1982-03-18

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
[ English |

Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Madam Speaker, in February of last year 158,000 workers were employed in the St. Catharines-Niagara region. This February only 130,000 are so employed. That 18 per cent drop is largely due to the decline in the automotive industry. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Cambridge (Mr. Speyer):
That the Minister of Finance bring a halt to his insane high interest rate policy that is destroying the new car market and keeping auto workers on the Unemployment Insurance Commission line.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Walter McLean (Waterloo):: Madam Speaker, given that the Outreach program has been more successful than the government's own employment centres in finding jobs for women returning to the work force, and for handicapped women and others, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Kingston and the Island (Miss MacDonald):
That the Minister of Employment and Immigration explain why he proposes a 5 per cent cut in funding to the Outreach program this year, as if he wishes to penalize an organization which has proved its capacity to find jobs for women.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FINANCE
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Perth (Mr. Jarvis):
That the Minister of Finance be severely reprimanded, castigated and removed from office for including in his budget documents the suggestion that $4.5 billion to $7 billion could be collected through the taxation of imputed rental income on homes owned by individual Canadians.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION ACT
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. All members of this House are aware that credit unions and caisses populaires do not compete on an equitable basis with the chartered banks of Canada. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Kootenay East-Revelstoke (Mr. Parker):
That the government introduce legislation to amend Sections 11 and 71 of the Financial Administration Act to allow government departments and agencies the opportunity to deposit funds in financial institutions other than chartered banks.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FINANCE
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Madam Speaker, in his November budget the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) imposed a number of unjust and unfair taxation measures, not in an effort to create tax equity but to raise

March 18, 1982
5.0.	43
more money for the government's wasteful spending. Canadians are now justly concerned that the federal government will eventually institute taxation of imputed rent as it has with respect to interest on money borrowed for RRSPs and on imputed income from employee benefits. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Durham-Northumberland (Mr. Lawrence):
That the Minister of Finance make a statement to this House that the government will not, now or in the future, resort to this iniquitous bureaucratic recommendation to tax home owners on the rental value of their homes.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Madam Speaker, the ravages of the government's ineptness have been particularly extreme in Atlantic Canada. In many areas unemployment has reached 40 per cent or more. In view of the fact that the Miramichi region of Chatham and Newcastle has a work force of 18,000 people and 8,000 of them do not have jobs, I move, seconded by the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Howie):
That the Liberal government can its plans to can CFB Chatham, which will can another 3,500 jobs, and, while it is at it, can the minister who originally proposed it.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: 
LABOUR CONDITIONS
[Stage Direction]
5.0.	43
Mr. John Bosley (Don Valley West):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
Traditionally, the Gaspe has always had the poorest record for employment opportunities in Quebec. One of the effects of the present recession has been to raise the unemployment rate in this area to 26 per cent. We must do everything in our power to put an end to this injustice, and I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Cambridge (Mr. Speyer):
That the Minister of State responsible for Quebec affairs make a statement on motions explaining why he has not been able to get cabinet to take whatever action may be necessary to remedy this intolerable situation.


Madam Speaker:: This motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


STATUS OF WOMEN
Mr. Sid Parker (Kootenay East-Reveistoke):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that the government has consistently given lip service to the concept of equal rights for women, in light of the fact that the Liberal government saw fit to send only 5 per cent of its caucus-as opposed to 40 per cent of the NDP caucus-to meet with the National Action Committee on the Status of Women on Monday, and noting that the government was found guilty of denying equal pay to women for work of equal value two years ago and then deliberately stalled for two years before deciding to pay the people the money due them, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis):
That this House award the Liberal government the Alice in Wonderland award for double talk for its consistent ability to say one thing and mean something else.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


BANKRUPTCIES
Mr. Mel Gass (Malpeque):: Madam Speaker, in February of this year a record 917 Canadian businesses went bankrupt. This is 36 per cent higher than February, 1981, and 64 per cent higher than February, 1980. These bankruptcies, combined with receiverships and insolvencies, coupled with buis-nesses just plain giving up, are costing hundreds of thousands of jobs right across the country. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Corbett):
That the Minister of Finance withdraw the budget that the Solicitor General describes as a disaster and replace it with measures which will help businesses to prosper and employ people rather than drive them into the ground.
March 18, 1982


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Paproski:: Allan MacEachen said no!


MINES AND MINING
Mr. Thomas Siddon (Richmond-South Delta):: Madam Speaker, in a recent letter to the Minister of State for Mines, the B.C. and Yukon Chamber of Mines has documented the exodus of millions of dollars of mineral exploration capital from Canada to the United States, due largely to the antiinvestment thrust of the NEP and the disastrous November 12 budget, and whereas this collapse of investor confidence will lead to the direct loss of thousands of jobs in northern and western Canada, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Okanagan-Similkameen (Mr. King):
The government immediately reverse its attack on investment in the energy and mineral resources sector, so that thousands of jobs might be restored to Canadians.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Charles Mayer (Portage-Marquette):: Madam Speaker, fuel prices to Canadian farmers have more than doubled since this government returned to office in February, 1980. Depending on the type of fuel used, the federal government collects between 40 cents and 60 cents per gallon excise tax on farm fuels. Therefore I move, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, and seconded by the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta):
That in order to help keep the price of food down, thereby assisting the consumer to cope with inflation, the Minister of Finance consider increasing the 7 cent rebate on fuels used in the production of food.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that the unemployment insurance fund was set up to protect the incomes of Canadian workers during periods of unemployment, and instead of being able to collect the benefits they have paid for, unemployed workers in all provinces are being forced to go on interim welfare because of administrative chaos in the UIC bureaucracy, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans):
That the Minister of Employment and Immigration introduce a massive job-creation program, starting within his own department, and that he fund this project out of general government revenues or the $1.37 billion spending reserve, rather than through further raids on an unemployment insurance fund already stretched to the breaking point because of government economic policies.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT
Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Madam Speaker, I rise seeking the attention of all hon. members of this House on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the terms of Standing Order 43.
Whereas every member, before taking his seat in the House of Commons is requested by Section 128 of the British North America Act to take and subscribe an oath of allegiance-


Miss MacDonald:: His or her seat.


Jesse Philip Flis: -and whereas the Conservative members broke their oath of allegiance by mischievously not attending a sitting of this House since March 2, 1982,1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Mississauga North (Mr. Fisher):
That all Conservative members who refused to carry out their sworn duties as elected members of this Parliament be docked one day's pay for each sitting day that they did not perform their duties as elected and sworn to do.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
The Late Tom Cossitt RAILWAYS

March 18, 1982


SUGGESTED RETENTION OF CROWSNEST PASS RATE-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Len Gustafson (Assiniboia):: Madam Speaker, I wish to raise an urgent and pressing matter relating to western Canadian grain farmers. The NDP-Liberal coalition in defeating the PC government has brought upon farmers the highest fuel increases in the history of farming. Bankruptcies for farmers are at an all-time high. In view of this economic emergency which the NDP-Liberal coalition has created for the western farmers I move, seconded by the hon. member for Portage-Marquette (Mr. Mayer):
That the government reverse its position on the statutory Crow rate and endorse the retention of the statutory Crow rate for the western Canadian grain farmer.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE LATE TOM COSSITT
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, with the agreement of the House I rise on a point of order to pay tribute to the memory of the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville whose sudden death on Monday night was a cause of shock and deep regret to all hon. members of the House of Commons. Certainly I know that I speak on behalf of my colleagues, and I am sure on behalf of members on all sides of the House, in expressing my deepest sympathy to his wife Jennifer, to his family and friends.
Tom Cossitt will be remembered by members of this party as a man of principle and as a skilled and creative parliamentarian. He was a man of tenacity and of courage who held firm views and pursued them vigorously and skilfully. He acquired a reputation for controversy, but that was a consequence of his actions, not the motive for his actions. Tom Cossitt had deep convictions about what was good for his country, and he acted on those convictions with an intensity which quite probably shortened his life.
He first came to the House as an elected member in 1972, and he was re-elected in the federal general elections of 1974, 1979 and 1980. As is known, he was formerly associated with the Liberal Party, but when he came to the House of Commons he came as a Progressive Conservative, and that was a matter on which we count ourselves fortunate.
I knew him as a friend and as a parliamentary colleague who believed firmly that governments should be accountable to the people. That was a rule which he applied equally to all governments, including the one I led. He was a man who was
in awe of no one and who performed his public duties fearlessly. Above all, he was a dedicated and energetic representative of his constituents, placing their needs first.
Tom Cossitt will be missed by all members of the House of Commons and by the people he represented. His colleagues on this side of the House knew him as a man of principle and conviction. His party applauds him. And that is how we will remember him. We join with all members in expressing our sympathy to his wife Jennifer, to his family and to his friends.


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, I should like to join with the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) in expressing our shock and sadness at the news of the sudden death of the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville, Mr. Tom Cossitt. When death strikes one of our colleagues, we are all reminded of the particular burden of stress and responsibility borne by those in public life and, particularly, shared by their families. The demands made upon the health of Members of Parliament are little known or understood outside this chamber, but are no less real for that.
Tom Cossitt earned a reputation as a man who worked hard for the people of Leeds-Grenville, despite serious physical setbacks in recent years. He knew the risks involved in maintaining his accustomed pace of activity, and accepted those risks as the price of public service. He died in the performance of his duties as a Member of Parliament and among constituents whom he was elected to serve.
He was often a partisan politician, as we all are from time to time, but death is not a partisan affair nor is the sorrow we feel for his widow, Mrs. Jennifer Cossitt, in this time of her bereavement. We join together at this time of sadness to express our deepest sympathy and understanding to Mrs. Cossitt, and to the relatives and close friends who are experiencing a grievous sense of loss.
We recognized Mr. Cossitt for his tireless devotion to the interests of the people of Leeds-Grenville. He always had time for the individual constituent who appealed to him for assistance. He realized that while many problems of constituents are routine for a Member of Parliament, they are uniquely important to the individual concerned. Mr. Cossitt was known in his riding as a man who served very well the people whom he was elected to represent. For people who believe profoundly in the value of representative democracy, there can be no higher praise than that.
I hope, Madam Speaker, that you will convey our sentiments to Mrs. Cossitt, and with those sentiments our condolences and sympathy.


Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, on behalf of my colleagues I would like to join with the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) in extending our deepest sympathy to members of Tom Cossitt's family.
March 18, 1982

Mr. Cossitt was an outspoken Member of Parliament, as we all know, and a man with a genuinely independent spirit. At all times, whether one agreed with him or not, he fought hard for what he believed in. That is perhaps the prime obligation of all members of this House. We send our deepest feelings of sympathy to all members of Mr. Cossitt's family.


Madam Speaker:: I have already sent a message to the widow of the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville (Mr. Cossitt) and to his family expressing the grief of the House over the sad news of the death of one of our colleagues. 1 would like the House to rise now and observe a minute of silence in his memory.
[Whereupon the House stood in silence for one minute.]



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, my question is for the acting Prime Minister. He will know that the Solicitor General has publicly described the budget brought down by the Minister of Finance as being a "political disaster" and "seriously flawed". Will the acting Prime Minister tell us whether the Solicitor General will be resigning or whether the Minister of Finance will be resigning?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I must thank the right hon. Leader of the Opposition for bringing me back into the limelight after the obscurity of the last several weeks.


Mr. Nielsen:: You are still obscure.


Mr. Nowlan:: It was well deserved obscurity.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The fact of the matter is that there is absolutely no reason in present circumstances for the Solicitor General to resign.


Erik Nielsen: You can.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: As for myself, I am sure the Canadian people would Find it very unacceptable if I tendered my resignation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Yesterday was St. Patrick's Day.


Charles Joseph Clark: That is a matter on which the people of Canada would be delighted to be heard, Madam Speaker.
Oral Questions


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


THE ECONOMY
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, might I now deal with the budget of the Minister of Finance? The minister accepts the description of his colleague that it is a seriously flawed budget-he must, or he would have insisted on his colleague's resignation.
The minister will know that there are now 169,000 fewer jobs in Canada than there were a year ago, that is, people who held jobs and who have lost them. The minister will also know that normally in a year some 300,000 people enter the labour force for the first time, women, students and others. Therefore, will the Minister of Finance tell us what he intends to do to ensure that these new entrants into the labour force, people who want to find jobs and build security for themselves, will Find jobs in an economy that is already rushing backwards?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is quite right in pointing to the difficulties presently being experienced in the economy. There is a very high rate of unemployment, and weakness in the economy's output. I believe the surest way to create jobs and resume growth is to provide the basis for a sustained recovery in the economy, which is the purpose of the posture we have adopted in the way of an anti-inflationary stance in order to create the conditions for growth and greater job development in the economy.
In the meantime, in order to help as much as we can within the over-all fiscal framework, we have established very substantial job-creation programs. Just last week the Minister of Employment and Immigration announced additional funding for training, particularly among the youth of the country, and advanced additional sums for summer employment of students. These are the specific steps we think most appropriate in the present circumstances to meet the problem of unemployment.


