 years. During the period of 1955 to 1979, the per capita butter consumption has decreased from 9.19 KG to 4.46 KG (51.5 per cent).
The major variables contributing to this decline have been identified and spreadability (or lack of) remains a significant negative characteristic of butter and contributes to the decline of butter consumption in favor of replacement products. In view of the importance of butter sales for Canadian dairy farmers and the Canadian economy as a whole various government bodies fund research projects of this nature to improve the physical characteristics of butter and hence help this product to regain its popularity among consumers.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


John Edward Broadbent: That this House go on record as opposing any policy which will have the result of effectively denying people in any region of Canada their democratic right to vote in a federal election.
He said: Madam Speaker, in opening the debate on this important subject about democratic electoral laws, I would like to lay down the first general principle to which my party adheres-and I would like to think all parties in the House accept-that is, that the whole purpose of electoral laws in a democratic society should be to maximize the opportunities for citizens, wherever they may live, to participate in the electoral process. In relation to that an auxiliary principle is that the purpose of hours established for voting purposes ought to have the same objective.
In our view the present law in Canada does meet this general objective. At present we have the requirement on election day that the polls are open from nine in the morning to eight at night-the same time, 11 hours-in whatever province a man or woman who is voting may live. In addition, there is the provision that any citizen of Canada entitled to vote-if he or she is working outside the home for an employer-must be freed by that employer from obligations to work for at least four clear hours in advance of the closing time of the polls.
Before I get to the essence of my concern about a particular proposal which will be before the House for debate I would like to discuss the important question of when people actually vote during elections. All members in the House, irrespective of party, are quite familiar with election day proceedings. Indeed, the members in this House, by definition, I suggest, have been very active on election days in making sure that at least certain citizens in whom they are interested get out to vote.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: We try to get them all out.


John Edward Broadbent: We in my party, of course, try to get them all out to vote, and we try a little harder in relation to those we have good reason to believe might be voting for our party.


Mr. Darling:: Good for you.

May 20, 1982
Supply


John Edward Broadbent: I suspect that is a common tendency amongst all parties, and is a reflection of the democratic process that is based on the party system.
The crucial point I want to make is that although we do not have hard data on this question for Canada compiled by Canadian political scientists or journalists who may be interested in the subject, the reality is that in terms of the practical experience of the politicians I know, some 60 per cent to 70 per cent of Canadians who vote on election days actually vote between the hours of 5 p.m. and 8 p.m. The point is overwhelmingly clear, therefore, that most Canadians vote at the end of the day. They do not vote in the morning or in the afternoon; they vote in the early evening. The reason for this is straightforward. Men and women are at work during the day. They come home and have their evening meal, and they go out to vote. Perhaps they go out to vote before they have their evening meal, but they do it at the end of their day's work. If they are commuters, they may have a fair distance to go in returning home from work, and that too delays the time when they will be able to vote.
Another category of person about whom we obviously have to be concerned in this context of the time at which people actually vote are those who are at home with small children. Men or women looking after children during the day may have to wait until someone else returns home from work before they can be spelled off and have a chance to go out and vote. All these self-evident reasons explain why, in our rough judgment-I think members of the House in all parties will agree-the vast majority of Canadians vote in the early evening at some time between 5 p.m. and 8 p.m.
That is part of the background of my party's concern which led to the motion before the House today. Another part of it is that I, as a member of the House and a party leader, heard some time early in February that the government was in fact seriously considering changing the hours for voting in Canada. The proposal I heard, which was being seriously considered by the cabinet, was that the hours for voting would vary across the country. They would be based on the principle that voters would start to vote late in Atlantic Canada and finish late and, reciprocally, at the other end of our country on the west coast, they would start to vote early in the day and finish early. The principle behind that proposal was that Canadians would be voting at a common real time across the nation. The reason given by the Liberal members who have supported this idea is that western Canadians in particular have been unhappy with the hours which have been in effect for years, and that people in the west have been quite dissatisfied, when they have seen election results come in from Atlantic Canada but, in particular, after the results from central Canada-Ontario, and Quebec-were added, that the election was over, frequently before they had even gone out to vote. That has been the argument, and I see some hon. members on the government side nodding in agreement that that is the reason-


David P. Smith: We are trying to be responsive.


John Edward Broadbent: -behind a proposal-which, as I said, I heard about early in February-the government would make and which has now been put to the House in the form of a government bill presented for first reading.
I want to talk about the reality of this alleged perception or concern. If we take into account the elections since 1957-and there have been ten of them-fully eight of the ten elections have not had their final outcome determined until the results from western Canada were included. I repeat that in eight of the ten elections we did not know which party-or parties, if we had minority governments-would form the government until the results from western Canada were in. In fact, of the eight, the results of four of those elections were not known until the results in the province of British Columbia were known.
The point I am making is that the talk about the need to change hours because of a perception in western Canada that the ball game was completely over and that the people in the west somehow did not count-although obviously every man and woman has one vote-was largely, in my judgment, based on a reaction to the last general election. I can well understand that. Many people were very unhappy that a fellow named Pierre Elliott Trudeau and the Liberal Party were elected to be the Government of Canada. As a New Democrat 1 understand that, just as my Conservative colleagues will understand that, because the west is roughly divided between the New Democratic Party and the Conservative Party. In that particular election it was entirely understandable that the majority of Canadians in the western part of our country should have been unhappy. They knew that a majority government was elected before the results from the west came in.
The point I want to make, and it is a serious one, is to question whether we should tinker with an electoral system which has made it possible for the majority of citizens to vote between 5 p.m. and 8 p.m., to take into account certain feelings that were produced in one general election. I think this is a very basic question.
When I heard of the proposed changes in hours I wrote to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on February 10 this year and made it clear on behalf of this party that it would oppose any changes of the kind being discussed. 1 indicated that I should like to hear from him about the government's intention and his argument for it. I received no answer except the usual acknowledgement from an official that the letter would be brought to his attention. I did not receive the commitment I had been seeking that the government would not proceed with the bill, nor did I receive a reply to the substance of my concern. Of course, it is the Prime Minister's right to reply or not and I am not quibbling about that.
More than three months ago this party made it clear that it did not like the hours that were being proposed, and I will come to the reasons for that in a moment. I urged the Prime Minister not to proceed with what I heard was the government's intention to change the hours of voting in
May 20, 1982

Canada. It is not the exchange of letters that concerns me, Mr. Speaker, but the fact that the government has produced a bill that will make changes that I think are anti-democratic. I will be very explicit about that later.
I appeal to members on all sides of the House to think very seriously about the consequences of these changes. I hope this may be one of those rare occasions when the government will think very seriously about proceeding with second reading of a bill if the points that my party wants to make in the course of this debate are conceded to be valid. I hope that the government will withdraw the bill.
We object to the bill because in eastern Canada the proposed hours would be an inconvenience. I will not elaborate on that. The traditional hours of 9 a.m. to 8 p.m., with four consecutive hours being made free by employers for people to vote, meet the requirements of people in Atlantic Canada. The new schedule would cause some inconvenience to a number of fishermen and other groups, according to my information.
The real concern of this party, however, is the effect that such a change would have in western Canada. To put it very directly, the normal voting pattern of 60 to 80 per cent of the electorate will be shattered. According to the bill that the government has introduced, polls in British Columbia and the Yukon will close at 5.30 p.m. That is very serious. Fishermen, loggers, clerks in department stores in downtown Vancouver, in the Kootenays or in the Yukon or any working man or woman, will find it literally impossible to vote on election day.
The other change that is proposed is that the employer will have to provide four consecutive hours to vote, but not necessarily on election day. As long as four hours are provided before an advance poll day, that will be adequate according to this bill.
The cumulative impact of these two changes-cutting off the vote at 5.30 p.m. and removing the old requirement that employers have to leave four consecutive hours free on election day-could mean the disenfranchisement of thousands of Canadians in western Canada. We will not put up with that, Mr. Speaker.
This is a very serious matter and I want to ask all the members of the House to consider the consequences of it. There have been concerns in western Canada about the efficacy of our federal system to produce justice for people in western Canada as well as for people in central Canada and so on, but I will not go over those old and real grievances, Mr. Speaker.
In the last 48 hours I have received half a dozen telegrams from British Columbia-now that the news has been received there-expressing deep concern at the effect which the cutting off of thousands of workers from the polls will have. I hope that members of the House will not be party to a measure that will be an inconvenience in eastern Canada but will be a major liability to democracy in western Canada. If there have been problems of alienation and concern in the west before, they will increase in Alberta, British Columbia and the Yukon after the impact of the proposed legislation is understood.
Business of the House
1 began this debate rather late because of procedural matters which intervened today, Mr. Speaker. I will not take much more of the time of the House because it is almost six o'clock. Other members of this party will speak and I hope that members of other parties will address themselves to these very serious concerns and that the government will be persuaded by the arguments.
I want to conclude by saying that this party, and I hope all parties, believe that any electoral change must maximize, not minimize, the opportunity to use one's democratic right. We believe the gimmickry approach advocated by the Liberal government in this bill, rather than dealing with western grievances and rather than alleviating some of the tensions, will only aggravate them. In this context we believe that Bill C-113 suggests a cure that is much worse than the disease.
In the final analysis we think that Bill C-113 should be scrapped. It should be withdrawn and a totally new approach to the serious question of democratic rights ought to be taken.

.	BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


WEEKLY STATEMENT
Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, at this time I should like to state what the business of the House will be for next week since this could not be dealt with earlier today.
As agreed among House leaders this morning, the first item of business tomorrow will be Bill S-25. It is not on the Order Paper but it will be reported from the Senate in time to be dealt with as the first item of business tomorrow. It is an act concerning the association of navy, army and air force veterans. It will be dealt with by agreement through all stages, with one speaker per party. That will be done tomorrow afternoon. It will be followed by Bill C-91, which deals with public works, and, if need be, second reading of Bill C-92, which deals with national harbours.
[Translation}
As far as the business of the House for next week is concerned, the schedule is as follows: Monday, the House will not be sitting, Tuesday will be an opposition day, Wednesday, the House will meet in Committee of the Whole in connection with Bill C-112 relating to certain taxes, and Thursday, we shall proceed with third reading of Bill C-112.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Chair would normally recognize the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) who was rising to speak on the motion before the House. The Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) has concluded his remarks, and as it is now just past six o'clock, I think perhaps the most appropriate way is to indicate to the hon. member for Provencher that the Chair will recognize him as having the floor at eight o'clock, provided of course that he is here.