INQUIRY RESPECTING POSSIBLE CHANGES IN BUDGET
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Employment and Immigration has advanced the program to where it was last year. He is training people for jobs which will not exist because this government has brought in a budget which is driving investment and jobs out of the country, and depriving Canadians of the opportunity to build a future in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
15548

March 18, 1982
Oral Questions


Charles Joseph Clark: Now, this budget, which is described by his colleagues as seriously flawed, has already been changed in several instances by the minister. Will he tell us whether it is his intention to announce any other changes in the budget?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I have said repeatedly in the House of Commons that I would be listening to representations from interested groups-


John Edward Broadbent: Ask the Solicitor General.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -and obviously when the bills are before the House we will be giving them a searching examination, and if improvements or changes are justified I have assured hon. members that I will be listening very carefully and will be prepared to make those changes. I have no changes in mind at the present time, but if, before that process takes place, particular changes are necessary, then of course I will make them.
The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition knows that on December 18, in response to public representations, I did make considerable changes which were justified, and I make no apology for those steps because it has always been the duty of the Minister of Finance to make changes following a budget-


Erik Nielsen: He usually resigns, too.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -and I do not propose to change that practice.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Hon. David Crombie (Rosedale):: Madam Speaker, my question is also to the Minister of Finance. The minister is well aware of the startling fact that over a quarter of a million manufacturing jobs have been lost in the last six months alone. The minister must also know, Madam Speaker, that this has had a devastating impact on working people and their families right across this country. Representations have been made to the minister from the Canadian Labour Congress, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, and hundreds of other local and regional associations, all of them protesting the policies of this government, particularly in relation to their impact on the economy. They all want to know the answer to this question: when will the government begin a program of stimulating job creation in the manufacturing sector of this country?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I am rather interested to see the newly discovered interest of the opposition in the
unemployed. They have been off the job for the past three weeks-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -and they totally forgot about the unemployed. I am not very much impressed with their newfound interest expressed today.


Some hon. Members:: Right on!


FINANCE
David Edward Crombie: Perhaps, Madam Speaker, the minister may find some new-found interest in another matter.


An hon. Member:: Crombie for leader!


David Edward Crombie: The minister may recall that unemployed and employed people in this country will be hurt by the government's plan to tax health and dental benefits for working people. The minister informed the House some time ago that he was studying representations from the Canadian Life Association, the Canadian Labour Congress and others. I have asked the minister on two previous occasions when he was going to make an announcement about changing those things.


An hon. Member:: Question!


David Edward Crombie: This is a serious matter, Madam Speaker. It is urgent and important because it affects the health and dental benefits of more than one million Canadian families. They want to know, and we all want to know, when the government will finally make those announcements, make those changes and protect those benefits. Laugh that one off!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the hon. member tells me that these matters are urgent and important.


David Edward Crombie: Three times we asked you.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Were they urgent and important to the hon. member, as he stayed out of the House for two weeks- three weeks?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Why do you not do something today?


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: No answer to the question.
March 18, 1982


THE ECONOMY
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I also have a question for the Minister of Finance. Since Parliament last sat to do its job, we have learned that the economy of this country is in its deepest decline since the 1930s. Just last week we learned that the largest number of unemployed ever recorded by Statistics Canada exists. We learned that the economy is operating at only 75 per cent capacity.
1 would like to ask the minister, during the more than two weeks of absence of Parliament, how many unemployed workers did he talk to? How many people with mortgages up for renewal did he speak with?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: In his penthouse!


John Edward Broadbent: How many small businessmen who have gone bankrupt did he talk to? Is the Government of Canada now prepared to take some action to protect these Canadians?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: He just laughs!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the hon. member asks me how many unemployed workers I have spoken to since the House was last in session on March 2. I want to tell the hon. member that I have spoken to a good number of unemployed workers because I have been in my own constituency where there is a very high level of unemployment, and where I have discussed the policies which are currently being followed by the government in order to bring the economy out of a recession and in order to create the basis for sustained growth in the future.


Mr. Huntington:: Come on out to mine and tell them.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No one knows better than I do the impact of unemployment because I have talked to those workers. However, I think it would be a mistake for me to go to my own constituents, some of whom are unemployed, to tell them that there are magic solutions, because they do not believe that. They are not taken in by the soothsaying of the leader of the New Democratic Party. I want to tell him that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


GOVERNMENT ACTION
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I want to say to the minister that the unemployed workers in his riding understand the impact of unemployment a little better than he does, contrary to what he would like to suggest.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: However, we also learned during the past week that, for the first time since the Government of Canada has been making figures available, we have had a net decline in the number of jobs available, year over year, specifically in
Oral Questions
February when 162,000 fewer jobs were available to Canadians. Considering the fact that the minister, both in this House and in his speech in New York, made it very clear that the Government of Canada was exclusively relying on an upturn in the American economy before he anticipated positive effects here, and since only a week ago the Reagan administration itself acknowledged an upturn will not come in the U.S. economy until the end of 1982, how long must the people of Canada wait for the Government of Canada, their government, to take independent action?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, it would be a mistake for the Leader of the New Democratic Party to believe that in New York I had stated that our economic problems were exclusively dependent on solutions in the United States. The fact is that we are running very high levels of inflation. Our prices are very high. Our costs are increasing. If we intend to be competitive, if we intend to create conditions in our own country for recovery, and if we intend to participate in the international recovery, then we have to do certain things at home. Those things which are necessary at home have been laid out in the budget. The hon. member knows that unless we can create the conditions for growth in Canada, we will not get anywhere, and we will not get conditions of growth while we have these high prices and high costs.


FINANCE
John Edward Broadbent: My final question, Madam Speaker, is directed to the Solicitor General. Since the Solicitor General has publicly stated that the fine work of the Minister of Finance, that is to say, the budget, is a political disaster, and also since the Prime Minister stated only a few weeks ago that no one in the cabinet was to make further criticism of the budget unless such criticism was accompanied by a letter of resignation, I would like to ask the Solicitor General if he has had the integrity to follow up his honest criticism of the budget with a letter submitting his resignation?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):: Madam Speaker, I would like to invite the hon. members opposite to read the letter, or even to read the report of it which is contained in the newspapers. I think that if they do, behind the colourful expressions which have been the subject of-


John Edward Broadbent: Colourful?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: -their questions today, they will find that I supported the budget, that I support the need for restraint at this time, and that I am behind the Minister of Finance.

March 18, 1982
Oral Questions


An hon. Member:: They are your words.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: It is still a disaster.


HOUSING
Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Madam Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the minister responsible for housing. The Solicitor General, in a letter to the Toronto Real Estate Board, criticized the minister's housing proposals and said the budget was seriously flawed and, from a political point of view, a disaster-that coming on top of the criticisms of two other cabinet colleagues. The latest figures released by CMHC yesterday show that the total number of units built last year under MURBs amounted to 53,900. We can only expect 15,000 units under Bill C-89, notwithstanding the minister's assurances to the contrary. In view of the critical housing shortages, especially in the rental sector, does the minister now intend to bring in amendments to Bill C-89?


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, I am sure that with the holiday period of the House in January during which all hon. members had available time in which to study Bill C-89, and with the further holiday period that the hon. members have enjoyed during the last-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Paul James Cosgrove: -couple of weeks, the hon. member asking the question would have realized, as I pointed out in answer to his last question in this House before he went on holiday, that this government-


An hon. Member:: Be serious!


Paul James Cosgrove: -is showing its priority concern for housing and has allocated $350 million to that end. That will provide not only the 15,000 units of which we have spoken, but an additional opportunity for more. Section 40 of the National Housing Act, for example, was responsible for and made possible the announcement this week by the minister of housing from the province from which the hon. member comes, showing that 130 units of public housing will be built in his province under Section 40. Therefore I am sure that if the hon. member takes into account the continuing programs of CMHC and this government and the initiative of the $350 million, he will find that to be a response which has not been equalled and certainly has not been followed by the provincial governments.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


COMMITTEE MEETING
James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, the minister may try to mislead the mayors of this country,
as he did in a telex on March 12, but he cannot mislead this House. In Bill C-89 there is still only allowance for 15,000 units, and that will not come anywhere near meeting the critical shortage in this country.
I want to ask the minister a simple question arising from what he said about parliamentary holidays. Why did he and his House leader instruct the chairman of the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works not to hold a meeting which we agreed to hold on March 4 to deal with Bill C-89, which we thought was so urgent?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, in response to the hon. member's opening remarks, the people of Canada, I am sure, are not going to be misled by the histrionics of the theatre of the hon. gentleman. They will not be misled by that ploy any longer. They cannot understand, Madam Speaker, when we indicated that there is a potential for 40,000 units of affordable accommodation- whether it is through the regular supply plan, non-profits or Co-ops, that potential is there for housing under that plan and with the jobs which would be created by it-how the hon. member can stand up with such histrionics and avoid the fact that that legislation has been available before this House on notice since November 12 and he still has not been able to read it. He has not bothered to read it. The hon. member still fails to see that this government has committed $350 million, which will provide all of the opportunities for jobs which we set out.


AGRICULTURE
Hon. John Wise (Elgin):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. I am certain that the Minister of Finance should be well aware of the financial dilemma which many Canadian farmers are facing today, particularly those producers who are in the red meat sector, those farmers who have very little equity in their operation, and particularly the young farmers. In fact, Madam Speaker, the situation is so severe that we have many of our young Canadians in colleges and universities who are assessing the financial status of the Canadian agricultural industry. And even though those young Canadians have family farms to go home to, they are reluctant to make a decision to go home because they fear they will not be able to maintain the family farm which generations have worked so hard to establish. That is not an over-exaggeration; that situation is real; it exists and it is extremely serious. Given that situation, what hope, if any-and, if no hope, what advice-can the minister provide for these young Canadians?
March 18, 1982


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, as a first step I think the House could pass the farm credit legislation.


FUNDING FOR FARM CREDIT CORPORATION
John Wise: Madam Speaker, I am quite convinced that the Minister of Finance does not understand the situation of the agricultural committee. He has just indicated that he is not aware of the status of that bill.
Does the minister know that farm bankruptcies are up 54 per cent from February over February, and they are up some 75 per cent from January over January? Does the minister not realize that the additional $50 million that his budget provided for the Farm Credit Corporation has been spent, that those funds are exhausted? Does the minister realize that the banks are not participating in the Small Business Bond program? The minister some time ago, in answer to a question I put to him in the House, indicated that he wanted the banks to bleed a little bit. The Minister of Agriculture indicated, amongst other things, at a meeting in London, Ontario, that he would have $1 billion to loan to farmers by June 1. That was to the Canadian Farm Survival Committee. The Minister of Agriculture also indicated that the Minister of Finance's budget did not let the banks bleed, but in fact provided a transfusion for the banks.
When will the Minister of Finance grant approval to the Farm Credit Corporation to allow the corporation to increase its borrowing authority, and grant approval for the Farm Credit Corporation to secure money from the private sector, and, furthermore, to introduce the agri-bond concept?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, when decisions are taken on a number of policy questions raised by the hon. member then, of course, they will be announced to the House. 1 am pleased to know that the provisions that were made in the budget to assist farmers through additional funding and through special rates for farmers in difficulty, have been so relevant and so successful that all the funds have been used up. I remember the opposition telling me that this was really a useless gesture, but it has proved to be very useful indeed. The hon. member has asked for additional funding. If any decision is taken on that point, an announcement will be made.
I want to tell the hon. member he is totally wrong in saying that the banks are not providing any Small Business Bonds. He inferred that the banks were not co-operating. Following a similar question asked in the House some weeks ago, I made an inquiry that was specifically directed to every single bank in the country and found that each bank was still in a position, or most of the banks, because of their tax position, were still in a position to provide these Small Business Bonds which are now available to farmers, as requested by members of the opposition. They have not yet understood or they do not remember how many good things, in response to their representations,
Oral Questions
have been contained in the budget which they have attempted, uncessfully, to defeat in the House three times.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Miss Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Since the minister has now acknowledged, albeit reluctantly, that the cabinet late last year approved in principle an agreement with the United States, an agreement that includes the testing of Cruise missiles in Canada, a matter he saw fit to keep secret from the parliamentary committee discussing security and disarmament in his statement to the committee a few weeks ago, can the minister tell the House exactly what the agreement contains, and whether it includes other than, further than, Cruise missile testing and whether, as my colleague from Selkirk-Interlake indicated the other day, the United States government is forgiving the cost of R and D for the F-18s purchased by Canada, in exchange for our agreeing to the Cruise and other missile testing?
Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Madam Speaker, the agreement to which the hon. member refers is presently under negotiation and that accounts for the fact that I am not able to give details of the agreement now nor was I in a position to present them to the standing committee. I might say that it is not anticipated that they would include the testing of other similar delivery systems. It would probably allow the testing of such things as artillery and helicopters, but in which case it is anticipated that there would be a separate agreement under the framework agreement which would legitimize the testing of a particular weapons system.
1 might say, Madam Speaker, in response to the latter part of the hon. member's question, where she asks if we are doing this in return for certain benefits which the United States will confer upon us, we are not doing this for the United States. We are doing this for ourselves and for the alliance to which we belong. I can well understand the hon. member, who leads her party in rejecting the NATO alliance, that she would not be interested in the protection which that alliance gives us in its reliance on nuclear weapons. That is not the position of this government and the testing of these weapons systems is in the interest of our own defence.


REQUEST THAT AGREEMENT BE TABLED
Pauline Jewett: Madam Speaker, why does the minister make those statements when he knows perfectly well at least two members of the NATO alliance in Europe have refused to have the Cruise

March 18, 1982
Oral Questions
missiles and the Pershing IIs situated on their soil? At least they have the guts to say that they believe in nuclear suffocation, which is supposed to be the strategy of this government. So much for the Prime Minister's strategy of suffocation. That brings me to my supplementary, as to whether if, in fact, there will have to be future agreements for future testing of future weapons systems. Why can we not see in this Parliament the present agreement that has been drawn up-the minister has not denied it-to cover Cruise missile testing?
Therefore I ask the minister to give us no more of this other garbage which he has been giving us. Will he present and table in the House the agreement in principle that has been drawn up, and the specific agreement concerning Cruise missile testing? Will he return to the committee discussing our preparation for the UN special session on disarmament and explain to the Canadian public, through that committee, why the government of this country is abrogating the spirit, if not the letter, of its strategy of nuclear suffocation?


Mr. Crosbie:: Yes or no.


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, as I previously explained to the hon. member, the agreement is in the process of negotiation. When the agreement is completed I will certainly consider making it available to the House. I see no reason why it should be kept a secret.


Pauline Jewett: You have been keeping it secret for two years.


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1 can assure the hon. member that I will be before the parliamentary committee again in the ordinary course and 1 will certainly be pleased to answer questions on the subject.
1 am sorry that she has such a misunderstanding of the policy of suffocation. This is a policy of mutual restraint. It is not a policy of unilateral disarmament which 1 am sure would please the hon. member. While the hon. member may advocate the policies of unilateral disarmament, that is not the policy of the government. The government policy is one of mutual restraint. In fact we believe that the maintenance of our deterrent is in itself the best bargaining counter that we can have in the negotiations for arms limitations.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FEDERAL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT BANK
Mr. Chris Speyer (Cambridge):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. As the minister is, I am sure, painfully aware, the number of bankruptcies and receiverships, and the number of Canadians who are just closing their doors on their businesses reached unprecedented heights in February, thus contributing to massive unemployment. At
the same time the Federal Business Development Bank for the last year has imposed criteria which are much more severe than even the criteria imposed by the chartered banks. As a vivid illustration of this, during the last nine months of 1981 in Cambridge, with a population of 75,000, there has been one loan for $30,000. Does the bank have any useful function any longer, or is this just another illustration of this government turning the screws on the small business community when times get tough?


Hon. Charles Lapointe (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Madam Speaker, I feel that the hon. member could have asked his question in an entirely different forum, but 1 should be very happy to look into the situation in Cambridge personally with the authorities of the Federal Business Development Bank. However, his conclusion that the Federal Business Development Bank is an institution whose trade practices are more restrictive than those of the chartered banks is a gross misrepresentation of the facts. When we know-and the House does know since these figures are public-that last year, the Federal Business Development Bank lost $41 million and that prospects are more or less the same for the current year, it is clear that the bank is losing money on its loans, Madam Speaker, and is doing so at a rate of 2.6 per cent, compared with 1.2 per cent for chartered banks. The Federal Business Development Bank is therefore not only useful to businesses as a lender of last resort, but it is also helping the economy, since more than $500 million worth of loans are being made by this institution to Canada's small businesses.


REQUEST THAT CRITERIA BE RELAXED
Chris Speyer: Madam Speaker, just as the Liberal government has cut the guts out of the small business development aspect of the bond, it has cut the guts out of the development aspect of the bank.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Chris Speyer: For my supplementary question to the Minister of Finance, I plead with the minister in these times when we have punishing interest rates, a deepening recession, and 1.2 million people unemployed, to loosen the restrictive criteria of the Federal Business Development Bank so that more small businessmen and women in this country can obtain loans.


Charles Lapointe: Madam Speaker, 1 do not think that the criteria governing the practices of the Federal Business Development Bank were instigated by the government. Legislation was passed by this House in 1976, and indeed the terms of reference within which the Federal Business Development Bank must operate do not give it much leeway, because under
March 18, 1982

the 1976 legislation, the bank is required to operate on a cost recovery basis, and at the same time, it is asked to take more risks. In recent years, that is, since the 1976 legislation was passed, the Federal Business Development Bank has acted on Parliament's request that it take more risks, and that is why, unfortunately or fortunately, the bank is now suffering considerable losses, which I hope will at least benefit Canada's small businesses.


MINES AND MINING
Thomas Edward Siddon: Madam Speaker, my question was intended for the Minister of State for Mines but in her absence I will direct my question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. We now have an inventory of over 16,000 jobs lost in the Canadian mining sector on either a temporary or permanent basis.
The announced summer shutdown of the Cominco mines and the smelter at Trail will put more than 7,000 workers on the unemployment roles in Trail and Kimberley, British Columbia, for the first time in history. This calamitous state of affairs cannot just be blamed on international conditions. Industry experts agree that the collapse of our minerals industry is largely aggravated by a loss of confidence in the Canadian economy due to the anti-business thrust of the National Energy Program and the November 12 budget. What do the minister and his sidekick, the Minister of Finance, propose to do about this tragic situation?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the production from those mines and the Canadian mining sector is distributed worldwide. The hon. member does not seem to be aware that in the last year the world has been facing a worldwide recession and that prices of raw mineral resources have doubled in all sectors around the world. Canada is not immune to that situation. We are facing the same situation as most other countries which have large mineral activities at the present time.
The only real hope is for a turn-around in the world economy, particularly in the western economies. Once this happens there will be a rise in demand. At the present time the demand for raw resources is considerably down around the world.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Madam Speaker, that is just an outright copout. The serious crisis of confidence in this country in our economy reflects the need for a national vote of confidence in this incompetent Liberal government.
Oral Questions


An hon. Member:: Who wrote that?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I suspect that my hon. friend did not have much to do in the last three weeks to come up with a second question like that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


EMPLOYMENT
Miss Pat Carney (Vancouver Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question was to be addressed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration who has not seen fit to stay in the House for question period on the first day that the House has resumed.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: That is your fault. You started it.


Pat Carney: I will ask my question of the acting minister. The minister should be aware that British Columbia has been hit by a record number of lay-offs. Unemployment is plaguing all sectors of the economy. Last December the minister designated my riding of Vancouver centre as a "lay-off' constituency and allocated extra funds to it under the Canada Community Development Program. A few weeks later this funding was abruptly withdrawn, with no explanation, and the same thing has happened to other Vancouver area ridings.
Given this record unemployment in British Columbia, why did the minister and his department withdraw these job-creation funds from the Vancouver ridings, and is the money which was allocated to Vancouver being used to help fund the additional $20 million for the Summer Canada program?


QUALIFYING FACTORS APPLICABLE TO PROVISION OF FUNDS
Pat Carney: Madam Speaker, since there is no one on the government side of the House who is prepared to speak on an issue of record unemployment in Vancouver and in the province of British Columbia, I will direct my supplementary question to any minister who cares to answer it. Since record unemployment is apparently not a qualifying factor for job-creating funds, what is?


Erik Nielsen: There is no answer.


John Carnell Crosbie: Wake up!


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Minister of Labour: Madam Speaker, I apologize to the hon. member. I will definitely take notice of her question and reply to her tomorrow.

March 18, 1982
Oral Questions CRIMINAL CODE


REFERRAL OF SUBJECT OF PROSTITUTION TO PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General while he is still the acting Minister of Justice. Last Monday the National Action Committee on the Status of Women urged the government to move quickly to pass, with the needed amendments, Bill C-53, the long overdue legislation overhauling Canada's archaic and ineffective rape laws. At the same time many residents of Canadian cities, including particularly those in the west end of Vancouver, want effective action to deal with the problem of street prostitution in residential neighbourhoods.
Is the government prepared to accommodate both of these important objectives by making an early reference to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs so that it can set up a special subcommittee dealing with all aspects of prostitution? Such a committee could then sit at the same time as the full Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs is dealing with the sexual offences legislation.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, I attended that meeting of the National Action Committee on the Status of Women and spoke to the representatives on that subject. I reminded them on behalf of my colleague, the Minister of Justice, that the establishment of a special subcommittee on that subject would not be necessary in view of his suggestion that the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs consider that issue at the same time as it was dealing with the provisions contained in Bill C-53. The government would very much welcome full consideration by members of the committee of the problem of street prostitution, and the minister responsible suggested that the proper place for it could well be that meeting and those meetings of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, the minister is trying to work both sides of the street on this question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


HARASSMENT OF INNOCENT WOMEN
Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, as the minister knows, many organizations and individuals, including Mayor Mike Harcourt of Vancouver, national women's organizations, and chiefs of police, have demanded that the government put an end to the double standard which now exists in our prostitution laws whereby a "John" who harasses an innocent woman for purposes of prostitution cannot be prosecuted. Will the minister at least assure the House that his government will move quickly to put an end to this blatant discrimination against women and change the law to allow the harassing customer-the "John"-to be charged under the same circumstances as a prostitute is now being charged?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, the government cannot move any more quickly on this matter than the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs does. Because of the work stoppage in the House there were no meetings of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.


Mr. Kempling:: We were there.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Where were you?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Hon. members should not be seeking to evade the responsibility which the minister has suggested ought to be that of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs to look at these questions and to try to come to some sensible conclusions about them.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Lethbridge-Foothills):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State, in the absence of the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Since August of last year 216,000 jobs have been lost in the Canadian economy. Of those jobs 138,000 jobs were lost by young people in the 15 to 24 age group. Given that young people are bearing the lion's share of this recession, how does the minister justify the fact that only 53,000 students will be employed this summer under the summer student employment program whereas two summers ago, when the situation was much less serious, some 70,000 students benefited?


Hon. Gerald Regan (Secretary of State):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Employment and Immigration I welcome the question, and I want to bring to the attention of the hon. member the particular training programs which have been announced by the minister lately. If the hon. member will show a little patience he will also hear subsequent announcements in relation to summer employment and other summer undertakings which will be helpful to students.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Madam Speaker, we know last year $120 million was provided. This year an additional $20 million has been provided. There has been a bit of public response. The government has kicked in another $20 million to bring the figure up to last year's level. There has been a total lack of consideration for the young people of this country.


REPAYMENT OF STUDENT LOANS
Blaine Allen Thacker: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is to the Secretary of State. A good many of these 138,000 former students who have lost jobs are in the process of paying back Canada students loans, and interest on those loans is now being charged at the current rate. What is the minister doing to see that those students do not have judgments entered against
March 18, 1982

them, which could ruin their credit ratings for the rest of their lives?


Gerald Augustine Regan: Madam Speaker, the hon. member will be aware that if a former student becomes unemployed because of conditions beyond his control, it is always possible for him to pass on that information and indicate his circumstances, and he will find that every effort will be made to accommodate his particular problem in relation to a payment schedule.


EMERGENCY MEASURES
Hon. Allan Lawrence (Durham-Northumberland):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General, while he is still Solicitor General. Under the emergency planning order passed in secret by the cabinet in May of 1981, the Solicitor General was given the responsibility of planning for civilian internment camps in this country. I have asked him this question in the House before. How many camps is he planning for, and what is the planned location of these camps?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, to characterize the emergency planning order as having been passed in secret is, I think, totally unjustified. It was passed in the same way any other order is passed.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: In secret.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: It was published in the same way any other order is published. It is an attempt by the government to assign to ministers responsibility to prepare contingency plans for our country in the event of war or in the event of peacetime emergencies.
I cannot answer those specific questions, but I can assure the hon. member that as yet no work has been done in the area of making plans, and I would like very much to invite the hon. member to comment and make suggestions on whether this country wants its government to plan for emergencies of this sort and indicate whether hon. members opposite are prepared to make contributions of ideas and policies.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Madam Speaker, this was an order in council passed ten months ago, and it required the Solicitor General to do something. He is now telling us he has not done it. One wonders why the order in council was passed.