May 20, 1982
Supply
It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Broadbent:
That this House go on record as opposing any policy which will have the result of effectively denying people in any region of Canada their democratic right to vote in a federal election.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When the House rose at six o'clock, the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) had been given the floor.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I want to read into the record the motion which the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) moved on behalf of his party. It reads:
That this House go on record as opposing any policy which will have the result of effectively denying people in any region of Canada their democratic right to vote in a federal election.
One has to analyse that motion somewhat to determine the reason for the motion in the first place. If one looks at it, one could interpret it as saying that any Canadian should have the right to vote because we read that this House should not adopt any policy which would effectively deny people in any region of Canada the right to vote. Section 14 of the Canada Elections Act, under which all of us are governed, is entitled "Qualifications and Disqualifications of Electors". It addresses quite a number of categories of Canadians who cannot vote in a federal election. For example, the chief electoral officer, the assistant chief electoral officer, judges appointed by governor in council and people undergoing punishment in Canada's penal institutions are just some of them. But is that what the motion intends? Having listened to the Leader of the New Democratic Party this evening, I do not think that is his intention. Rather, it arises from the fact that polls close at the same hour in every region of Canada. However, because of the different time zones across the country we have the difficulty of polls in Atlantic Canada being closed first and the votes counted first. Next are the polls in Quebec and Ontario. But as to those of us who live west of Ontario, whose polls are still open, as a consequence of United States satellite stations and television stations, we are told of the election results in eastern Canada. For instance, in Manitoba it would not necessarily influence the voting because we would only know a few minutes prior to our polls closing, but as one advances further west to British Columbia and Yukon, the problem is exacerbated.
When one takes a look at past elections, where elections were close, it is true that that problem did not exist. Obviously the need to find out which party will win seats, as one goes west, determines who will form the next government. When elections are close and minority governments are elected, for example, there is no problem. Also percentagewise the problem generally has not existed in so-called modern or post-war elections.
I think the NDP is trying to address what happened in the 1980 election in which Canadians in western Canada found that a majority government had been elected up to the Ontario-Manitoba border. AH western Canadians could do was add thereto, that is add to the government already elected. If all of us had voted against the party, in this case the Liberal Party, which formed the government-


Mr. Huntington:: Most of us did.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Almost all of us did, with the exception of those people in the ridings of the two members from Manitoba. But it made very little difference; we were already excluded, so to speak, because the government was already elected. One must be careful to analyse whether the problem which exists is being resolved by the solution that is being put forward by the government.
There have been private members in my party who have tried to address this problem. I have absolutely nothing but praise for their efforts, but let me say in all frankness that the solution which they thought possible was not necessarily a solution. For example, the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Clarke) has a private member's bill along those lines, but if one studies his bill one finds other provisions in it as well. It was not only a matter of advancing hours. He had other suggestions such as the idea of a proxy vote which could be extended to other groups of Canadians, not necessarily those classified or categorized in the Canada Elections Act. In a sense his bill went much further in an attempt to address the question of how better to democratize the election procedure.
The motion before us in effect asks us to look at the electoral procedure as proposed in Bill C-113 which has had first reading but has not been passed through all stages in the House. In fact, it has not yet received second reading. Effectively that bill denies some Canadians, especially those in British Columbia and Yukon, the ability to cast their ballots. This is a serious matter. But I for one thought there were some other areas where the New Democratic Party could have proposed a motion. For instance, it could have put forward a motion concerning lay-offs, jobs, unemployment, farming, the lay-off of CN workers today or the fact that CFA appeared before members of the House yesterday. But the fact remains that this question is important and must be addressed by us.
When the government looks at parliamentary or electoral reform, I suggest it should prove that in fact it is serious and
May 20, 1982

that it does not want to take away the vote or the right to vote of any Canadian. There are three vacant seats in Canada right now, but no byelections have been called. Effectively Canadians in those ridings are losing their right to representation in the House. If the government is serious about every Canadian being represented in this place and not denied his or her privilege to cast a ballot, it should call the byelections. I imagine the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), depending upon whether or not he wants to make a decision, could make that decision tonight, and we would be in a byelections period tomorrow in respect of those three byelections. I challenge hon. members on the government side to consider it. I challenge them to take the matter to their minister so that the byelections will be called. At least that would take care of the situation wherein every Canadian is not represented in the House at present.
The government, which is almost virtually wiped out in the west, seems to have finally heard voices from western Canada indicating a problem out there. Members of the government are now saying, "If there is a problem, how can we resolve it?" They are hearing that there is alienation in the west and they are wondering how to address it. I should like to tell the House that alienation in western Canada will not be resolved by Bill C-113 or by changing or staggering the voting hours. In the 1980 election western Canadians, especially British Columbians, felt that, although they had the right to vote, what difference did it make? That seemed to be the attitude which I heard expressed in British Columbia. I am sure other colleagues of mine will express the same thing. But as we went further west, we realized that it was just an irritant. It was not the cause of the alienation; it was just a further demonstration of western Canadian feelings that they did not have a rightful place in the decisionmaking process in central Canada, in the central government.
If we take a look at what the government is proposing, it is very interesting to see the reasons which were advanced in cabinet for staggering the voting hours. For example, in British Columbia the polls would close effectively at 5.30 p.m. It was spelled out in the cabinet document, which I understand was circulated to all members of the Liberal caucus but of course not to all members of the House-this place works in wonderful and mysterious ways; sometimes we receive copies-that the polls close at the same time across the country and that, by magic, alienation would be taken care of. This is not the way it works. With the polls closing at 5.30 p.m. in British Columbia, we must remember that electors have to be given four continuous hours in order to cast their ballots. In its own cabinet paper the government said:
The proposed new hours would place a heavier burden on employers in the west, because most of the polling hours would fall within the normal working day-
The government recognized that this would impact negatively, for instance, upon people in British Columbia. Additionally,
Supply
because the election would be held on a Monday, the government wondered whether employers would be forced to give employees a half day off, perhaps Monday afternoon, to cast their ballots. The document continued:
Moreover, it could reduce voter turnout by encouraging employees to take a long weekend, since polling day is on a Monday.
This comes back to the motion of the New Democratic Party. Would it not effectively remove the right to vote? Then there is the discretion, in other words, the four hours need not be given on polling day, they would be given on an advance day.


Mr. Blackburn:: Saturday.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: That is the point. The four hours could be given by employers on a non-working day, or what is traditionally now a non-working day. As you go from east to west, this of course would make very little difference. They point that out as well.
I think the government's conclusion is perhaps most relevant. It reads:
Moreover, western voters would almost certainly be required to vote on a day off, and the Bill might therefore exacerbate rather than reduce the sense of alienation in the West.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: That is why they brought it in.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: If that is their conclusion and the reason for bringing in the bill, if they think they will solve the problems of alienation in the west, I suggest they get more advisers.
There is a problem as to how we address the electoral question. 1 already gave as one example the calling of the byelections. What I am more interested in is not this kind of tinkering but, rather, parliamentary reform which would make this House more relevant in its day to day operations so that it might be more relevant to Canadians. That is the issue which we should address. As well, we should be addressing the issue of how the regions can be better reflected at the federal level. There is also the question of the Senate addressing the regional issues and how the voice of those regions will be heard here.
I recognize that the Fathers of Confederation-our first Prime Minister, for instance-wanted a unitary state. It was clean and neat and he understood it. But he also understood the nature of Canada. He understood that we would not have a country without giving very close consideration to regional differences and the need to fit the regions into the larger puzzle of Canada. That is why we are a federal state.
I suggest to the government that if it thinks it will resolve the differences of alienation by tinkering with the hours, it is badly mistaken. The government's own paper shows that it has very serious reservations about that. What we need, then, is to call the byelections and seriously review parliamentary reform within the House. Let us look at the matter of regional representation at the central level. Finally, when we consider the question of how best to carry out electoral reform, let us take very seriously the proposal that has been put forward of delayed counting or the withholding of the announcement of

May 20, 1982
Supply
election returns until the polls have closed. I believe these are suggestions which could be discussed and I make them for that purpose.
I am pleased to see that the minister who holds responsibility for western Canada is in the House. I say in all sincerity that this addresses the problem of alienation in western Canada but it does not resolve the problem of western Canadians feeling that their votes did not count sufficiently. I repeat to him and I challenge him to call the byelections and give the people the right to be represented here as well as in the electoral regions to which I have referred.
I say to the New Democratic Party members that while I have some difficulty in terms of the manner in which their motion is structured, which is a minor issue, what is more critical and the main issue is that we should not take away the right of people to vote. In Vancouver, for example, if the polls close at 5.30 p.m., people must get to their polling stations'll then. Any of us who have run in an election campaign know that the heaviest voter turnout is between four o'clock and eight o'clock. The problem that would exist in British Columbia is that people might have the right to vote denied them because they were not able to get to the poll on time. That is obviously not how we want to resolve the problem that exists.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, first I want to apologize to the members of the House for not being here to listen to the full range of remarks that were made, but I had to serve in a committee this evening and therefore had to divide my time between the House and the committee.
I am pleased to participate in this debate. I find that increasingly the opportunity to respond on behalf of the government to resolutions and motions put forward by the opposition is becoming for me one of the more revealing experiences here because they bring to light what is true and real about the actual intentions and concerns of the respective parties that sometimes belie the rhetoric with which they like to besiege the public on a daily basis.
This is my sixth opposition resolution response in approximately eight weeks, and I am beginning to feel that there is a certain pattern emerging that tells us much more about the reality of what their basic concerns and objectives are as opposed to what they would otherwise like people to believe.
Nowhere is this more apparent than in the resolution put forward by the NDP which shows once again that they have totally and completely contradicted the suggestion that they would like to have the public believe that they are a party of reform, of change and of progress. Once again they have established firmly that if there is any party of reaction, any party which is totally committed to the status quo, if there is any party that has no vision-


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Get to the bill.


Lloyd Axworthy: -if there is any party with the inability to respond to the changing conditions of society, it is the NDP. This is true particularly in relation to western Canada issues.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: If you are so progressive where are all your members from out west?


Lloyd Axworthy: Once again we can measure the degree to which the truth is being heard by the volume of the bellows coming from that small rump in the corner.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: You are one big joke.