INQUIRY RESPECTING PROPOSED NUMBER OF INMATES
Allan Frederick Lawrence: Madam Speaker, my question is about over-all planning. What is the maximum total number of inmates for these civilian internment camps for which the minister is planning?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, the hon. member refers to the emergency planning order's having
House of Commons
been passed recently. I would like to remind him that this emergency order passed recently is nothing more than a renewal of an emergency planning order which was first passed in 1965 under the Conservative administration.


Mr. Crouse:: No.


Mr. Hees:: We were not in power then.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I have asked for the plans which were begun by the Conservative government when that emergency order was first put into effect. There are none. I have asked for the plans which were prepared by my hon. friend when he was the solicitor general of Canada. There are none. I can understand why there are none because very difficult questions of balancing public order and civil liberties arise, and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which hopefully will become law in this country shortly, will have a tremendous bearing on any emergency planning done by the government.
I can only assure the hon. member that no such plans have been made, and I invite him to make a positive contribution to dealing with and preparing to deal with wartime emergencies which might arise in the future in this country.


REFLECTIONS ON RECENT EVENTS
Madam Speaker:: I hope the House will bear with me if I share with hon. members some reflections on recent events. There is no need to recall that for more than two weeks, the bells rang to call in the members, and since the House had not adjourned, the Speaker's chair had to be occupied around the clock. I want to thank all those who went beyond the call of duty, and especially my assistants who worked long hours in order to provide a minimum of services to the House.
Well-informed parliamentarians will have understood that the rules of the House had to be observed, but I am not so sure that the public understood our insistence on tradition. What ensued from our failure to bring our rules up to date earned us shrugs and even sneers from our fellow citizens. We may even have strengthened an unfortunately widespread tendency to be skeptical of the actions of Parliament, and I was very concerned about this during the past two weeks. More than once, I considered the possibility of intervening in order to end the deadlock. If common sense and logic dictated that an arbiter should be called in, that arbiter would have to be the Speaker. After all, it is the Speaker's responsibility to ensure that Parliament can function.
I admit that I was often tempted to respond to appeals, first by some hon. members, then by the press and even by the public, that I should write history and create the precedent that would resolve the situation. However, it seemed to me that

March 18, 1982
House of Commons
any action on my part would be incompatible with my concept of the responsibility of the Speaker to the House. In support of this view I would like to quote Josef Redlich, an expert on parliamentary procedure, who said:
The modern president of the House of Commons, ... is a judge who has to apply the rules of procedure to the best of his ability and with perfect impartiality, maintaining with a firm yet sensitive hand the proper relations between the two parties to the proceedings before him, the majority and the minority; he must do so by maintaining the rules and the usage of centuries, and by taking care that both majority and minority are unimpeded in their use of the forces and the weapons which the order of business provides for strong and weak.

I was therefore faced with duties and responsibilities that seemed to be at odds in most respects. References have been made here and there, and mostly in the press, to precedents that had no bearing on the present situation. First the situation in 1961, when one of my predecessors, Mr. Michener, did not let the bells ring for even as long as an hour before he sent a message to the whips ordering them to enter the House for a division. There was no parliamentary crisis, it would seem. There is no reference in Hansard that sheds any light on the circumstances of the incident, and no one, not even Mr. Michener, can remember why the whips were late. Upon receiving the Speaker's message, they entered the House, and no questions were raised by any one. Who can tell whether this precedent, if it is one, is valid? What would my predecessor have done if the whips had refused to come and vote?
Another important precedent has been cited this time, from the British House of Commons. It relates to the occasion when Mr. Speaker Brand terminated a debate on his own initiative after it had continued for 41 '/i hours. It took place at a time when the Irish Nationalists had some 60 members. There were then no time limits on debate and the use of closure was unknown. The Irish Nationalists had employed obstructive tactics over a long period designed to bring the process of government to a standstill. The Speaker put the question, but only after consultation with the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition and with their joint support. I could not see that similar circumstances existed in Canada in 1982 and, therefore, felt the intervention of the Speaker could not be justified.
What would have been the consequences of an arbitrary decision that did not derive from any of the rules approved by this House nor from a precedent with any relevance to the present situation? It would have meant breaking with an age-old practice that has proved its worth. How can the Speaker make sure that all members available to take part in the division are in the house? Is it the responsibility of the Chair or the whips? What would prevent the Speaker from setting the time of the division in other circumstances? The Chair would have set a precedent that might create even greater confusion in the case of a minority government.

In any event, such action on my part would have been open to allegations of partiality. Clearly, the Speaker must at all times be impartial. If, for example, the Chair had sacrified itself in order to get the House back to work, would this have saved the House? And in the circumstances, would the House have agreed with the new precedent that I would have created? It was a question I had to ask myself.
The authority of the Chair is no greater than the House wants it to be. When the rules are clear and offer precise guidance to the Speaker, the authority of the Chair is absolute and unquestioned, for this is the will of the House. On the other hand, when there are no rules to fall back on, the Speaker must proceed very cautiously indeed. The most the Chair can do is to lay the matter before the House which can then itself create a new precedent. Again I quote Josef Redlich:
It is no part of (the Speaker's) office to consider how he may use his power to devise new reins or bridle for the House. The guiding principle is that the Speaker is not the master of the House, but its representative ... He must always be sure ... in making any change of practice, that he is in accord-
Here I refer to the precedent in Great Britain.
-with the average opinion of the House. . . . And . . . when precedents are not conclusive, the Speaker is to lay the matter before the House for decision.
If the last ten days have taught us anything, it is that we must review our parliamentary procedure.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: The Speaker is the guardian of the rules of the House. He does not invent them. It is up to the House to decide what changes are necessary. I merely point out that there is a problem. In the meantime, the Chair will continue to be vulnerable until the House provides it with guidelines which would lead to settled practices regarding those very difficult and highly controversial questions, where the rules and practices appear to be less than satisfactory.
If the indefinite delaying of a division is to be taken as a new precedent, it could be used again to oppose indefinitely any business that happens to be before the House. In addition, it is a tactic that could also be used by the majority if it suited their purpose. I question whether it is the will of the House that such a precedent should become enshrined in our practices. The rules by implication assume that the procedure of voting will be completed when members are called in. Today, we all know that the procedure must be spelled out more clearly, since the House cannot function satisfactorily while debate may be interrupted indefinitely by any of the parties. I say this in no sense of criticism but as a statement of fact. I may point out that obstructive tactics are allowed by the rules. However, their use must be regulated so as to safeguard the government's right to have the House consider its order of business and the equally important right of the opposition to criticize, oppose and even obstruct a government measure.
Again, I quote Redlich:
Protection of a majority against obstruction and protection of a minority against oppression are both alike functions of the Chair. It is hardly too much to
March 18, 1982

say that they exhaust the duties of the high office held by the impartial guardian of parliamentary law-
It is my hope that such a situation will never again occur in this House. However, should it occur again, the Chair, unless it is provided with firm guidelines, would need to consider its course of action with very great care under the new circumstances. 1 trust that in the overriding interests of this honourable institution, the House will take steps to make known its will as to how the Chair should act before any such situation occurs again.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PETITION
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the Table the one hundred and eighty-fourth report of the Clerk of Petitions stating that he has examined the petition presented, by filing with the Clerk of the House, by the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson) on Wednesday, March 17, 1982 and finds that the petition meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, your statement just a moment ago takes us on this side totally by surprise. I should like to take the opportunity between now and tomorrow to read carefully the remarks which you have made and perhaps exercise my right of response on behalf of the opposition tomorrow.


Madam Speaker:: I would very much like hon. members to take my statement as it is made, and I would ask them not to comment on the statement.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: I think hon. members will understand that the Chair could take that liberty, and 1 asked the indulgence of the House to make that statement. In the course of the debate which will take place today, I am sure hon. members can make their opinions known about the general things that I have treated in my statement, namely that parliamentary reform is, of course, clearly needed in the House; I think hon. members are intending to discuss precisely that topic.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I had no idea that that kind of statement would be made today. Bearing directly as it does on the events of the last two weeks, and ranging as broadly as
Privilege-Mr. McKinnon
it did, I want to examine it very carefully indeed. I may not wish to reply tomorrow, but it may well be that I will have to request the indulgence of the Chair and of the House to exercise that right of reply.
On government business, it is not my intention, in view of the discussions which are now under way between House leaders, to ask the normal Thursday question. I will defer it until tomorrow.



POINT OF ORDER


Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I choose to raise this matter on a point of order rather than on a question of privilege. I have given you notice because it includes privilege and, as such, you require notice and that I raise the matter at the earliest opportunity.
It deals with Motion No. 85 which was answered in the House on February 24. Because the motion was accepted by the House, it was in my opinion an order of the House. I am suggesting-and 1 did so in my letter to Madam Speaker- that the documents which the House ordered be produced were not in fact produced in their entirety. Rather than going at length into my argument as a question of privilege, I should like to bring it to the attention of Madam Speaker as a point of order. I should like your investigation, and possibly at some later suitable time we can discuss whether in fact the order of the House has in fact been complied with.


Madam Speaker:: I think I can comply with that request. I will investigate the matter and perhaps I can take it up with the hon. member later or at another time in the House.


PRIVILEGE
Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Madam Speaker, I rise to give notice of a question of privilege. I had hoped the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Lamontagne) would be here at this time. I have just discovered that the minutes of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence have been altered in five places at the request of his staff.


Madam Speaker:: Order. The hon. member may send me notice that he wants to raise a question of privilege. He need not do it in the House. I will accept a written statement by the hon. member, but he need not give notice in the House.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: I will do so at the first opportunity.

March 18, 1982
Introduction of Bills



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2), I wish to table in both official languages, copies of the Terms of Reference of the Joint Commission of Inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the sinking of the "Ocean Ranger" on February 15, 1982.


SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES (E), 1981-82
[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting to the House of Commons Supplementary Estimates (E) of sums required for the service of Canada for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1982, and in accordance with the provisons of the British North America Act, 1867, was presented by Hon. Donald J. Johnston (President of the Treasury Board) and read by Madam Speaker to the House.

Hon. Yvon Pinard (for the Secretary of State) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-95, an act to provide for government operated pool systems on combinations of athletic contests and events, and to amend the Criminal Code and the Income Tax Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

Hon. Donald J. Johnston (President of the Treasury Board) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-96, to amend the Financial Administration Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 59, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin):
That the Supplementary Estimates (E), 1981-82, tabled earlier this day, be referred to the several Standing Committees of the House as follows:
Because the list is rather long and there is a detailed allocation of the estimates to the committees, if it is agreeable to the House, I ask that the list be printed in Hansard as if it had been read. I have distributed copies of the list to hon. members on the other side of the House.
[Editor's Note: List referred to above is as follows:]
To the Standing Committee on Agriculture:
Agriculture Votes le, 5e, 15e and 20e To the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture:
Communications Votes le, 5e, lOe, 1 le, 15e, 20e, 35e, 65e, 66e, 75e, 90e and 95e
Secretary of State Votes le, 5e, 15e, 20e and 30e To the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence:
External Affairs Votes lOe, L17e, 30e, 35e and L40e National Defence Votes le and 5e
To the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs:
Economic Development Vote le Finance Votes le, J_2e and 25e
Industry, Trade and Commerce Votes le, 6e, 7e, lOe, 25e, L42e, 45e, 60e and 70e
National Revenue Votes le and 5e To the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry:
Environment Votes le, 5e, 15e, 20e and 25e Fisheries and Oceans Vote lOe
To the Standing Committee on Health. Welfare and Social Affairs:
Consumer and Corporate Affairs Votes le and 5e National Health and Welfare Votes le, 5e, 15e and 25e To the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development:
Indian Affairs and Northern Development Votes le, 15e, 20e, 30e and 40e To the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs:
Justice Votes le and 30e. Solicitor General Votes le, 5e and 15e To the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration: Employment and Immigration Votes le, 15e, 25e and 45e Labour Votes le, 5e, lOeand 15e To the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates:
Governor General Vote le
Post Office Vote 2e
Privy Council Votes le, 2eand 15e
Science and Technology Vote 25e
Supply and Services Votes le, 2e, 6e and lOe
Treasury Board Vote 30e
To the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works:
Energy, Mines and Resources Votes 15e, 55e and L107e Public Works Votes 5e, lOe, 35c, 40e and 45e To the Standing Committee on Regional Development:
Regional Economic Expansion Votes le, lOe and 25e To the Standing Committee on Transport:
Transport Votes le, 2e, lOe, 37e, 40e, L45e, 50e, 55e, 60e, 70e, 80e and Lille
March 18, 1982

Order Paper Questions
To the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs:
Veterans Affairs Votes le, 5C, I06 and 30e


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. David Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be	answered today: Nos. 1,974, 2,446, 2,479,	2,699,	3,067,3,105,	3,115,	3,131, 3,221, 3,380 to 3,438 inclusive,	3,451,3,452,	3,484,	3,496, 3,510, 3,511, 3,528, 3,599,	3,620,	3,672,3,673,	3,686,	3,700, 3,701, 3,717, 3,718, 3,719,	3,720,	3,725,3,726,	3,746,	3,887, 3,888, 3,890, 3,964, 4,031,	4,033,	4,097,
4,098 and 4,099.
I.	2.
Fiscal year	Number of persons receiving payment	Total amount paid1959-60	14,311	$3.112,2311960-61	13,885	2.956,5151961-62	12,533	2,817,2631962-63	11,709	2,657,7061963-64	10,852	2.504,5031964-65	10,077	2,344.7111965-66	9,078	2,236.2121966-67	8.162	2.038,3291967-68	7,483	1.905,4781968-69	6,860	1,777,8691969-70	6.651	1,641,3041970-71	6,474	1.515.0001971-72	5,793	1.368,8791972-73	4,647	1,000.9411973-74	3,901	838,7151974-75	3,253	697,9811975-76	2,706	501,6911976-77	2,381	417,4151977-78	2,094	331,2191978-79	1,997	319,9151980 (Calendar year)	3,158	350,219


Mr. Knowles: 1.	In each year since the Public Service Pension Adjustment Act of 1959 was _ passed, how many persons have received payments thereunder?
2.	In each of the above years, what was the total amount paid under the act?
3.	In each of the above years, what was the average amount paid under the act to (a) retired public servants (b) widows (c) others?
4.	In each of the past five years, either calendar or financial, for which statistics are available, how many pensions under the Public Service Superannuation Act to (a) retired public servants (b) widows of public servants or widows of retired public servants, have been discontinued because of the death of the superannuate?


Mr. Norman Kelly (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: 3. (a)	(b)	(c)
Average paid		
to retired	Average paid	Average paidpublic servants	to widows	to others$226.72	$124.88	$12.32225.43	124.42	11.79222.01	123.92	10.35220.60	123.59	10.06220.26	123.75	7.99217.94	123.08	6.19216.03	122.69	7.13212.52	122.64	5.93210.27	121.27	6.11208.19	119.21	4.56196.52	125.05	5.79184.83	127.87	-177.51	130.19	-174.19	128.47	-163,05	114.27	-161.19	102.98	-158.27	101.01	157.21	99.81	-149.69	88.67	-148.73	97.05	142.92	100.92	-
The automated data collection system employed by Supply and Services Canada has produced a number of changes in the format of the 1980 data given above, compared to previous years: a calendar year basis and a more accurate reflection of the population covered by the Public Service Pension Adjustment Act.
4.	Pensions under the Public Service Superannuation Act
which have been	discontinued because of death. Retired	
Fiscal year	public servants	W idows ers1975-76	3,080	9271976-77	3,162	1,0171977-78	3.139	1.1461978-79	3,245	1.0251979-80	3,061	1,037
This information has been taken from the annual report compiled by Supply and Services Canada for the relevant years.


Mr. Flis: 1.	Does the Canadian Film Development Corporation export films?
2.	For each year 1977 to 1980, what was the number and total net profit of films (a) sold domestically (b) exported to the United States (c) exported to other countries?
3.	Were attempts made by the corporation to become self-sustaining and, if so, what were they?

March 18, 1982
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Jack Masters (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: 1 am informed by the Canadian Film Development Corporation as follows:
1.	The CFDC does not export films directly. Rather, it helps the industry to develop its own capacity to market its product. To that end, the corporation participates in foreign festivals and film markets, promoting awareness of Canadian productions and assisting Canadian producers in contacting foreign sales agents and distributors. In accordance with section 10(1 )(c) of its act, the corporation provides financial assistance to Canadian distribution companies for the distribution and marketing of Canadian certified feature films. Under a program established in 1981, CFDC's assistance to distribution in Canada consists of short-term loans and investments to be used in the theatrical launch of a Canadian film in the Canadian market by a Canadian distributor.
2.	As the CFDC itself does not export films, the corporation has only recently begun to gather information from independent Canadian producers on the success of Canadian films in theatrical distribution in Canada and in the United States. This information is based on gross box office receipts and does not include television sales. Prior to 1978-79, the corporation's records contain information concerning only Canadian theatrical distribution of productions in which it had invested.
(a)	and (b) Based on information available to the CFDC,
	Number of new Canadian feature		Gross theatrical	
	films released for theatrical		revenues	
	distribution in Canada		in $000s	
		Number produced		
		with CFDC		
Total	participation	Canada	U.S.A.1980-81	27	18	12,000	46,000*1979-80	16	9	10,000	45,0001978-79	16	11	6,500	N/A1977-78	N/A	15	6,100	1976-77	"	21	4,800	
Note: 15 new Canadian feature films were licensed for theatrical distribution in the United States in 1980-81. Data on the number of new productions licensed in previous years is not available.
(c) Information is not available from the CFDC.
3.	The corporation was established by Parliament in 1967 with a mandate to foster and promote the development of a feature film industry in Canada. The act does not specify that the corporation is to be self-sustaining. In keeping with its mandate, the corporation employs its parliamentary appropriation, together with all revenues earned from its investments in and financing of Canadian films, to stimulate growth within the private sector of Canada's industry, by aiding in the production and distribution of feature films which are increasingly a reflection of Canadian identity.
The corporation earned $385,000 in revenues from its investments in 1980-81, down from $627,770 in 1979-80: this reflects the CFDC's continuing practice of investing in productions of cultural significance, nationally or on a more regional basis, which are less likely to achieve commercial success and provide a return to the corporation, as well as providing loans for production.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	In each of the past five years, how many firms in Prince Edward Island were funded by the government to provide additional jobs and how many of the companies were (a) foreign owned (b) Canadian owned with head offices in (i) Prince Edward Island (ii) the rest of Canada?
2.	How many of the companies are no longer in business and what amount was provided to the companies?


David P. Smith: I am informed by the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission and the Department of Regional Economic Expansion as follows:
In so far as the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission is concerned:
1.	The number of firms funded, under the Employment Tax Credit Program (ETCP); the Job Experience Training (JET) Program; the Job Exploration by Students (JES) Program; the Local Employment Assistance Program (LEAP); the Canada Works (CW) Program; the Young Canada Works (YCW) Program; the Summer Youth Employment Program (SYEP); the New Technology Employment Program (NTEP); and the Canada Community Development Projects (CCDP); are as follows:
1976-77-2	1977-78-7	1978-79-383	1979-80-
249	1980-81-103
(a)	The information was not gathered for the Employment Tax Credit Program (ETCP), the Job Exploration by Students (JES) Program, the Job Experience Training (JET) Program. In so far as other programs are concerned: none.
(b)	The information was not gathered for the Employment Tax Credit Program (ETCP), the Job Exploration by Students (JES) Program, and Job Experience Training (JET) Program.
All firms funded under each of the other programs were Canadian owned with head offices in Prince Edward Island.
2.	The information was not gathered for firms funded under the Employment Tax Credit Program (ETCP); the Job Experience Training (JET) Program; the Job Exploration by Students (JES) Program. Eight companies funded under the Local Employment Assistance Program (LEAP) are no longer in business. These companies received a total of $1,046,551. All other companies are still in business.
March 18, 1982

In so far as the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is concerned:
Order Paper Questions
Prince Edward Island Regional Development Incentives Program
			April I, 1976 to March 31.	1981		
				No. of Canadian		Amount paid to
No. of	No. Canadian	No. foreign	owned firms having	No. no longer	companies nowYear	firms assisted	owned firms	owned firms	head office in P.E.I.	in business	out of business1976-77	20	19	I	17	3	$267,5911977-78	22	20	2	19	2	$227,0281978-79	25	25	0	22	1	$ 51,6161979-80	20	20	0	19	1	$ 26,8791980-81	18	18	0	16	0	0Total	105	102	3	93	7	$573,114Prince Edward Island Comprehensive Development Plan	April 1, 1976 to March 31,	1981	No. of Canadian	Net loss resultingNo. of firms	No. Canadian	No. foreign	owned firms having	No. no longer	from those going outYear	assisted	owned firms	owned firms	head office in P.E.I.	in business	of business1976-77	30	30	nil1977-78	28	28	nil1978-79	44	44	nil1979-80	70	70	nil1980-81	81	81	nilTotal	253	253	nil


Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	Is Mr. J. A. J. Richer the Chief of Human Resources at the head office of the National Harbours Board and, if not, what is his correct position and title?
2.	How long has Mr. Richer been employed with the board?
3.	Will Mr. Richer be attending Sherbrooke University commencing September, 1981 for the next two years and, if so (a) will he receive full salary and expenses while attending university (b) will his expenses be paid by the board and, if so (i) in what amount and what is the breakdown (ii) under what authority (c) is there a home allowance expense and, if so, in what amount and what is the breakdown (d) what is the name and positon of each person who approved the entire transaction and under what authority?
4.	What is the salary range of Mr. Richer?
5.	Is there a specific policy permitting board employees to receive full salary and expenses while attending school or university and, if so, what is the policy?
6.	For the past three years to date, what is the name and position of each board employee who received full salary and expenses while attending school or university?


Jesse Philip Flis: The National Harbours Board advises as follows:
1.	On the date of the question, Mr. J. A. J. Richer was chief, administrative and special services.
2.	Since April, 1975.
3.	Yes. He will be enrolled in a co-operative program under which he will spend some time at university and some time at N.H.B.
(a) He will receive his normal salary.
29	5	$27,60828	5	$52,13544	-	-69	1	nil (client paid back loan)81	-251	11	$79,743(b)	Expenses will be paid by the National Harbours Board.(i)	according to Treasury Board travel directives for "extended periods in travel status".(ii)	the board approved the entire transaction under the N.H.B. Act and guidelines provided by Treasury Board's personnel management manual chapter 110, sub-chapter 5 (PMM 110-5) on human resources education, training and development.(c)	There is a home allowance expense in accordance with Treasury Board directive 8.4.1, "extended periods in travel status". The amount of the allowance will vary in accordance with Treasury Board regulations which are updated from time to time.(d)	Mr. Pierre A. H. Franche, chairman Mr. Jacques Auger, vice-chairman Dr. S. H. Weyman, member
Mrs. Marian Robson, member Mr. F. B. Ellam, corporate secretary See also answer to part 3(b)(ii) above.
4.	$39,188.-$48,984.
5.	There is no NHB policy permetting the board employees to receive full salary and expenses while attending school or university. The N.H.B. Act permits the board to enter into such a program on a case basis.

March 18, 1982
Order Paper Questions
6.	In the three years prior to June, 1981, no board employee received normal salary and expenses while attending a school or university.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Is the Department of Communications aware that telephone operators keep interrupting incoming long-distance telephone calls by Members of Parliament to their offices at periodic intervals, that members are often disconnected and that the excuse offered by the operators is that the equipment is so outdated that they are instructed to listen on the line to determine whether it is still in use because automatic disconnecting does not occur?
2.	Does the government intend to take measures to update the system and, if so (a) what measures (b) on what date will this be done?
3.	Have there been discussions with Bell Canada on the subject and (a) if so, what are all the details (b) if not, for what reason?
4.	Does the government consider such interruptions an invasion of privacy?


Hon. Francis Fox (Minister of Communications):: In so far
as the Department of Communications is concerned, the reply to the above question is as follows:
1.	Yes, the Department of Communications is aware that the type of equipment presently in use at the government switchboard does not provide automatic disconnect. Accordingly operating procedures have been established to test the line under certain conditions to confirm if the call has been terminated. The cord-type switchboard operations and the present central office equipment are the principle factors causing sporadic disconnects.
(a)
Name of Co.,	Year of
(subsidiary)	investment
Airtransit Canada	1973
Airline Maintenance Buildings Limited	1978
Matac Cargo Limited	1978
Touram Inc.	1978
(Touram Group Services Inc.)
Nordair Limited	1979
(Treasure Tours Canada Limited)
(Treasure Tours International Limited)
(Nordair Ontario Inc.)
(Sundair Limited)
(Survair Limited)
Guinness Peat Aviation 1980 Limited	1980
(Air Tara Limited)
In adddition Air Canada holds a nominal interest in various North American, Caribbean and European companies or organizations that were created to furnish various airline aeronautical, telecommunication, operational and technical services as required by the aviation community servicing North American, Caribbean and European points.
2.	Yes, the Government Telecommunications Agency has taken measures to update the system with the introduction of a system based on new technology by mid-1983. The existing switchboard will be totally replaced with modern equipment which will eliminate the above-mentioned problem.
3.	Yes, a joint GTA/Bell Canada task group was established in October, 1980, to plan and implement a system to replace the existing networks with new, state-of-the-art technology which will provide for improved service, new system features and increased reliability. The objective is to convert to a new digital multiplex system by mid-1983.
4.	When Parliament in 1974 enacted Part IV 1 of the Criminal Code on invasion of privacy, it recognized the need to exempt from the purview of the law interruptions caused by operator tests performed out of operational necessity. Such interruptions are not therefore considered an invasion of privacy.