Lloyd Axworthy: Particularly in western Canada have they shown themselves to be a party of no real feeling for the flow and ebb of change in that region. Only a few weeks ago we saw that when we were debating perhaps one of the most important and critical issues to the economic future of western Canada, the modernization of our transportation system, it was that party which buried its head in the sand, dug its feet in the dirt and said, "Thou shalt not change". They are afraid of change and reform. It is quite evident in the resolutions which they bring forward on opposition days that they are in defence of the past, of what was and what is and not what should and can be. They have no feeling for how human affairs can be managed and channelled in such a way as to provide for new opportunities.
I simply want to comment in a general way about how we see the NDP showing their true colors on opposition days. They show the colours of reaction and complete and total commitment to the way things were. I think it is important for all of us in the House to recognize that.
At the same time I should say that I deeply regret that we spend so much of the time of the House on motions like this which are frivolous in their commitment and objectives when there are so many more important matters we could be debating.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Go out to Vancouver and tell them that.


Lloyd Axworthy: When you think of the issues facing Canadians and of the important legislation which could be brought forward in terms of helping Canadians become employed-


Pauline Jewett: You have nothing to say.


Lloyd Axworthy: -helping to develop investment, or developing new policies in the energy field, while here we have to deal solely with the commitment of the NDP in the lower mainland of British Columbia and their concern about how they can get their vote out between five o'clock and eight o'clock, it makes you realize what a frivolous motion it is.


Pauline Jewett: That will come back to haunt you.


Lloyd Axworthy: Look how riled they are now.


Pauline Jewett: You are the one who will suffer from that one.


Lloyd Axworthy: We have really plunged to the centre of their concern. The fact is that while they have tried to candy this issue over by presenting it as one that is based upon broad principles of democratic and electoral reform, it really boils
May 20, 1982

down to a defence of a vested interest. It is a defence of what they think is their electoral advantage.
I think it is important to clear away the particular mythology contained in this resolution, and talk about the real issue of democratic electoral reform in this country and who has led the way. I would only remind the hon. members of the New Democratic Party, and perhaps even those members in the Conservative Party who might be interested from time to time in matters of democracy, that when it comes to electoral reform it was the Liberal Party which brought forward the single most important advance in the development of a democratic base across Canada with the development of the Election Expenses Act a few years ago. It provided for the deep and full participation of ordinary Canadians in the financing of their political parties. It provided Canadians with the ability to take financial control of the parties away from the big donors. In fact, the major beneficiary of that electoral reform has been the NDP. We have, in our generosity and munificence, enabled that party to establish a much broader range of fund-raising than ever before by providing tax write-offs and tax exemptions. Even its leader and party presidents have said, with some degree of self-satisfaction, that the most important basis for whatever electoral success they may enjoy has been due to the change which we brought forward, yet they have the audacity to say that we are not interested in the question of democratic reform and principles. Talk about their lack of appreciation for what we have done for them!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: We have provided them with the financial basis enabling them to preserve some remnant of responsibility on the electoral scene, but all they are concerned about is what happens on the lower mainland in terms of getting their votes out.
I think it is important to discuss electoral reform. It is a question with which we should always be concerned. We should always revamp, redress and revise the guidelines and rules by which we conduct our democratic society. That is why our House leader has put forward a number of important changes for parliamentary reform and democracy. How much more useful it would have been had the members of the NDP, rather than taking up the time of the House with a frivolus motion like this, said, "Well, let us use the time to debate that parliamentary reform so that we can improve procedures of the House and get more legislation through." We find, once again, that they are not really interested or committed to this question of how to bring about change and make improvements to the way in which the system works. What they are really concerned about is the protection of their own selfinterest. Yet they try to camouflage that in the broad rhetoric of the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent), the eastern member, to camouflage it in the proposal of the member from Ontario to help western Canadians.
Supply
For a moment let us discuss the tone and direction of the remarks of the hon. member for Oshawa in terms of why he feels that some denial is being made to the democratic rights of western Canadians. Where we must begin is with Bill C-113, the so-called electoral reform, which came about-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Axworthy: I am deeply appreciative of the support and response of the NDP members. Perhaps they are now beginning to understand what we are trying to say. The origin of that bill, the genesis of what we are talking about, emanated from western Canada. That was not something which was concocted in Oshawa, this was not something which was developed in the caucus room of the Ontario party of whatever stripe; this was something westerners requested. This was the result of a large and increasing demand by western Canadians for a change in the way and basis of organizing elections so that they would not feel separated when the vote came in. They clearly demonstrated that need and made a call for that change. What is even more remarkable-because we are hearing such a large volume of noise from the members of the NDP caucus from British Columbia-is that it was the province of B.C. which was most vociferous, most anxious and most concerned that this change be made. It was the people of British Columbia who were most deeply concerned that we make changes in this particular area. So I guess we can only conclude that the NDP members of Parliament from B.C. are not really representing the people of western Canada. Once again, they are simply representing their own particular selfinterest as a party, not as a democratic organization, and what they think is to their electoral advantage. It is not what is in the interests of the people of British Columbia or of western Canada.
It is important to recognize that in putting forward the reform in Bill C-113, what we are really saying is, first, that people should not have their hopes prejudged by election returns coming in earlier. It is simply a necessity, as this country stretches for thousands of miles from one end to the other. In the days of new electronic communication there is an obvious need to ensure that when people are still polling and making their choices on the west coast, we have not already made a selection on the east coast. Therefore, not only is this a way of trying to grade and rate the voting times, but also to ensure that the electronic media, particularly coming from the United States, would not be broadcasting the election results which, as we know from every political science study, have a very direct and compelling impact upon the choices people make.
The reforms proposed in Bill C-113 are designed to correct that eccentricity in the present electoral system and to ensure that people in western Canada are treated the same, in an equal way, in parity with those in the east, even though that is being denied at this moment by the NDP.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: What is more, this proposal has been broadly discussed and debated in the House. You should ask

May 20, 1982
Supply
the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Clarke), who brought in a virtually identical bill, and which was discussed. The hon. member from B.C. obviously does not understand that, because he obviously does not read the proposals put forward-


Arthur Ronald Huntington: I will be on my feet! I will reply to this garbage!


Lloyd Axworthy: -or even read the resolutions put forward by his own members. But that, as we realize, is typical behaviour on the part of Tory Members of Parliament, that they have so little interest in what is going on in their own caucus, let alone in this House, that they are not relevant to what is taking place.
The fact is that these reforms have already received extensive debate, both in the Senate chamber and in this chamber, in terms of coming to grips with that particular issue and trying to find ways of solving that problem.
The kind of assertions made by the hon. member for Oshawa, in Ontario, in presenting this resolution, has-


Pauline Jewett: He is a national leader!


Lloyd Axworthy: -somehow left the impression that if people in British Columbia had to go to the polls before 5.30, it would deny them their right to vote. He did not quite say so, but he was somehow hinting or leaving the impression that they would not have the same amount of time. However, what he really forgot was that it is clearly entrenched in Bill C-113 that every worker and every voter will have the right to receive four hours off to go and vote at any time during the day.


An hon. Member:: Look at the bill, Lloyd! Section 48(b)!


Lloyd Axworthy: Well, Mr. Speaker, we have looked at the bill. The fact is, that it is a clear and abiding part of that reform that any worker, any person, any voter has the right to get from the employer four hours to go and vote-


Pauline Jewett: On election day.


Lloyd Axworthy: -in advance polls or on election day. That is a choice. The fact that they deny it simply shows that they are so blinded and clouded by their own rhetoric that they do not see that that basic entrenchment and defence is there.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Lloyd Axworthy: It is surprising that they are taking so much of our time in such a frivolous way when, in fact, that protection is already inherently clear in the bill itself. However, I think that we have perhaps had an opportunity to look at other ranges of reform. I think that there is certainly good cause and reason to examine the issue of how people in western, central and Atlantic Canada may themselves have better representation. I, for one, would certainly welcome debate in this House on how we can change some of our fundamental national institutions to bring about reform of the electoral process. We should be talking about the way we come to grips with the basic issue of Senate reform, to provide a major opportunity for regional representation at the national level, based upon
representation by population. It is clear to me that the flaw in the democratic system, the flaw in our federalism, is that the second chamber, which was originally designed to ensure that the regions would gain full representation, is an appointed house and therefore does not carry with it the same degree of legitimacy that an elected body would have. Therefore, people in regions in which there are not heavy or large concentrations of population tend to put a great deal of emphasis, for example, in assuming that only the provincial governments can represent the regional interest.
As a result, we have not had the opportunity at the national stage to have those rejoinders openly debated and considered in an authoritative way and recognized in an authoritative way by the regions in which there are not heavy concentrations of population. How much more helpful it would have been, and how much more constructive, if we had received a resolution from the NDP considering that kind of reform, concerning how we go about changing the manner and form of representation in the Senate, or the manner and form of representation in the courts or in the Crown corporations or in the regulatory agencies, to ensure that our federalism would work much better and that western Canadians, those in the prairie provinces and in the Atlantic provinces would feel a much closer tie to the national arena than they presently do.
That, Mr. Speaker, would have been something that all members of the House could have bitten their teeth into and on which they could have had a good, useful, constructive, healthy and vital debate, one that would have a purpose to it, one that would have a reason to it, one that would have a rationale to it, not one that would simply serve the organizers of Vancouver east, which is really all that this bill is trying to do. It is set up to respond to the puppet calls of the west coast unions on their NDP members. That is all we are debating. It is a shame that we have such a cherished and valuable space of time in the House and we use it on measures such as this.
This party has certainly taken the lead in providing for parliamentary reform. It has provided a major leadership in electoral reform, with the Electoral Expenses Act. Now that we have our Constitution at home and a Bill of Rights, we are looking at further opportunities for changes in the political institutions, providing for a much broader debate on the way regions could be represented at the national level, to provide for a much broader and more open system of representation in Parliament and in the electoral system. That is the kind of debate we should be thinking of, not one that is based on pure, unadulterated, naked, political interest.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Chuck Cook (North Vancouver-Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, I find that what I have just heard is some of the worst kind of speaking in connection with an election reform act that I though I would ever hear here in this House. Not by one word
May 20, 1982

did the hon. minister say what this legislation is about. He chastised the NDP thoroughly; he chastised us thoroughly; and in his own way, whether he realizes it or not, he chastised his own party with those comments. And now he does not even have the fortitude to remain here to be taken apart.
Let me talk about this bill for a minute or two. I believe that election reform is a topic so important and so vital that it should not be part of partisan politics, yet that is what I have been hearing.


Lloyd Axworthy: 1 rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for North Vancouver-Burnaby (Mr. Cook) has suggested that I do not have the fortitude to stay. I would be most pleased to stay but, as I said at the beginning, Mr. Speaker, I am also required to appear before a committee, and 1 would hope the hon. member would at least respect that responsibility in his remarks.