Mr. Clarke: 1.	During the period 1970-80 did Air Canada acquire shares or other ownership interest in any other corporation, limited liability company or unincorporated company and, if so, what was the (a) name of the corporation, limited liability company or unincorporated company and any subsidiaries thereof (b) percentage of equity acquired (c) cost of acquisition (d) book value of the acquisition?
2.	Does Air Canada have a plan to change the present portion of ownership in any of these enterprises and, if so, what is the plan?


Jesse Philip Flis: The management of Air Canada advises as follows:
(b)	(c)	(d)
Percentage		
equity	Cost of	Book value atacquired	acquisition	acquisition100	$ 1.000	Cost100	$138,083	Cost50	$180,658	Cost100	$387,832	Cost86.46	$24.1 m	S19.1 m29.33	$ 8.9m	$ 1.3m
A listing of these companies is provided below:
Name	Equity
Aeronautical Radio Inc.	I share
Air Cargo Facilities Inc.	2.5%
Airlines Clearing House Inc.	I share
Airline Tariff Publishing Company	6.69 %
International Aeradio Limited	4.1 %
International Aeradio (Caribbean) Limited	1.0%
Societe Internationale de Telecommunications Aeronautiques .42 %
March 18, 1982

2. No.


Mr. Clarke: 1. During the period 1970-80 did the national railways as defined in the Canadian National-Canadian Pacific Act, chapter 39 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1952 acquire shares or other ownership interest in any other corporation, limited liability company or unincorporated company and, if so, what was the (a) name of the corporation, limited liability company or unincorporated
Order Paper Questions
company and any subsidiaries thereof (b) percentage of equity acquired (c) cost of acquisition (d) book value of the acquisition?
2. Does the national railways have a plan to change the present portion of ownership in any of these enterprises and, if so, what is the plan?


Jesse Philip Flis: The management of Canadian National Railway Company advises as follows:
1. (a), (b), (c) and (d). See list below.
Canadian National Railway System
Ownership Interests Acquired during the period 1970-1980 and held at December 31, 1980
(a)
Name of Corporation/Partnership
Autoport Limited Canac Consultants Limited
The Canada and Gulf Terminal Railway Company Canadian National Hotels (Moncton) Ltd.
Canaprev Inc.
Canat Limited
Canaven Limited
Chalut Transport (1974) Inc.
CNCP Telecommunications (a partnership)
CN Marine Inc.
CNM Inc.
CN Tower Limited CN Tower Restaurants Ltd.
Coastal Transport Limited Compagnie de Gestion de Matane Inc.
Computer Sciences Canada, Ltd.
Cronin Transport Limited
Detroit, Toledo and 1 ronton Railroad Company
DTI Enterprises Inc.
Trailer Train Company Domestic II Leasing Corporation Domestic III Leasing Corporation Domestic Four Leasing Corporation East Yard Development Ltd.
Eurocanadian Shipholdings Limited-
Preferred shares Common shares Intercast S.A.
Grand Trunk Corporation
Grand Trunk Land Development Corporation
Grand Trunk Radio Communications, Inc.
Halifax Industries (Holdings) Limited Husband International Transport (Ontario) Limited Metro Centre Developments Limited Northern Alberta Railway Company NorthwesTel Inc.
Provincial Tankers Limited Royal Transportation Limited Seabase Limited
Societe du port Ferroviaire de Baie Comeau-Hauterive Swan River-The Pas Transfer Ltd.
Telesat Canada
Terra Nova Telecommunications Inc.
Transport Husband (Quebec) Inc.
(b)	(c)	<d)
Percentage		Book value
of equity	Cost of	ofacquired	acquisition	acquisition100	$ 5,001	S (243.295)100	4.023	4,023100	2,865.000	2,865.000100	1,000	1,00050	250,000	250,000100	5.000	5.000100	6	6100	100	10050	-	-100	127,616,100	127.616.100100	317,500	317,500100	2,006	2,006100	5	5100	500	50049	663,662	663.66210.9	958,000	(1,238.779)100	216,600	216,600100 N	100 ^	29,128,170	45.899,7162.44 J	100	1	1100	1	1100	50	5050	3	349.614.019	49,614.01918 18	11,900,000 \ 100,000 /	6.300.000100	239,654,364	239,654.364100	1	I100	1,002	1,00233.33	40,000	40,000100	103,380	250,04850	2,110.023	2,110.02350	19,800.000	8,691,855100	37.000.000	37.000.000100	100	100100	272.326	83,75215	37,500	37,50049	1.000,000	1.000.000100	802,383	282.7823.75	2.250,000	2,250.000100	36,000.000	36,000,000100	6.000	6.000
2. Subsequently, in 1981, CNM Inc.'s interest in Halifax Industries (Holdings) Limited was increased to 50 per cent.

March 18, 1982
Order Paper Questions FOREIGN INVESTMENT BY PETRO-CANADA


Mr. Clarke: With reference to the operations of Petro-Canada, what is the total sum disbursed to foreign interests and, in each case, what was the purpose of the disbursement?


Marc Lalonde: Petro-Canada reports as follows:
Funds expended on international exploration totalled $4.8 million in 1981. These funds were used for exploration drilling participation in the Norwegian North Sea where Petro-Canada has successfully participated in the discovery of a major oil field. A portion of the funds were also expended for group participation in offshore seismic surveys in the Yellow Sea and South China Sea basins, offshore China. These international expenditures are directed to promising oil producing or potentially producing international basins where discoveries could provide additional long-term sources of oil supply for Canada.


Mr. Stevens: ![DOT] What are the projected costs for the renovation of the Peace Tower on Parliament Hill?
2.	Who are the contractors and/or subcontractors?
3.	Was the contract tendered for bid and, if so, was the lowest bid accepted?
4.	Are the renovations proceeding "on budget" or are cost overruns expected?


Paul James Cosgrove: 1. The
total projected costs for the renovation of the Peace Tower are $4,618,000.
2.	The contractors are:
(a)	Ron Engineering and Construction (Eastern) Ltd.
(Peace Tower renovations)
(b)	Otis Elevator Company (New Elevator)
(c)	The I. T. Verdin Company (Alterations & Renovations of the Carillon)
3.	Yes, the contract for renovations was tendered and the lowest bid was accepted in the amount of $3,478,000. This amount relates to the construction contract awarded to Ron Engineering and Construction (Eastern) Ltd., which is included in the total projected budget of $4,618,000. Balance of the project budget includes consultant fees and allowances for specialized work and unforeseen site conditions.
4.	Yes, the renovations are proceeding within budget.


Mr. Young: 1.	As of October 1, 1981, did the government take action to implement recommendation No. 2 of the Report of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped and, if so, what was such action?
2.	Subsequent to October 1, 1981, did the government take further action on this recommendation and, if so, what was it?


Gerald Augustine Regan: The government's response to these recommendations of the Report of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped is contained in a document entitled "Initial Response of the Government of Canada to the Obstacles Report, December, 1981 ", tabled December 17, 1981.


Mr. Young: 1.	As of October 1, 1981, did the government take action to implement recommendation No. 3 of the report of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped and, if so, what was such action?
2.	Subsequent to October 1, 1981, did the government take further action on this recommendation and, if so, what was it?


Gerald Augustine Regan: The government's response to these recommendations of the report of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped is contained in a document entitled "Initial Response of the Government of Canada to the Obstacles Report, December, 1981", tabled December 17, 1981.


Mr. Young: 1.	As of October 1, 1981, did the government take action to implement recommendation No. 13 of the report of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped and, if so, what was such action?
2.	Subsequent to October 1, 1981, did the government take further action on this recommendation and, if so, what was it?


Gerald Augustine Regan: The government's response to these recommendations of the report of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped is contained in a document entitled "Initial Response of the Government of Canada to the Obstacles Report, December, 1981", tabled December 17, 1981.


Mr. Young: 1.	As of October 1, 1981, did the government take action to implement recommendation No. 14 of the report of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped and, if so, what was such action?
2.	Subsequent to October 1, 1981, did the government take further action on this recommendation and, if so, what was it?


Gerald Augustine Regan: The government's response to these recommendations of the Report of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped is contained in a document entitled "Initial Response of the Government of Canada to the Obstacles Report, December, 1981", tabled December 17, 1981.


Mr. Young: 1.	As of October 1, 1981, did the government take action to implement recommendation No. 17 of the Report of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped and, if so, what was such action?
2.	Subsequent to October 1, 1981, did the government take further action on this recommendation and, if so, what was it?


Gerald Augustine Regan: The government's response to these recommendations of the Report of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped is contained in a document entitled "Initial Response of the Government of Canada to the Obstacles Report, December, 1981", tabled December 17, 1981.
March 18, 1982


Mr. Young: 1.	As of October 1, 1981. did the government take action to implement recommendation No. 19 of the Report of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped and, if so, what was such action?
2.	Subsequent to October 1, 1981, did the government take further action on this recommendation and, if so, what was it?


Gerald Augustine Regan: The government's response to these recommendations of the Report of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped is contained in a document entitled "Initial Response of the Government of Canada to the Obstacles Report, December, 1981", tabled December 17, 1981.


Mr. Young: 1.	As of October 1, 1981, did the government take action to implement recommendation No. 20 of the Report of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped and, if so, what was such action?
2.	Subsequent to October 1, 1981, did the government take further action on this recommendation and, if so, what was it?


Gerald Augustine Regan: The government's response to recommendations Nos. 20, 23, 25, 33 (sub-paragraph 4), 63, 66, 74, 90, 101 and 106 of the Report of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped will be the subject of a supplementary report to the "Initial Response of the Government of Canada to the Obstacles Report, December, 1981" in 1982.


Mr. Young: 1.	As of October 1, 1981, did the government take action to implement recommendation No. 22 of the Report of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped and, if so, what was such action?
2.	Subsequent to October 1, 1981, did the government take further action on this recommendation and, if so, what was it?


Gerald Augustine Regan: The government's response to these recommendations of the Report of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped is contained in a document entitled "Initial Response of the Government of Canada to the Obstacles Report, December, 1981", tabled December 17, 1981.


Mr. Young: 1.	As of October 1, 1981, did the government take action to implement recommendation No. 23 of the Report of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped and, if so, what was such action?
2.	Subsequent to October 1, 1981, did the government take further action on this recommendation and, if so, what was it?


Gerald Augustine Regan: The government's response to recommendations Nos. 20, 23, 25, 33 (sub-paragraph 4), 63, 66, 74, 90, 101 and 106 of the Report of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped will be the subject of a supplementary report to the "Initial Response of the Government of Canada to the Obstacles Report, December, 1981" in 1982.


Mr. Young: 1. As of October 1, 1981, did the government take action to implement recommendation No. 24 of the Report of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped and, if so, what was such action?
Order Paper Questions
2. Subsequent to October 1, 1981, did the government take further action on this recommendation and, if so, what was it?


Gerald Augustine Regan: The government's response to these recommendations of the Report of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped is contained in a document entitled "Initial Response of the Government of Canada to the Obstacles Report, December, 1981", tabled December 17, 1981.


Mr. Young: 1.	As of October 1, 1981, did the government take action to implement recommendation No. 25 of the Report of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped and, if so, what was such action?
2.	Subsequent to October 1, 1981, did the government take further action on this recommendation and, if so, what was it?


Gerald Augustine Regan: The government's response to recommendations Nos. 20, 23, 25, 33 (sub-paragraph 4), 63, 66, 74, 90, 101 and 106 of the Report of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped will be the subject of a supplementary report to the "Initial Response of the Government of Canada to the Obstacles Report, December, 1981" in 1982. doc Q3391:20-d belisle


Mr. Young: 1.	As of October 1, 1981, did the government take action to implement recommendation No. 32 of the Report of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped and, if so, what was such action?
2.	Subsequent to October 1, 1981, did the government take further action on this recommendation and, if so, what was it?


Gerald Augustine Regan: The government's response to these recommendations of the Report of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped is contained in a document entitled "Initial Response of the Government of Canada to the Obstacles Report, December, 1981", tabled December 17, 1981.


Mr. Young: 1.	As of October 1, 1981, did the government take action to implement recommendation No. 33, sub-paragraph 4, of the Report of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped and, if so, what was such action?
2.	Subsequent to October 1, 1981, did the government take further action on this recommendation and, if so, what was it?


Gerald Augustine Regan: The government's response to recommendations Nos. 20, 23, 25, 33 (sub-paragraph 4), 63, 66, 74, 90, 101 and 106 of the Report of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped will be the subject of a supplementary report to the "Initial Response of the Government of Canada to the Obstacles Report, December, 1981" in 1982.