Charles Henry (Chuck) Cook: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. minister wishes to go to a committee, he might find the remarks more easy to take if he reads them in Hansard tomorrow. I would excuse him on that basis and apologize to him for perhaps using intemperate language in watching him marching out of the House the minute I stood up. We have seen that with other ministers of the Crown. I find it offensive to the members of the House of Commons that it happens so often. In this case, you have a committee, so away you go!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Henry (Chuck) Cook: As I was saying, the question here is with regard to a bill on electoral reform. Electoral reform is not a partisan political issue. I believe all members of the House believe they are here because of the wisdom and the intellingence of the voters in their individual ridings. Certainly I do.
What is the question? How do we make it fair? It is the Canadian people, their right to vote, their ability to vote and their convenience to vote, that we are talking about. The question is also, how do we make it at the least cost to the nation and at the least cost to the business of the nation.
I must be partisan for one minute. 1 believe that this motion of the NPD was wrong. We will have a good deal of time to discuss this bill when it comes up for second reading. I would rather see them deal with some of the true issues, such as, economics, unemployment and what is taking place now. That is what they should have been discussing today, not these minor-minor, I say-changes to the electoral act. That is the problem. These are minor changes to the electoral act, when we need all of the recommendations that can be made in connection with changes. What have they done? They gave us one little change. Now they are giving us another little change. Why can we not have it all at the same time, so that it can all be discussed properly?
The problem with this bill to me, as a member from British Columbia, is the hours. It suggests closing the polls at 5.30 in the afternoon, 6.30 mountain time; 7.30 in the east; and 8.30 in the maritimes and Newfoundland. That is fine. It hardly
Supply
makes any change whatsoever in central Canada, but it is a severe impediment in British Columbia.
I have basically a suburban riding. Most of the people in my riding do not get home before 5.30 in the afternoon. They talk about the four hours off or three hours off under this bill, that you are entitled to. That is absolute nonsense, because of the cost. I have a telegram here. The Employers' Council of British Columbia has already made a quick study of this bill. They represent something like 140 major companies in British Columbia. They represent 600,000 workers. They determined that if this bill is passed, it is likely to cost the economy of B.C.-and this is only this group, this 600,000 worker group, 140 companies-$30 million every time there is an election. It is wrong. It should not cost $30 million. That is what it will cost in British Columbia. What will it cost in Ontario? Absolutely nothing. Is this fair?
The minister spoke about everyone being treated the same, everyone being treated in an equal way. Well, they are not being treated equally in B.C. under this particular bill. Sure we are annoyed, sure there is that small sign of alienation when we get the results from the east long before our own polls close.
That is not the real cause of the alienation. There are other causes as well. There are ways this could be made equal, but the government has not even taken a look at it. I am referring to this suggestion, and I only put this out as a suggestion because I have not read about its being discussed, if it has been discussed. Let us have a two-day election, from noon until eight p.m. in each region of the country and then, the second day, the polls can be closed at four o'clock in the afternoon in British Columbia. Let us make it two days.
The briefing papers to the cabinet say it is impossible to protect ballot boxes. That is absolute nonsense. Let me make another suggestion. Why not have our elections on Sundays when no one is working or when a very few people in essential services are working? Why not a Sunday election day so that everyone can vote?


An hon. Member:: We go to church.


Charles Henry (Chuck) Cook: All right, let us do it another way. Why should a national election day in Canada not be considered a national holiday? We could use one of the national holidays we already have. Goodness knows, we have enough of them. If we are having a national election day, that day would become a national holiday. Perhaps that would emphasize that people should be wanting to vote and getting out to do so.
To close the polls at 5.30 in the afternoon on the west coast would be an impediment to voters. That would make it that much more dificult for them to get to the polls, and it would be unfair. It would not solve the problem they want addressed. The only thing it would do would be to cause all polls across the country to close at the same time, and that is dead wrong for British Columbia.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Also for Alberta.

May 20, 1982
Supply


Charles Henry (Chuck) Cook: Alberta is basically in the same position, except that Alberta gets another hour, which we on the west coast do not get.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: And the Yukon as well.


Charles Henry (Chuck) Cook: I am totally in agreement with the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp). There are three vacancies in the Elouse of Commons. Three constituencies are not represented here, and it does not look as if they will be for a very long time. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) could call byelections tomorrow. Efe has not done so yet, and he does not have to do so until September. Even when he does call them, perhaps in the fall, he can set any date he likes, up to 1985, for the byelections to be held. This is an area of reform of electoral law which could be addressed very easily and should be addressed very quickly.
The whole idea of this motion today is to deal with the government's bill. It is a way to bring on discussion about the bill. I agree with members of the New Democratic Party, particularly those from British Columbia, and I share their concerns about the bill. Some ridings in the Kootenays are 500 miles long. Some foresters and miners have to travel for up to two hours to get to polling stations. I have great sympathy for the point of view of members of the New Democratic Party on this matter. Everyone in this country has the right to vote at a reasonable time, and the bill would deny that to my province.
The government briefing paper to which I referred earlier was a memorandum to the cabinet dealing with this matter. I gave a copy of it to the hon. member for Provencher, not knowing he would say some of the things I wanted to say.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Say them again.


Charles Henry (Chuck) Cook: The briefing paper says:
A recent Gallup poll showed that 65 per cent of respondents (74 per cent in British Columbia) would favour legislation to delay the counting of eastern ballots until the polls are closed in the West.
This is what the government gets in a briefing paper:
This option itself is easily dismissed as impractical, because of the problems it would create in terms of keeping ballot boxes secure and making election workers put in an unreasonably long day.
Well, tough apples! It is about time eastern Canada put in a little longer day than we on the west coast do, and that is the solution right there. Ballots in the east should not be counted until polls in the west close at a reasonable time. That would solve the problem easily. It would accomplish the objective with only a little, shall we say, inconvenience to other parts of the country rather than making the west always the region which has to make do and change. Having polls in Vancouver close at 5.30 in the afternoon would deny 20 per cent to 40 per cent of the electorate their opportunity to get out and vote. Anyone who thinks that is fair certainly does not understand or have an appreciation or any feeling for western Canada. The bill is supposed to help reduce western alienation. All the government is doing is making western alienation more severe. The government will be seriously criticized for that by people in the west. I have a difficult enough time defending the national government as it is right now. For heaven's sake, the
government should withdraw this bill. It is not right. It is not what we want. It will not do what the government says it will. By the government's attempting to put it through, it will only increase western alienation.


Mr. Ted Miller (Nanaimo-AIberni):: Mr. Speaker, when I listened to the speech made by the first speaker for the Progressive Conservatives tonight, I thought we would have a fairly reasonable debate on this very important bill, but we can always count on the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) to lower the level of debate in this chamber. Every time there is an opposition day it is unfortunate that that minister comes into the House and lowers the level of debate so that we cannot deal with anything of any substance.
The minister said he was upset to be discussing this today because there are all kinds of other issues and this is not an important one. We have been debating very important issues on opposition days, and this is one. We have been debating unemployment, energy policy and interest rate policy, but what have we seen coming from this government? We have seen no change in those policies, despite what the minister might refer to as a reasoned and logical debate. I think the Minister of Employment and Immigration has done a disservice tonight not only to the opposition parties but also to his own party.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: And that is not easily done.


Edward Allan Miller: Why are we dealing with this issue tonight? The issue relates to some of the other economic issues in western Canada which we have been debating over the years and on which we have been looking for some action. The minister should be aware that workers in British Columbia have already had their jobs taken away by him. There are 148,000 people in British Columbia no longer working as a result of the economic policies followed by this government, and we are in the House tonight to see that the government does not also take away their right to vote.
The history of the bill we are talking about tonight is interesting, and so is the intention of the government in introducing it. The Liberal government senses that there is alienation and anger in western Canada. It is reacting in this way as a sop to British Columbia. The government is saying it will close the polls in British Columbia at the same time they close in the rest of Canada, without looking at the implications for working Canadians in British Columbia, Alberta and Yukon. This is discrimination on a regional basis and, to some extent, on a class basis. Workers who go to work early in the morning and come home late at night have difficulty meeting their polling obligations and responsibilities. This is class discrimination, and it is discrimination against the west, which already feels alienated from the federal government.
The anger in the west is caused not so much by the fact that the east votes early or that the east votes for one party and not another but because of the cynicism with which the Liberals approach the electorate. The 1980 election campaign was
May 20, 1982

geared to Ontario and Quebec, and the issue was energy prices. When the election returns were beamed out to British Columbia on American cable, there was anger felt by both Conservative Party supporters and NDP supporters, who knew full well that that cynical campaign resulted in a federal government not supported in western Canada, with the exception of two constituencies. There is anger in the people of British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. They are not anti-Canada. They did not mind that election results came in a little latter in western Canada than they did in the rest of Canada, but the results frustrated their desires and optimism even before their polls were closed.
What we are talking about is the history of the bill to which 1 refer. This matter was dealt with in the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. A bill was introduced by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Clarke), who suggested that polls be closed at a uniform time. He suggested polls open in British Columbia at 8 a.m. and close at 4 p.m., which would even be worse than what the government is proposing in its bill. The government must have been listening to Senator Jack Austin, who brought in a private member's bill in the Senate which would have accomplished the same thing. It would have closed polls in British Columbia at six o'clock in the evening. It seems to me that the discussion and consultation the government carried out was not with the people of western Canada. It was not with the people of Newfoundland or the Atlantic provinces. That bill is something which came out of the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. This was the result of a discussion by a small group of people on the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections who thought it might be a reasonable course of action, but there was no debate or discussion in western Canada to alleviate some of the concerns of the voters there.
In committee, as reported at page 5 of the proceedings, the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra had this to say:
In fact, talking to many poll workers, I find that the crowd tends to come between 5:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m., in other words, during the last three or four hours of the day.
People are accustomed to voting after work, or when working parents can spell each other, or when workers come out of the woods or in from fishing.
The attitude of the Minister of Employment and Immigration surprises me, Mr. Speaker. I do not believe that the government is so committed to this change that it will not consider having the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections conduct further surveys on the question in western Canada. Certainly the Conservative members who speak for people in western Canada, and particularly in British Columbia, and of course members of the New Democratic Party, have indicated that there was some phony reasoning on the government's part regarding this program.
The Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council (Mr. Smith) was on that committee, and on June 9,
Supply
1981, as reported at page 8 of the proceedings, he had this to say:
I wonder if the theoretical benefit is worth the real pain or inconvenience 1 suspect some people may find if-I am sure if you closed polls in B.C. at 4 p.m., the percentage of people who voted would drop. I have no way of knowing that for sure, but I suspect it really would. I will be interested in hearing the views of the western members. Quite frankly, it would not bother me, but I am just not sure there is evidence to show that the benefits would outweigh the pain or inconvenience.
This was in reference to a private member's bill introduced by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra. On the same day and at the same meeting, as reported at page 11 of the proceedings, the hon. member for York East (Mr. Collenettc) said:
The election clock I suppose is more of a political question, and Mr. Smith brought up a couple of points that are interesting. 1 suppose speaking personally as a Liberal if uniformity is going to increase the Liberal vote in the west, then I am in favour of it, because that was the corollary of the argument which Mr. Smith put forward.
It is unfortunate that we cannot view this matter through the eyes of the people of British Columbia. The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra did introduce a private member's bill, as he is entitled to, which dealt with this matter but despite that I do not think the Conservative Party is wedded to the proposition.
When the Minister of Employment and Immigration spoke about consultation I had to wonder who he was referring to. I am sure that in the next few days he and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) will receive a number of letters from small business people who are concerned about the provisions of the bill and about the expense they may have to incur in freeing their employees between 1.30 and 5.30 p.m. Does the government intend to close down the schools in British Columbia, the Yukon and parts of Alberta at 1.30 p.m. or 2.30 p.m. so that the teachers may have their four hours free to vote? Does the same apply to manufacturing plants and government offices and industries?
The minister should ask the Prime Minister to show him some of the telegrams he received today. They came from the British Columbia and Yukon Territory Building and Construction Trades Council; Jack Munro, the President of the IWA, representing thousands of forestry workers in British Columbia and the United Steelworkers of America in Vancouver, who are all opposed to Bill C-113. These are the people the parliamentary committee should consult before making decisions about parliamentary reform. These things should not be left to members of Parliament, who often have a jaundiced view of reality from Parliament Hill.
I would urge the parliamentary secretary to look upon this debate as a positive thing instead of dismissing it, a course of action which the Minister of Employment and Immigration seems to favour.
There are alternatives, Mr. Speaker. The problems faced in British Columbia, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and the Yukon must be addressed. People there are concerned about knowing the result of the election before they go to vote.

May 20, 1982
Supply
The member of the Conservative Party who spoke ahead of me indicated that there was a possibility of delaying the count in eastern Canada, but I do not think that is a practical proposition. It would mean asking the scrutineers in Newfoundland to sit around for four and a half hours before starting to count. That is not logical. Indeed, we might have some interesting results from Newfoundland-perhaps the NDP would elect six members there, depending on what the scrutineers were doing for that four and a half hours! Perhaps we should try it for a year to see how it works out. There is the possibility of counting the votes but not releasing the results. I think there could be some difficulty with that, however.
We should consider tightening the broadcast provisions in the Canada Elections Act and the broadcast regulations under the CRTC. There is also the possibility of imposing harsher penalties on cablevision companies that violate the Canada Elections Act or the Broadcasting Act. Perhaps there could be a delay in the message reaching British Columbia and the prairie provinces. We must not disenfranchise the voters of British Columbia.
This bill is a sop to British Columbia and to western Canada from a Liberal government that has no idea how to react to the real concerns of western Canada. These are concerns about the economy, about employment, about technology and all the things on which British Columbians and people in Saskatchewan have been seeking direction from the government for some time.
For the Minister of Employment and Immigration to criticize this party for moving a motion of this nature shows he has lost contact with the constituency in western Canada. As my colleague, the hon. member for New Westminster-Coquit-lam (Miss Jewett) says-if he ever had it.
The issue we are dealing with tonight is an important one, Mr. Speaker. I would hope that if the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council has some comments to make it will be to tone down the Liberal side of this debate and to suggest there is some room to negotiate a change in Bill C-113 before it goes any further. I am sure if he were to talk to the opposition parties and consult some of the groups in British Columbia and the prairie provinces, he would make more friends out there-if that is what they are looking for-by doing that rather than trying to force this on us with the excuse tha'. it is democratic and will make for uniform voting hours rignt across the country.


David P. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I will be quite brief because I am fully aware that a lot of time was taken up earlier today on a question of privilege and the NDP did not get the debate on their motion started until about 5.30 o'clock.
It is important to keep several things in mind when looking at the issue before us, just to keep it in perspective. First, this bill is not about to be rammed through. Whether or not we get
to second reading debate during this session remains to be seen; we do have a pretty heavy agenda. But in the event that it does go through second reading, it would of course go to committee where there will be ample opportunity for amendments to be moved, which amendments will be given serious consideration by this side of the House. Also, I think it is very important to look at the origins of this bill. If someone came into the House tonight for the first time they might somehow get the impression that this bill represents a heinous and dastardly plot cooked up in the minds of Liberal members. Of course, that is not correct. What happened is that the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Clarke), a western Conservative, introduced a private member's bill which would do more or less exactly what the bill in question here tonight does. In addition, the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour), a western Conservative, also introduced a bill to the same effect. Therefore, to suggest that this is somehow a Liberal plot simply is at odds with the facts.
Any suggestion, Mr. Speaker, that because of this bill people in the west will be disenfranchised is also totally untrue. The number of hours that polls will be open would be the same throughout Canada. Why does this idea seem to have some appeal to some western members? Well, it may interest the hon. member for Nanaimo-Alberni (Mr. Miller) to know that when I was a boy going to Sir James Douglas school, Central Junior high and Victoria high school, all on Vancouver Island, a favourite item in the litany of western grievances was that what happened in the west as far as elections were concerned did not really count because it was all decided back in the east. I always felt that was a bit of a misconception. If you wanted to blame anyone, I suppose you could blame God because the sun moved from east to west. Had God arranged it so that the sun moved from west to east, perhaps we would have this complaint from the people in eastern Canada.
In any event, the reason for this bill was a desire on the part of this government to be responsive to a western concern. The idea was not spawned in our minds but in the minds of a couple of western Conservative members who presented private members' bills. We on this side of the House, in our continual effort to be reasonable and responsive-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David P. Smith: -listened in order to try to do what we can to address the problem of western alienation. We said, well, perhaps they have a good idea here, let us show some responsiveness and go along with it. The idea seems to have a fair bit of merit. That is really what it is all about. I think anyone who approaches this issue with an open mind would have to admit that the government is in that well-known position of being damned if it leaves things as they are and damned if it tries to rectify things as we propose to do with this bill.
I do not want to take any more time away from opposition members, but let us bear in mind that this is not a Liberal plot. It is, rather, a move on the part of the government in response
May 20, 1982

to a couple of private members' bills moved by opposition members from the west who felt this was a reasonable way to address an historical grievance. What it boils down to is that this government is concerned about the extent of western alienation and it has tried to listen and go along with what has been presented as being a reasonable way to try to eliminate one of these historical grievances. After second reading it will go to committee where there will be an opportunity for clause by clause examination, and hon. members opposite can move all the amendments they want. 1 can assure them that the government will listen to and judge those amendments on their merits with the same reasonableness and responsiveness which I have indicated here tonight.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Speaker, first I want to point out one of the fundamental differences between the two parties of the socialist alliance.


David P. Smith: We are free enterprisers.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: The parliamentary secretary shouts across the floor that members of the Liberal Party are free enterprisers. Never in the history of the democratic world has a party, going under the label of liberalism, done so much damage to the free enterprise movement or the spirit of free enterprise in the world. The tragedy is that you keep trying to tell them this, but their minds are so locked in they cannot hear you. They cannot hear the people. They cannot even read the polls or the message from the recent election in Saskatchewan with respect to the socialist alliance between them and the NDP.
However, one thing I want to say on behalf of the NDP is that, in my opinion, they have a tremendous respect for the parliamentary democratic system. In that regard I have the utmost respect for them, although I do not always agree with their ideas and their desire to have the state control all the means of production. However, I am prepared to debate that strongly and openly with them in the parliamentary system. On the other hand, the Liberals use the free enterprise label, use the trust that people had in them, to move this country away from a participatory democracy into that of a leadership democracy. That is why I am rather pleased that the NDP have used an opposition day to talk about Bill C-113 and to give warning that it is totally unacceptable to that part of the country I come from, namely, British Columbia. I appreciate the work that the hon. member for Nanaimo-Alberni (Mr. Miller) has done on this issue and his warning that if this bill comes forward it will disenfranchise those of us who live in British Columbia, Alberta and the Yukon. I have said that I respect him. I put the same kind of importance on this matter as members of the New Democratic Party do. I think it is an important measure because to me the participatory democratic parliamentary system in this country is being threatened. We have moved into a leadership type of democracy, which I think is a very serious move.
I thank the NDP for this opportunity that I have been given to speak on their opposition day motion.
Supply


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Arthur Ronald Huntington: I will say it again, again and again because hon. members on the opposite side just cannot hear. If I ever heard an arrogant, irresponsible speech from a minister, it was the one made in this House tonight which the only minister elected from western Canada gave. I think he did the Liberal Party right across the land a great deal of harm. I am sure the west will just accept it for the arrogance and ignorance that has been displayed in this House tonight. There is no respect on the other side of the House for democracy. Power is the issue. It is power at any price. It is arrogance that "we will lead, that we will not listen. We do not have to listen to you. We have the power, and that is it."
Why are we in the west excited? It is pretty tough to pick up the phone at 5.30 in the afternoon, with two and a half hours yet to go in the polls, and to learn the results as they are coming in from Atlantic and central Canada. You can defeat a cabinet minister which might be a great personal victory for all the people who were involved in a democratic election, but it is sure a downer when you know the results for the country have been decided two and a half hours before voting is finished in the west.
We heard an awful lot in the constitutional debate on fairness and equity. We heard about treating people equally and that different parts of the country are entitled to fairness. But if we are going to have that fairness, surely the government should withdraw Bill C-113. Bill C-l 13 gives a different time schedule for each of the time zones across the country. As a nation, Canada has four and half different time zones. Our challenge is to manage that difference. I think the people in each of the different time zones should have the polls open to them through the same hours of the day. The polls open at 9 a.m. and close at 8 p.m. in eastern, central or mountain time. Therefore, they should be opened at 9 a.m. and close at 8 p.m. in the Pacific standard time zone and in the Yukon time zone. I think that is only fair. As you move west, particularly as it affects B.C. and Alberta, the schedule set out in Bill C-l 13 puts an unequal burden on the employment sector of the country. After all, this whole economy lives on the ability of people to generate wealth and pay taxes. The employers' council in B.C. has stated that an unfair and unequal burden is placed on its members by the polls closing at 5.30 p.m. I accept that. We have heard many suggestions here tonight. We have heard the suggestions put forward by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quandra (Mr. Clarke) in a private member's bill. You will find that my remarks will even be at odds with some of my colleagues from this party who have spoken. But you know, Mr. Speaker, we have not caucussed on this motion nor have we caucussed on the principles of Bill C-l 13. We are using an opposition day to supply warnings and to get some discussions which might allow us to come up with something that is fair and equitable for each of the time zones across the country.
As a westerner, we have never been able to understand why the polls just do not run through and why they do not keep the

May 20, 1982
Supply
ballot boxes from Newfoundland, the Atlantic and Quebec closed and only start to count the votes when the polls close out west. However, that suggestion has been pointed out to me as being quite impractical. We have volunteers, scrutineers, poll captains and all the paraphernalia and staffing of a polling station. Those people would be sitting for some four and a half hours before the counting could start. 1 know if I were in Newfoundland or somewhere else in Atlantic Canada I would not be sipping tea or coffee while waiting for four or four and a half hours. It would be pretty difficult to keep the crew of volunteers together. That suggestion really has a down side and does not make too much sense.