Mr. Young: 1.	As of October 1, 1981, did the government take action to implement recommendation No. 34 of the Report of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped and, if so, what was such action?
2.	Subsequent to October 1, 1981, did the government take further action on this recommendation and, if so, what was it?

March 18, 1982
Order Paper Questions


Gerald Augustine Regan: The government's response to these recommendations of the Report of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped is contained in a document entitled "Initial Response of the Government of Canada to the Obstacles Report, December, 1981", tabled December 17, 1981.


Mr. Young: 1.	As of October 1, 1981, did the government take action to implement recommendation No. 35, sub-paragraph 2, of the Report of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped and, if so, what was such action?
2.	Subsequent to October 1, 1981, did the government take further action on this recommendation and, if so, what was it?


Gerald Augustine Regan: The government's response to these recommendations of the Report of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped is contained in a document entitled "Initial Response of the Government of Canada to the Obstacles Report, December, 1981", tabled December 17, 1981.


Mr. Young: 1.	As of October 1, 1981, did the government take action to implement recommendation No. 35, sub-paragraph 4, of the Report of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped and, if so, what was such action?
2.	Subsequent to October 1, 1981, did the government take further action on this recommendation and, if so, what was it?


Gerald Augustine Regan: The government's response to these recommendations of the Report of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped is contained in a document entitled "Initial Response of the Government of Canada to the Obstacles Report, December, 1981", tabled December 17, 1981.


Mr. Young: 1.	As of October 1, 1981, did the government take action to implement recommendation No. 35, sub-paragraph 5, of the Report of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped and, if so, what was such action?
2.	Subsequent to October 1, 1981, did the government take further action on this recommendation and, if so, what was it?


Gerald Augustine Regan: The government's response to these recommendations of the Report of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped is contained in a document entitled "Initial Response of the Government of Canada to the Obstacles Report, December, 1981", tabled December 17, 1981.


Mr. Young: 1.	As of October 1, 1981, did the government take action to implement recommendation No. 35, sub-paragraph 7, of the Report of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped and, if so, what was such action?
2.	Subsequent to October 1, 1981, did the government take further action on this recommendation and, if so, what was it?


Gerald Augustine Regan: The government's response to these recommendations of the Report of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped is contained in a document entitled "Initial Response of the Government of Canada to the Obstacles Report, December, 1981", tabled December 17, 1981.


Mr. Young: 1.	As of October 1, 1981, did the government take action to implement recommendation No. 36 of the Report of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped and, if so, what was such action?
2.	Subsequent to October 1, 1981, did the government take further action on this recommendation and, if so, what was it?


Gerald Augustine Regan: The government's response to these recommendations of the Report of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped is contained in a document entitled "Initial Response of the Government of Canada to the Obstacles Report, December, 1981", tabled December 17, 1981.


Mr. Young: 1.	As of October 1, 1981, did the government take action to implement recommendation No. 54 of the Report of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped and, if so. what was such action?
2.	Subsequent to October 1, 1981, did the government take further action on this recommendation and, if so, what was it?


Gerald Augustine Regan: The government's response to these recommendations of the Report of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped is contained in a document entitled "Initial Response of the Government of Canada to the Obstacles Report, December, 1981", tabled December 17, 1981.


Mr. Young: 1.	As of October 1, 1981, did the government take action to implement recommendation No. 55 of the Report of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped and, if so, what was such action?
2.	Subsequent to October 1, 1981, did the government take further action on this recommendation and, if so, what was it?


Gerald Augustine Regan: The government's response to these recommendations of the Report of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped is contained in a document entitled "Initial Response of the Government of Canada to the Obstacles Report, December, 1981", tabled December 17, 1981.


Mr. Young: 1.	As of October 1, 1981, did the government take action to implement recommendation No. 56 of the Report of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped and, if so, what was such action?
2.	Subsequent to October 1, 1981, did the government take further action on this recommendation and, if so, what was it?


Gerald Augustine Regan: The government's response to these recommendations of the Report of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped is contained in a document entitled "Initial Response of the Government of Canada to the Obstacles Report, December, 1981", tabled December 17, 1981.


Mr. Young: 1.	As of October 1, 1981, did the government take action to implement recommendation No. 57 of the Report of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped and, if so, what was such action?
2.	Subsequent to October 1, 1981, did the government take further action on this recommendation and, if so, what was it?


Gerald Augustine Regan: The government's
response to these recommendations of the Report of the
March 18, 1982

Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped is contained in a document entitled "Initial Response of the Government of Canada to the Obstacles Report, December, 1981", tabled December 17, 1981.


Mir. Young: 1.	As of October 1, 1981, did the government take action to implement recommendation No. 58 of the Report of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped and, if so, what was such action?
2.	Subsequent to October 1, 1981, did the government take further action on this recommendation and, if so, what was it?


Gerald Augustine Regan: The government's response to these recommendations of the Report of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped is contained in a document entitled "Initial Response of the Government of Canada to the Obstacles Report, December, 1981", tabled December 17, 1981.


Mr. Young: 1.	As of October 1, 1981, did the government take action to implement recommendation number 60 of the Report of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped and, if so, what was such action?
2.	Subsequent to October 1, 1981, did the government take further action on this recommendation and, if so, what was it?


Gerald Augustine Regan: The government's response to these recommendations of the Report of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped is contained in a document entitled "Initial Response of the Government of Canada to the Obstacles Report, December, 1981", tabled December 17, 1981.


Mr. Young: 1.	As of October 1, 1981, did the government take action to implement recommendation No. 62 of the Report of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped and, if so, what was such action?
2.	Subsequent to October 1, 1981, did the government take further action on this recommendation and, if so, what was it?


Gerald Augustine Regan: The government's response to these recommendations of the Report of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped is contained in a document entitled "Initial Response of the Government of Canada to the Obstacles Report, December, 1981", tabled December 17, 1981.


Mr. Young: 1.	As of October 1, 1981, did the government take action to implement recommendation No. 63 of the Report of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped and, if so, what was such action?
2.	Subsequent to October 1, 1981, did the government take further action on this recommendation and, if so, what was it?


Gerald Augustine Regan: The government's response to recommendations Nos. 20, 23, 25, 33 (sub-paragraph 4), 63, 66, 74, 90, 101 and 106 of the Report of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped will be the subject of a supplementary report to the "Initial Response of the Government of Canada to the Obstacles Report, December, 1981" in 1982.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Young: 1.	As of October 1, 1981, did the government take action to implement recommendation No. 65 of the Report of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped and, if so, what was such action?
2.	Subsequent to October 1, 1981, did the government take further action on this recommendation and, if so, what was it?


Gerald Augustine Regan: The government's response to these recommendations of the Report of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped is contained in a document entitled "Initial Response of the Government of Canada to the Obstacles Report, December, 1981", tabled December 17, 1981.


Mr. Young: 1.	As of October 1, 1981, did the government take action to implement recommendation No. 66 of the Report of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped and, if so, what was such action?
2.	Subsequent to October 1, 1981, did the government take further action on this recommendation and, if so, what was it?


Gerald Augustine Regan: The government's response to recommendations Nos. 20, 23, 25, 33 (sub-paragraph 4), 63, 66, 74, 90, 101 and 106 of the Report of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped will be the subject of a supplementary report to the "Initial Response of the Government of Canada to the Obstacles Report, December, 1981" in 1982.


Mr. Young: 1.	As of October 1, 1981, did the government take action to implement recommendation No. 67 of the Report of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped and, if so, what was such action?
2.	Subsequent to October 1, 1981, did the government take further action on this recommendation and, if so, what was it?


Gerald Augustine Regan: The government's response to these recommendations of the Report of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped is contained in a document entitled "Initial Response of the Government of Canada to the Obstacles Report, December, 1981", tabled December 17, 1981.


Mr. Young: 1.	As of October 1, 1981, did the government take action to implement recommendation No. 68 of the Report of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped and, if so, what was such action?
2.	Subsequent to October 1, 1981, did the government take further action on this recommendation and, if so, what was it?


Gerald Augustine Regan: The government's response to these recommendations of the Report of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped is contained in a document entitled "Initial Response of the Government of Canada to the Obstacles Report, December, 1981", tabled December 17, 1981.


Mr. Young: 1.	As of October 1, 1981, did the government take action to implement recommendation No. 69 of the Report of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped and, if so, what was such action?
2.	Subsequent to October 1, 1981, did the government take further action on this recommendation and, if so, what was it?

March 18, 1982
Order Paper Questions


Gerald Augustine Regan: The government's response to these recommendations of the Report of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped is contained in a document entitled "Initial Response of the Government of Canada to the Obstacles Report, December, 1981", tabled December 17, 1981.


Mr. Young: 1.	As of October 1, 1981, did the government take action to implement recommendation No. 73 of the Report of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped and, if so, what was such action?
2.	Subsequent to October 1, 1981, did the government take further action on this recommendation and, if so, what was it?


Gerald Augustine Regan: The government's response to these recommendations of the Report of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped is contained in a document entitled "Initial Response of the Government of Canada to the Obstacles Report, December, 1981", tabled December 17, 1981.


Mr. Young: 1.	As of October 1, 1981, did the government take action to implement recommendation No. 74 of the Report of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped and, if so, what was such action?
2.	Subsequent to October 1, 1981, did the government take further action on this recommendation and, if so, what was it?


Gerald Augustine Regan: The government's response to recommendations Nos. 20, 23, 25, 33 (sub-paragraph 4), 63, 66, 74, 90, 101 and 106 of the Report of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped will be the subject of a supplementary report to the "Initial Response of the Government of Canada to the Obstacles Report, December, 1981" in 1982.


Mr. Young: 1.	As of October 1, 1981, did the government take action to implement recommendation No. 77 of the Report of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped and, if so, what was such action?
2.	Subsequent to October 1, 1981, did the government take further action on this recommendation and, if so, what was it?


Gerald Augustine Regan: The government's response to these recommendations of the Report of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped is contained in a document entitled "Initial Response of the Government of Canada to the Obstacles Report, December, 1981", tabled December 17, 1981.


Mr. Young: 1.	As of October 1, 1981, did the government take action to implement recommendation No. 80 of the Report of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped and, if so, what was such action?
2.	Subsequent to October 1, 1981, did the government take further action on this recommendation and, if so, what was it?


Gerald Augustine Regan: The government's response to these recommendations of the Report of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped is contained in a document entitled "Initial Response of the Government of Canada to the Obstacles Report, December, 1981", tabled December 17, 1981.


Mr. Young: 1.	As of October 1, 1981, did the government take action to implement recommendation No. 82 of the Report of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped and, if so, what was such action?
2.	Subsequent to October 1, 1981, did the government take further action on this recommendation and, if so, what was it?


Gerald Augustine Regan: The government's response to these recommendations of the Report of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped is contained in a document entitled "Initial Response of the Government of Canada to the Obstacles Report, December, 1981", tabled December 17, 1981.


Mr. Young: 1.	As of October 1, 1981, did the government take action to implement recommendation No. 83 of the Report of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped and, if so, what was such action?
2.	Subsequent to October 1, 1981, did the government take further action on this recommendation and, if so, what was it?


Gerald Augustine Regan: The government's response to these recommendations of the Report of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped is contained in a document entitled "Initial Response of the Government of Canada to the Obstacles Report, December, 1981", tabled December 17, 1981.


Mr. Young: 1.	As of October 1, 1981, did the government take action to implement recommendation No. 84 of the Report of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped and, if so, what was such action?
2.	Subsequent to October I, 1981, did the government take further action on this recommendation and, if so, what was it?


Gerald Augustine Regan: The government's response to these recommendations of the Report of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped is contained in a document entitled "Initial Response of the Government of Canada to the Obstacles Report, December, 1981", tabled December 17, 1981.


Mr. Young: 1.	As of October 1, 1981, did the government take action to implement recommendation No. 85 of the Report of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped and, if so, what was such action?
2.	Subsequent to October 1, 1981, did the government take further action on this recommendation and, if so, what was it?


Gerald Augustine Regan: The government's response to these recommendations of the Report of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped is contained in a document entitled "Initial Response of the Government of Canada to the Obstacles Report, December, 1981", tabled December 17, 1981.


Mr. Young: 1.	As of October 1, 1981, did the government take action to implement recommendation No. 87 of the Report of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped and, if so, what was such action?
2.	Subsequent to October 1, 1981, did the government take further action on this recommendation and, if so, what was it?
March 18, 1982


Gerald Augustine Regan: The government's response to these recommendations of the Report of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped is contained in a document entitled "Initial Response of the Government of Canada to the Obstacles Report, December, 1981", tabled December 17, 1981.


Mr. Young: 1.	As of October 1, 1981, did the government take action to implement recommendation No. 88 of the Report of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped and, if so, what was such action?
2.	Subsequent to October 1, 1981, did the government take further action on this recommendation and, if so, what was it?