An hon. Member:: It would be one big party.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: It would be one big party and there would be a lot of recounts in the days following.


Mr. Prud'homme:: Be careful. Could I ask a question Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Will the hon. member for Capilano accept a question from the hon. member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme)?


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Speaker, if it will give me some peace and quiet, yes.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, I ask the hon. member very kindly to be very careful because more and more we have to be careful of what we say in the House. 1 do not know what he implies by these difficulties that may take place in the east, that there may be a lot of recounts. What does the hon. member imply by that, that an easterner would do what?


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the hon. member move out of his province and into the Atlantic provinces to learn some of the folklore, the life and the way things happen. Perhaps after that he could come out west to see what happens when a group of hard-working volunteers with common objectives get together with four and a half hours to kill.
The opening of the ballot boxes at a uniform time across the country is impractical. Perhaps we can solve the problem by having the same voting hours in each of the different time zones. I think it would be fair and equitable if we had a 14-hour period after the polls are closed before the ballot boxes of the country are opened.
We stay up all night watching the returns trickle in. But you can go to bed and wake up in the morning and still not have the complete results. Therefore, if we had, say, a space of 14 hours in each of the time zones following the closing of the boxes before the scrutineers and the returning officers assemble in each of the ridings to count the ballots, perhaps we can deliver the equity and fairness that we in the west certainly want because of the handicap of time zones across the country. That is one suggestion we might look at.
Personally I think we will be in serious trouble if we accept the time schedule which the hon. member for Vancouver
Quadra put forward in his private member's bill, which the government has now picked up and put in Bill C-113. However, I would also remind you, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra was speaking in a far broader context. He wanted the polls opened fewer hours, but he also wanted to widen the franchise to ensure that no one is prevented from voting by reason of change of residence. He wanted to make it easier for proxy votes. He did not want this only for students, fishermen, mariners and air crews. He wanted to eliminate the need for registrar's certificates for students and eliminate the need for medical certificates for the sick. Those other things were what he suggested in his private member's bill in the preparation of which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) lent his efforts. He opened up the whole issue for discussion. As everyone in this House knows, private members' bills do not come out of caucus committees, caucus sessions and debate.
Let us see what would happen if you were to go ahead with the closing of the polls at 5.30. In my riding of Capilano we have a very narrow bridge which was built in 1933-1934. Quite often there is an accident on that bridge which jams up the flow of traffic. Sometimes you can be in those traffic jams for an hour and a half to three hours. What do you think would happen in a situation like that? I do not think you could risk closing the polls at 5.30, because people may be unable to vote.
What about the people who work in downtown Vancouver? They have to travel the artery to Highway 1 to the Fraser Valley. If an accident occurs on that highway, there is a traffic jam. The risks of a 5.30 closing in British Columbia and on the lower mainland are extremely serious in that it might prevent people from exercising their franchise. There would also be a rush because 74 per cent of the people vote between six and eight o'clock in the afternoon on polling day. There would still be a tendency to allow that. If people rushed to the doors of the polling stations at 5.30 o'clock, what is the returning officer or the poll captain to do? Should they shut the doors, leaving an angry mob outside? Should they allow them to come in and have confusion in the polling stations? There are very, very serious hazards in any change in the system which would move closing time from eight o'clock to 5.30 in British Columbia. It is very unfair. It will increase regional alienation in Canada rather than decrease it. We must look at a positive time after the polls close but before the counting starts in order to give the country the equity it needs.
I have another misapprehension. Members of the NDP seem to want to put more regulations, controls, fines and penalties on the media. The problem is not the media in eastern Canada leaking the count as it moves west. Anyone in western Canada can pick up the telephone and call a friend in Ontario, Quebec or Nova Scotia; the results are available to anyone who is interested in the policital process. If we start to regulate the media-television, radio and the press-that regulation will have to spill over into the United States because the United
May 20, 1982

States is indifferent to what happens in politics in Canada. Its television stations or news hours on radio discuss the early Canadian returns. The only way to stop communications which cause stresses and strains within the country is to include a period of delay before the counting starts, not by threatening everyone with fines and more regulations or with a big iron fist in their faces. Then the count would come out with everyone having voted not knowing in advance of poll closing what others have done.
I have covered the points which I consider to be important. I urge the government to withdraw Bill C-113. It should not bring it forward. The government should rethink the time schedules in Clause 2(5). It should get away from that approach altogether, or it will cause more alienation in the west. I have tried to keep my reasoning as cool and calm as I can on this issue and on the bill which could have a disastrous effect upon the entire democratic process in my particular region. If the government carries on with Bill C-113, it will disenfranchise the voters of British Columbia, Yukon and Alberta. It should hear some of the comments expressed in this debate, rethink the issue, meet in caucus on it, and come up with something which will work and be good for the country.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, as a member of the House of Commons from western Canada, I should like to express the concerns of my constituents and of many people who live in western Canada about Bill C-113. It is amazing that the Liberal government is asking, in this particular bill, the people in British Columbia and Yukon to vote before 5.30 o'clock. Let me explain the problem I foresee. In my rather short experience I have worked as a campaign organizer, campaign manager and as an official agent in various election campaigns. I know that the majority of voters are people who work.
Let me explain what happens in a city like Thompson, Manitoba. At two o'clock on election day a campaign worker will receive a telephone call, for example, from a plant worker who has been told by his employer that he can have four hours off to vote, but this means that the employee is required to go to his boss and request time off to vote. A large number of Canadian voters cannot vote because they are unable to obtain the time off they wish. Some cashiers, clerks and persons who stock shelves, have requested time off to vote, and employers have said no. Some employers have not allowed employees the four hours off to vote. Certainly all voters want to vote, but under our system employers can determine who can vote and who cannot vote.


Marcel Prud'homme: This is why the Liberals are so weak in the west.


Rodney Edward Murphy: The Liberals do not seem to care. A Liberal member right across from me is saying that it does not matter.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. 1 will never let this young colleague of ours get away with a comment such as that. That is not what I said. Too often we allow such comments to go unnoticed. This is not what I said.
Supply
The hon. member should listen more attentively. I do not want such comments to be registered under my name because it is not what I said. If the hon. member did not hear, he can always check the "blues" later.


An hon. Member:: He never referred to you by name; don't be so sensitive.


Marcel Prud'homme: Well, I am the only one across from him.


Rodney Edward Murphy: I did not realize that there was only one Liberal member across from me. If he was the only Liberal member heckling, then of course this applies to him. If there were other Liberal members heckling-


Mr. Fisher:: Name them!


Mr. Hopkins:: What do you mean by "if'?


Marcel Prud'homme: Get back to your speech.


Rodney Edward Murphy: -then he has no right at all to rise on a point of order. Let me be more precise by referring to what will happen to western Canadians who live in British Columbia, Yukon or in Saskatchewan. With this legislation proposed by the Liberal government, people will be able to vote by 5.30 at night or 6.30 at night, but they will only get time off to vote when their employers decide to give it to them. Employers can decide when employees receive four hours off work to vote, or when employees can obtain four hours off to vote in any advance poll.
Until the present time there have been many problems with employers-and I use Safeway of Canada as an example- saying that employees can have time off if they want it. The employer says, "You can have the time if you want". There are many situations where the employee will go to his manager, whether or not he is unionized, to say that he does want the four hours allowed to him by Canadian law in order to vote. The employer will say to him that he does not appreciate the fact that he wants to go to vote. The employer asks, "Are you sure you want those four hours?" As someone who has been a campaign manager and organizer in the past, I know that people do not get thosS four hours. Those employers who do not care for the rights of employees say, "You do not want that right," If you happen to live in the riding of Provencher, I am sure that the member who represents that riding or some other member would not support you in that particular case.
I have had to fight during every federal or provincial election I have been involved in to convince the employer that all employees have a right to vote. All employees have the right to have four hours in which to vote. Just review what this legislation says.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am sure that the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy), in putting forward his argument, does not want to be completely misleading and does not want to insult the highest percentage

May 20, 1982
Supply
of employers across Canada by saying that workers have to come and ask their permission to vote. I have been around a long time and I have yet to know of an employee who had to come to ask for permission to vote. They are entitled to four hours and they get it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is presenting an argument. The hon. member for Churchill has the floor.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, to answer the point of order, which was not one, I know from my own personal experience there are many workers who have had to go to their employer to ask for time off to vote.


Monique Bégin: Name them.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Safeway. I also know that in my riding-


Monique Bégin: Name them.


Rodney Edward Murphy: I have just named one.


Monique Bégin: Name the others.


Rodney Edward Murphy: If the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) is that concerned, the government would be doing something about it. I will not spend my time listing all of them. I have named one employer.
The point is that under the present legislation in Canada-


Arthur Ronald Huntington: That is very misleading.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Under the present legislation in Canada and the Conservatives do not give a damn-


Marcel Prud'homme: Oh, come on!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, and possibly a question of privilege. I thought that the debate today was relatively non-partisan on the basis that this was an approach to solve what has developed as an electoral problem. For any member to get up and say that a party does not care about electoral reform is going too far in terms of debate.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member is not making a point of order. The hon. member for Churchill has the floor.


Rodney Edward Murphy: The point I am making is that there are employers in my riding, as I am sure there are in ridings of other members, who have denied their workers the right to have four hours off to vote. Since the Conservatives and the Minister of National Health and Welfare are heckling me, I must say that they do not care about the people whom I represent who have a valid concern, which I am sure other constituents have also. If I am being heckled on that point I must assume that Members of Parliament do not care.
The point I am making is that this legislation contains two main provisions. It says that in the province of British Columbia and the Yukon territories you must vote by 5.30 at night. It also states that the employer has the right to designate on which day you can vote. Under the present legislation, you are entitled to have four hours off in order to vote on
election day. All employers in Canada are required to give their employees this time off on election day. However, the sneaky provision in this legislation, which both the Tories and the Liberals know of, is that only the employer is allowed to determine on what day the employee can vote.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: That is nonsense.


Rodney Edward Murphy: That is exactly what the legislation provides for.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: You do not even know the act.


Rodney Edward Murphy: I am surprised that the Conservative party thinks I do not know the act. I do not think that they know the act.
I will tell you what the legislation really means. I have been an employee. I have been told that I can have four hours off when the employer decides. 1 know that this situation is true, I am not making it up. I am talking from my own experience because I have been told that I can vote when my employer decides. One section of this legislation allows the employer to decide that his employee may vote any one of the advanced polling days. I can give an example of what this means. There is a particular plant in British Columbia where the polls close at 5.30. This plant where employees are represented by the IWA, will determine, for example, that a particular group of employees who traditionally vote NDP can vote on Wednesday, another group may vote on Thursday and that management can vote on election day. That is what this legislation provides for. That is what the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Clarke) and Senator Austin are saying. The employer will determine the day on which the employee can vote. If the Conservatives are not concerned about that, let them say so on their own time instead of complaining right now.
It is quite obvious that the only group who will suffer from a 5.30 closing and from the right given to employers to decide when to vote are the working people of Canada.
I have been talking mainly about unionized employees. It is a group which is well represented and defended. What will happen to the non-unionized employees? Can you imagine a non-union employee who lives in Vancouver, for example, or the interior of British Columbia, telling his employer that he has to vote by 5.30 but lives a 90-minute or even a two-hour drive from his polling station? I do not expect the Liberals to understand because they do not have any members in the west.


An hon. Member:: Buy a faster car!


Rodney Edward Murphy: Go to your seat and you can speak when it is your turn and prove what kind of a fool you are.


Some hon. Members:: Order!


David P. Smith: Come on, now.
May 20, 1982


Rodney Edward Murphy: If the hon. member wants to speak from behind the curtains, he is obviously a fool.
But the problem, quite obviously, is that those people cannot go to their employers and say, "I want to vote on election day." What will happen? Quite honestly, when the employer decides that he can vote on election day, or any number of the advance poll days, the employer could be in a position, based on his or her own judgment, to say, "I will let those voters who agree with me vote on the day that 1 think is reasonable, and the IWA members, the steelworkers, the metalworkers and the fishermen, will vote when I determine. 1 will give them early morning on a Wednesday to vote and I will tell them that morning, when they arrive at work." I do not know the intention of the government, and I am very suspicious as to the intentions of the Official Opposition, but I will tell hon. members that this is not legislation which the working people of Canada want and it is certainly not legislation which the working people of western Canada want. If the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) and the hon. member from B.C., the former minister of-


An hon. Member:: Small business.


Rodney Edward Murphy: -yes, the very small-minded businessman- do not know what the people, the workers want, then I will say this: listen to those workers once they find out what that legislation is, because that legislation means they will not be able to vote, and that is all it means. They will not be able to vote and those-


Some hon. Members:: Time!


Rodney Edward Murphy: -hon. members from the Tory Party who supported this, as it was their idea in the first place, and those hon. members from the Liberal Party who supported this, including Senator Austin, are saying that they do not want the working people of Canada to vote, and when that is the case, we might as well be back in fifteenth or sixteenth century England.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Provencher rises on a point of order.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: My point of order is simply that the motion we have before us and Bill C-113, which was developed out of a private member's motion, was not endorsed by the Conservative Party, and it would be refreshing if the hon. member stayed with the original point.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I gave the hon. member an opportunity to speak previously. I recognize the hon. member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme).


Mr. Crosby:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Halifax West rises on a point of order.


Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, I fully appreciate the fact that the practices and precedents in the House permit you, as
Supply
Speaker and presiding officer, to recognize whomever you see fit to see. But the fact is that the tradition has developed whereby the representation has been recognized day after day and month after month in the House, and I stood in my place and you saw fit to recognize the hon. member-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member seeks-


Howard Edward Crosby: 1 ask you, Sir, what principles are you following?


David P. Smith: It is a slight to the Chair.


Howard Edward Crosby: Of course it is.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair has been trying to observe, as scrupulously as possible, the traditional principles of the House, bearing in mind that this is an opposition motion from the New Democratic Party. At this stage, the Chair has very little option but to recognize the spokesman from the government side of the House.


Howard Edward Crosby: Why?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I recognize the hon. member for Saint-Denis.


An hon. Member:: Two minutes.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, I am even ready to give two minutes to the hon. member because I believe we should exchange views.


Howard Edward Crosby: Stick it in your ear.


Marcel Prud'homme: But I know that if the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker were here tonight, he would be very happy to see some of us-at least, that is what he wrote me-


An hon. Member:: Wrote you!


Marcel Prud'homme: -to see some of us standing up right now, who did not expect to participate in the debate, but that is exactly what the House of Commons is made of and made for.
I listened to the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) in his sanctimonious piety-and this is an acceptable term- saying, for instance, that he does not know what the government wants and that he is suspicious of the Official Opposition, meaning, of course, only that the members of the NDP, in their great piety, are the right ones to talk about that subject. If he would only read his own motion, and if he would only read Bill C-113 carefully, he would see that this is a proposal to be referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections. So the hon. members, after having expressed themselves in the House on second reading, having put forward the proposal, will not put the hatchet or the whip to the bill, but will only send the bill to the committee so that the hon. member for Churchill and the hon. member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby) could make their representations on behalf of their parties.

May 20, 1982
Supply
The hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) and the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser)-


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Capilano.


Marcel Prud'homme: -who have put forward proposals, could say, "I would like to combine some of the proposals in committee the philosophy behind what we are proposing-


Rodney Edward Murphy: You have no philosophy.


Marcel Prud'homme: The hon. member for Churchill had better be careful, because I once had the privilege of speaking in this district, and I see that his majority is being reduced more and more to the point of his being defeated, so he is not telling us anything new in this House. This is the reason for my participation. I did not expect to participate. But I heard him throwing all kinds of names up into the air, as though he were accusing some unknown Conservative and some unknown Liberal, of plotting together so that many people would not be able to vote, when he refers to the four hours allowed. If he has names to put forward, as he did earlier on in reply to the hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin), and if he thinks some illegalities were committed, the electoral law provides for it.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Absolutely.


Marcel Prud'homme: If someone deprives someone of voting, when the law stated that one is allowed four hours, one knows that this is illegal and that that person could be prosecuted. If the hon. member for Churchill has that many examples.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marcel Prud'homme: Be quiet, please. We are trying to be quiet here, but-and I do not name people-if the hon. member has a proposal or a complaint, there was a time to raise it and a law which provides for this. I was listening to him because I am very concerned about the alienation of the west, and the hon. member is talking to someone who will soon have been in the House of Commons for 19 years. I went to western Canada to speak, over 200 times, so I know what the hon. member is talking about. 1 know there is that kind of alienation. I am speaking as a Canadian, not as a Quebecer. I am speaking as a Canadian who is interested. I want to know why there is such alienation. This is exactly the meaning of this bill.


Rodney Edward Murphy: On a point of order.


Marcel Prud'homme: How can we cope with that?


Rodney Edward Murphy: Point of order.


Marcel Prud'homme: If we are wrong, we could amend our bill when we go to the committee. There is a point of order raised by my hon. colleague and friend, the hon. member for Churchill.


Howard Edward Crosby: Ten o'clock.


Rodney Edward Murphy: I realize, Mr. Speaker, that it may be a minor point, but I certainly did not attack the hon. member on where he is from and I did not attack his party from where it is from. The point is that there are people in this country who do not get to vote-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member is not raising a point of order.


Marcel Prud'homme: I still have two minutes, Mr. Speaker. It is two minutes before ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It being ten o'clock p.m., it is my duty to inform the House that pursuant to Section 11 of Standing Order 58, proceedings on the motion have expired.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Robert Gourd (Argenteuil-Papineau):: Madam Speaker, on April 21, 1980, I put a question in this House to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin). It has always been the same question, namely, when are we going to have a decision on the transfer of flights from Dorval to Mirabel? The minister answered that his goal was to transfer all air traffic, with the exception of short-haul domestic routes, and I believe this objective is still valid today. On December 2, 1980, Mr. Speaker, I again brought to the attention of the Minister of Transport the problems arising from Mirabel. Once more, the minister said that a decision was imminent. On February 18, 1981, I again asked the Minister of Transport about Mirabel and again, the minister said that studies had been made and that I would soon have a reply.
On March 23, Mr. Speaker, again in the House, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Bockstael) replied that studies had been prepared and that an announcement would be made shortly. On April 23, 1981, I again raised the subject of Mirabel in the House. On February 16, 1982, a delegation of 33 mayors from North Shore communities and some eighty councillors came here to ask the minister to give them some hope that a decision in the Mirabel case was forthcoming. In answer to a question I put to him in the House, the minister then replied that he was getting ready, in the minister's words, to table in cabinet in the days ahead, a
May 20, 1982

document that would help provide a solution to the Mirabel-Dorval problem. Furthermore, the minister promised before you, Mr. Speaker, to hand down a decision within the next three months.
Well, Mr. Speaker, on May 14, only a few days ago, I asked the Minister of Transport once again when we would be getting a decision. This evening, I see it as my duty to tell the House, as the representative of the people of Mirabel, the riding of Argenteuil-Papineau and the entire area north of Montreal, that mayors cannot make decisions and plan for their municipal operations because they are still waiting for a decision on what is going to happen to Mirabel. 1 am not asking the minister to tell me which flights he is going to transfer. J am asking for a decision on Mirabel. Mr. Speaker, It seems to me that I am not asking for the moon. All my North Shore colleagues have put pressure on the minister. All my North Shore colleagues have asked the minister for a reply, and this evening again I must address the Minister of Transport, through you, Mr. Speaker, and tell him: For heaven's sake, Mr. Minister, people have been waiting for a decision for ten years. After all, the government built the airport. It has been called a white elephant. It has been called all sorts of names, but Mr. Speaker, the people have a right to a decision on this issue, and it is this decision I am asking for, and I am asking for a decision as soon as possible.
[English\


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like once again to extend my congratulations to the hon. member for his perseverence and his sensitivity on a very controversial and difficult subject. All of us know he is impatient for an answer. We have heard his comments in the past. We sympathize with him, and by no means are we trying now to make any further difficulty either for him or for the people he represents. Instead, all of us feel it is important to come to a decision, as he has asked.
It is equally important to come to the right decision, and that involves a long and often complicated process. It is a very difficult matter involving interests which go in all directions. Simple desire for speed does not always result in a satisfactory solution. 1 think we have to have adequate evidence that all parties have been heard and that all the cases have been aired.
I would like to say, just as a quick side note, that 1 believe the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) is one minister who pays very close attention to all sides of a case. On the one hand, he is not afraid to come to grips with issues but, on the other hand, he does so in a way which allows all parties to express their feelings. Certainly the Mirabel case is one instance in which this is happening. The Crow rate case in the west is another.


Mr. Fraser:: VIA Rail was another.
Adjournment Debate


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Whether it is with respect to transportation of dangerous goods, harbours policy, air policy-


John Allen Fraser: VIA Rail.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: -or a wide range of other policies, we have seen this minister come to grips with very difficult issues and do so in a sensitive and democratic fashion.
It is precisely that pattern of behaviour I want to remind the hon. member is going on here. I appreciate the hon. member's impatience. I think he is doing an outstanding job in raising this issue in such a persistent way. At the same time I hope he too will recognize the need the minister has to be sensitive and democratic in his decision-making process.


SEARCH AND RESCUE-TAX EXEMPTION SOUGHT FOR WEST COAST HELICOPTER. (B) POSITION OF MINISTER
John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, some time ago a volunteer society in British Columbia, which has been working to establish a competent and efficient coast mountain rescue operation, purchased, with funds raised by volunteers, an American helicopter which was fitted out for mountain rescue and capable not only of helping to find people lost in the coast mountains but also of transporting them out, whether they are injured or not. The cost of this helicopter was $200,000. When the society had the helicopter at the border, the government moved in. The excise branch of the federal Department of National Revenue initiated a charge of $16,000 on the helicopter being brought into Canada. Of course, the volunteer society protested and said, "Why is this tax being imposed on this aircraft when aircraft for public use do not have that tax imposed on them?" In its intransigence the government said that the law-or the regulations; it has never made it very clear-do not allow any room to manoeuvre.
As a consequence of public attention and that of Members of Parliament, myself included, being brought to the matter, and of having written to the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Rompkey) asking whether this was as a consequence of statute law, regulation or government directive, we received the answer from the Minister of National Revenue that it was the law. He did not provide very much definition as to where the law was found, but that was the law, and nothing could be done.
In answer to a question I asked the other day the minister said:
I recognize that it does a valuable job-
That is, the society.
-but I am afraid under the present circumstances we have gone as far as we can in responding to it.
The fact is that the minister has not responded to this. All the minister has done is to say that whatever the law is he cannot change it. He has not addressed the central question in this issue and that is, what is the opinion of the government? Should this be taxed or should it not? What public purpose is

May 20, 1982
Adjournment Debate
served by taxing this particular aircraft? I suggest there is none.
When the minister says there is nothing he can do about it I would remind him and anyone who is listening, that as minister if he wants to change the Excise Tax Act-if that is necessary-if he wants to change the regulations-if that is necessary-then he can do that. No one else can but he can. Any crocodile tears that he sheds are just that; they are not sincere.
I want to point out that the minister apparently does not even know, perhaps his officials have not advised him, that under Section 17 of the Financial Administration Act, a remission can be given for this tax. As almost everyone knows, that section provides that the governor in council-that means cabinet-on the recommendation of the Treasury Board and whenever it is considered to be in the public interest, may remit any tax, fee or penalty.
The section is a lengthy one and it has been used many times in this country. As I said recently, Mr. Speaker, this is the reason that Canadians are so fed up with a government that has a majority and that could do something for a volunteer organization but will not do anything. Either the minister will not do anything because he does not know the law or has not the courage to try to change it or he is getting bad advice from his officials. In any event, absolutely nothing is being done, and that is a shame. The one thing that people are entitled to expect from a minister who has the power, is that if it is in the public interest to do something, then he will do it.
I should like to know from the parliamentary secretary, who has to answer for the minister tonight, why the minister will not avail himself of the courses available to him, including use of the Financial Administration Act, to correct this ridiculous situation. Everyone in the province of British Columbia thinks it is completely ridiculous. They cannot understand why a minister who has the power to do something just says, "That is the law and I will not do anything". In effect, that is what is happening and I should like some answers.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Mr. Speaker, 1 enjoyed the arguments put forward by the hon. member although I am sorry that at the end he allowed himself to get in so many cheap political shots. Initially he raised some good discussion and I should like to deal with that.
The hon. member knows there is a big difference between some kind of government program as a social policy and a specific tax law. He is asking us to use the tax law because someone is operating a valuable social service. It is as if we should reward them for doing that.
In the debates that have taken place about the budget since last November, we have seen the kind of confusion that happens when tax law is used to promote undefined or ill defined or hard to define social goals. People use the tax law for personal gain or corporate gain in the name of some social benefit. Since November the government has been trying to
draw a clear distinction between tax policy on the one hand and social policy on the other.
Let me make it quite clear that we regard the services provided by the group the member is representing as valuable and laudable services. We do not call them into question. At the same time we ask whether the tax policy is the proper place to offer incentives for that kind of service. Why not go to the minister of transport, federal or provincial? Why not go to some other ministers, health or social services of any sort, and ask for a grant under those provisions?


John Allen Fraser: Because your minister can create the exemptions, that is why.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: That would be much better than what the hon. member is trying to promote. He wants us to get back into this fuzzy area where tax policy is used on behalf of one specific group for the benefit society gains from that group's activities. We do not quarrel with the fact that these benefits are laudable and significant, but we simply ask him to put the pressure in the right place. I think that is a reasonable request to make. If he sees the distinction between tax policy and social policy, then I think he will understand why the minister cannot apply the law as loosely as he personally wanted.


John Allen Fraser: We will go to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin); perhaps she can do something.


CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY-ANNOUNCEMENT OF LAY-OFFS. (B) REQUEST THAT EMPLOYEES BE RETAINED IN EMPLOYMENT
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, one week ago the CPR announced a four-week lay-off of 3,600 shop craft workers in Montreal, Winnipeg and Calgary. Thirteen hundred of those were in Winnipeg. This announcement followed the lay-off of 311 workers by the CPR for an indefinite period. I asked the minister last Friday whether it made sense for the CPR to be laying off large numbers of workers because of a decline in traffic, given the fact that, by the government's own calculation, there would be impressively large increases in various commodity shipments in the next few years. The minister's reply was completely unsatisfactory. He said the CPR just did not have the business to keep these people on.
Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, the CNR announced a similar layoff in its repair shops, a major share of which will again take place in Winnipeg. The reason given by the railways is quite simple: traffic is down because of the slowdown in our economy.
The question I posed to the government is whether the present slowdown should be the only factor in such a major decision on cutbacks. Recently the president of the Sony corporation was in Canada attending a seminar at which Japanese and North American business operations were analysed and compared. We have all heard about the success of the Japanese economy, its steady and large increase in gross
May 20, 1982

national product and its successful penetration of world markets for manufactured goods, including automobiles, radio and television and, more recently, computers and microelectronic products. What did the president of Sony tell his audience in explaining why the Japanese were successful? Ele said that the difference between the North Amerian and Japanese companies was that North American companies- and he was talking about both the United States and Canada-looked at and thought about almost exclusively this year's balance sheet, while the Japanese companies were thinking and planning for 20 years down the line. That is why they have surged ahead in those fields I have enumerated. Why do I tell this story, Mr. Speaker? I do so because that message should have been studied by both the CNR and CPR and by our government. Yes, business is slow right now but a survey done by the Western Transportation Advisory Council has predicted that westbound bulk exports would increase between 1980 and 1990 in the following manner: coal from 14 million tons to 53 million tons; grain from 10 million tons to 19 million tons; sulphur from 5.4 million tons to 6.8 million tons; potash from 3.6 million tons to 9 million tons, an increase of over 200 per cent.
Our transportation system, Mr. Speaker, is already having difficulty in moving current sales. What will happen four or five years from now if we get the kind of increases which are projected? We will fail completely. Now when business is slow is the time for the railways to do the job that needs to be done to upgrade the system, to doubletrack the system, to modernize the signals and switching system, to build the thousands of new cars, hopper cars, freight cars and engines that we need. Now is the time to renovate much of the rolling stock. If we do not do it now, when will we do it? By 1990 we will be losing hundreds of millions of dollars of sales because we will not be able to deliver the goods that are sold. But the railways say they cannot afford it. I pointed out to the government its announcement of the $1 billion sale by Bombardier of subway cars to New York city. How was that done? The government helped finance the sale by providing an interest rate of 9.7 per cent. If we can do it for export sales, then I suggest that we can and we should be doing it to improve the transportation system in this country.
I say to the minister that if we can do that for Bombardier, we can do it for the railways. Now is the time to give the railways the kind of financial assistance they need to get the
Adjournment Debate
system ready so the railways can move the products that we will be able to sell four or five years from now. Now is not the time to be having the large-scale lay-offs that have been announced by both railways in the last week.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that the hon. member has not done his homework. I think he has spent so long attacking railroads that he does not want to pay any attention now when they make an announcement. I am happy to draw to his attention the fact that Canadian Pacific Railway announced today the purchase of 50 new diesel electric locomotives in anticipation of future need, precisely the theme which the hon. member was pointing out.


David Orlikow: That does not help the people who have been laid off.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: This order is worth $70 million. It will create 300,000 person-hours of work.
It is very important to note, for the sake of the hon. member so that he will know this fact in the future instead of blaming everybody, that 20 of these locomotives will be used on prairie branch lines. This is the first such purchase in ten years made by Canadian Pacific. It is made despite the opposition of the NDP to the streamlining of the grain shipments in western Canada, and despite the losses that railroad has suffered under the Crow rate.
I am also surprised that the hon. member has not done his homework in the area of lay-offs. I know that he is usually much closer to those sorts of questions than he is to grand corporate finance.
I would like to point out to him, as the minister said in reply to the question, that the people who have worked with the railways for two or more years will be collecting 80 per cent of their normal salary while they are laid off.


David Orlikow: They will not be producing anything.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: I think those are important facts, and I am sorry that the hon. member did not know them before he made his intervention because he might have risen in this House instead to congratulate us and to congratulate the companies.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 10.24 p.m. without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.