Gerald Augustine Regan: The government's response to these recommendations of the Report of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped is contained in a document entitled "Initial Response of the Government of Canada to the Obstacles Report, December, 1981", tabled December 17, 1981.


Mr. Young: 1.	As of October 1, 1981, did the government take action to implement recommendation No. 90 of the Report of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped and, if so, what was such action?
2.	Subsequent to October 1, 1981, did the government take further action on this recommendation and, if so, what was it?


Gerald Augustine Regan: The government's response to recommendations Nos. 20, 23, 25, 33 (sub-paragraph 4), 63, 66, 74, 90, 101 and 106 of the Report of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped will be the subject of a supplementary report to the "Initial Response of the Government of Canada to the Obstacles Report, December, 1981" in 1982.


Mr. Young: 1.	As of October 1, 1981, did the government take action to implement recommendation No. 93 of the Report of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped and, if so, what was such action?
2.	Subsequent to October 1, 1981, did the government take further action on this recommendation and, if so, what was it?


Gerald Augustine Regan: The government's response to these recommendations of the Report of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped is contained in a document entitled "Initial Response of the Government of Canada to the Obstacles Report, December, 1981", tabled December 17, 1981.


Mr. Young: 1.	As of October 1, 1981, did the government take action to implement recommendation No. 94 of the Report of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped and, if so, what was such action?
2.	Subsequent to October 1, 1981, did the government take further action on this recommendation and, if so, what was it?


Gerald Augustine Regan: The government's response to these recommendations of the Report of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped is contained in a document entitled "Initial Response of the Government of Canada to the Obstacles Report, December, 1981", tabled December 17, 1981.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Young: 1.	As of October 1, 1981, did the government take action to implement recommendation No. 99 of the Report of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped and, if so, what was such action?
2.	Subsequent to October 1, 1981, did the government take further action on this recommendation and, if so, what was it?


Gerald Augustine Regan: The government's response to these recommendations of the Report of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped is contained in a document entitled "Initial Response of the Government of Canada to the Obstacles Report, December, 1981", tabled December 17, 1981.


Mr. Young: 1.	As of October 1, 1981, did the government take action to implement recommendation No. 100 of the Report of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped and, if so, what was such action?
2.	Subsequent to October 1, 1981, did the government take further action on this recommendation and, if so, what was it?


Gerald Augustine Regan: The government's response to these recommendations of the Report of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped is contained in a document entitled "Initial Response of the Government of Canada to the Obstacles Report, December, 1981", tabled December 17, 1981.


Mr. Young: 1.	As of October 1, 1981, did the government take action to implement recommendation No. 101 of the Report of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped and, if so, what was such action?
2.	Subsequent to October 1, 1981, did the government take further action on this recommendation and, if so, what was it?


Gerald Augustine Regan: The government's response to recommendations Nos. 20, 23, 25, 33 (sub-paragraph 4), 63, 66, 74, 90, 101 and 106 of the Report of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped will be the subject of a supplementary report to the "Initial Response of the Government of Canada to the Obstacles Report, December, 1981" in 1982.


Mr. Young: 1.	As of October 1, 1981, did the government take action to implement recommendation No. 102 of the Report of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped and, if so, what was such action?
2.	Subsequent to October 1, 1981, did the government take further action on this recommendation and, if so, what was it?


Gerald Augustine Regan: The government's response to these recommendations of the Report of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped is contained in a document entitled "Initial Response of the Government of Canada to the Obstacles Report, December, 1981", tabled December 17, 1981.


Mr. Young: 1.	As of October 1, 1981, did the government take action to implement recommendation No. 105 of the Report of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped and, if so, what was such action?
2.	Subsequent to October 1, 1981, did the government take further action on this recommendation and, if so, what was it?

March 18, 1982
Order Paper Questions


Gerald Augustine Regan: The government's response to these recommendations of the Report of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped is contained in a document entitled "Initial Response of the Government of Canada to the Obstacles Report, December, 1981", tabled December 17, 1981.


Mr. Young: 1.	As of October 1, 1981, did the government take action to implement recommendation No. 106 of the Report of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped and, if so, what was such action?
2.	Subsequent to October 1, 1981, did the government take further action on this recommendation and, if so, what was it?


Gerald Augustine Regan: The government's response to recommendations Nos. 20, 23, 25, 33 (sub-paragraph 4), 63, 66, 74, 90, 101 and 106 of the Report of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped will be the subject of a supplementary report to the "Initial Response of the Government of Canada to the Obstacles Report, December, 1981" in 1982.


Mr. Young: 1.	As of October 1, 1981, did the government take action to implement recommendation No. 117 of the Report of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped and, if so, what was such action?
2.	Subsequent to October 1, 1981, did the government take further action on this recommendation and, if so, what was it?


Gerald Augustine Regan: The government's response to these recommendations of the Report of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped is contained in a document entitled "Initial Response of the Government of Canada to the Obstacles Report, December, 1981", tabled December 17, 1981.


Mr. Young: 1.	As of October 1, 1981, did the government take action to implement recommendation No. 118 of the Report of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped and, if so, what was such action?
2.	Subsequent to October 1, 1981, did the government take further action on this recommendation and, if so, what was it?


Gerald Augustine Regan: The government's response to these recommendations of the Report of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped is contained in a document entitled "Initial Response of the Government of Canada to the Obstacles Report, December, 1981", tabled December 17, 1981.


Mr. Young: 1.	As of October 1, 1981, did the government take action to implement recommendation No. 119 of the Report of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped and, if so, what was such action?
2.	Subsequent to October 1, 1981, did the government take further action on this recommendation and, if so, what was it?


Gerald Augustine Regan: The government's response to these recommendations of the Report of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped is contained in a document entitled "Initial Response of the Government of Canada to the Obstacles Report, December, 1981", tabled December 17, 1981.


Mr. Young: 1.	As of October 1, 1981, did the government take action to implement recommendation No. 121 of the Report of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped and, if so, what was such action?
2.	Subsequent to October 1, 1981, did the government take further action on this recommendation and, if so, what was it?


Gerald Augustine Regan: The government's response to these recommendations of the Report of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped is contained in a document entitled "Initial Response of the Government of Canada to the Obstacles Report, December, 1981", tabled December 17, 1981.


Mr. Young: 1.	As of October 1, 1981, did the government take action to implement recommendation No. 123 of the Report of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped and, if so, what was such action?
2.	Subsequent to October 1, 1981, did the government take further action on this recommendation and, if so, what was it?


Gerald Augustine Regan: The government's response to these recommendations of the Report of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped is contained in a document entitled "Initial Response of the Government of Canada to the Obstacles Report, December, 1981", tabled December 17, 1981.


Mr. Young: 1.	As of October 1, 1981, did the government take action to implement recommendation No. 124 of the Report of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped and, if so, what was such action?
2.	Subsequent to October 1, 1981, did the government take further action on this recommendation and, if so, what was it?


Gerald Augustine Regan: The government's response to these recommendations of the Report of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped is contained in a document entitled "Initial Response of the Government of Canada to the Obstacles Report, December, 1981", tabled December 17, 1981.


Mr. Young: 1.	As of October 1, 1981, did the government take action to implement recommendation No. 125 of the Report of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped and, if so, what was such action?
2.	Subsequent to October 1, 1981, did the government take further action on this recommendation and, if so, what was it?


Gerald Augustine Regan: The government's response to these recommendations of the Report of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped is contained in a document entitled "Initial Response of the Government of Canada to the Obstacles Report, December, 1981", tabled December 17, 1981.


Mr. Young: 1.	As of October 1, 1981, did the government take action to implement recommendation No. 126 of the Report of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped and, if so, what was such action?
2.	Subsequent to October 1, 1981, did the government take further action on this recommendation and, if so, what was it?


Gerald Augustine Regan: The government's
response to these recommendations of the Report of the
March 18, 1982

Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped is contained in a document entitled "Initial Response of the Government of Canada to the Obstacles Report, December, 1981", tabled December 17, 1981.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Is the government aware of the communication headed "Letter from Concerned Canadians" signed by the retired RCMP officers W. F. Johnstone, J. W. Duggan, W. L. Maguire, F. Bodnaruk, P. Starek, J. E. G. Bouchard and D. B. Ingam and also signed by A.L. Bewley, a retired British Columbia provincial court judge?
2.	Is the government prepared to answer the numerous allegations contained in the letter and (a) if so, on what date (b) if not, for what reason?
3.	Did the letter contain the statement (a) "During the October crisis, perhaps before or after, how many lives of how many politicians targeted by the FLQ were saved? The security force of the RCMP knows. Ottawa knows." (b) "Canadians will not allow a cherished tradition to be eradicated and replaced by a civilian effort of unknown character, experience or political affiliation." and, if so, what was the government policy or reaction to the statement?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: 1. Yes.
2.	No, the government is not prepared to answer the allegations contained in the letter. However, the Solicitor General did reply on December 17, 1981 and rejected the major themes identified therein. The specific questions asked relate directly or indirectly to issues now before the courts in the province of Quebec, and for that reason, the government feels it would be inappropriate to comment further.
3.	Yes, the letter contained those statements, (a) The government is not in a position to say in this context what may or may not have occurred if history had taken a different course, (b) It would seem that this statement is a reference to the RCMP security service being replaced by a civilian security service. The government has indeed taken that decision. This change has been recommended now by two substantial royal commissions, more than a decade apart, which studied the question. I can assure you, however, that there was no intention on the part of the government, in taking that advice, to eradicate a cherished tradition, nor has a cherished tradition been eradicated. The presence of the RCMP throughout Canada remains and will remain after the establishment of a separate security service. I can also assure you that the government intends that the new security service will be subject to the provisions of legislation that will be brought before this House in due course.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	With reference to the answer to question No. 3,191 which stated in part that there are "constraints of quality ..." with regard to the serving of Canadian wines by the Department of External Affairs, what were the names of all persons connected with the department who made any judgment that the quality of Canadian wines was not sufficiently high enough for them to be used on certain occasions?
2.	Is the government aware that in recent "blind" taste tests Canadian wines were selected by experts in most cases ahead of similar foreign products?
Order Paper Questions
3.	Will the government embark on a program to insist that only Canadian wine and other beverages be served to all foreign service establishments as well as at Department of External Affairs functions held in Canada?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. In his capacity as Honourary President of the North Atlantic Council, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, hosted in December, 1981, a dinner for foreign ministers of NATO countries. Canadian wine was served at this dinner. The Department of External Affairs regularly serves Canadian wines at luncheons, dinners and receptions for foreign guests. A wine committee, formed of senior officials from the department and other agencies, reviews this question periodically.
2.	The government is aware and seeks to use Canadian products as often as possible.
3.	A joint press release was recently issued by the ministers of Agriculture and External Affairs in this regard. Co-operation between the Department of External Affairs, Mr. Whelan's office and the Canadian Wine Institute will result in worthy Canadian wines being selected for use at official functions in Canadian diplomatic missions.


Mr. Blenkarn: 1.	Is money presently held by the government on behalf of persons who purchased government annuities and, if so, in what amount?
2.	(a) Is the government paying 19.5 per cent on Canada Savings Bonds (b) does the government give annuitants the same rate of return as persons receive on the bonds and, if not, what amount of profit is the government making?
3.	How many persons presently receive government annuities?
4.	How many persons are presently employed in the annuities branch?
5.	How many persons not now receiving annuities will eventually be entitled to receive them?
6.	Will the government allow people to just cash their annuities and receive back the money deposited with the government, so that they can purchase other investments with their money instead of being tied down with the present annuity system?
7.	(a) What is the total payroll of the department which handles the annuities program (b) what is the total office rent and what are the other overhead expenses associated with the persons employed in the program?


David P. Smith: I am informed by the Departments of Employment and Immigration and Finance as follows:
1.	On March 31, 1981 the Canadian government annuities account in the Consolidated Revenue Fund showed that liabilities to holders of annuity contracts and certificates were evaluated at $1,193,210,216.
2.	(a) Yes.
(b)	See reply to Question 730, Part 3, answered June 18, 1980.
3.	As of March 31, 1981, approximately 118,500 persons received vested annuities.
4.	The present number of staff within the annuities branch is 101. In addition, there are nine persons in other organizations within the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission who support activities of the branch.

March 18, 1982
Order Paper Questions
5.	As of March 31, 1981, approximately 110,500 persons were holders of deferred annuity contracts and certificates.
6.	See reply to question No. 3,297, part 2, answered January 25, 1982.
7.	(a) For the fiscal year 1981/82 the total payroll of the annuities branch has been forecast at $2,579,000.
(b) For the fiscal year 1981/82 the annual rental value of the space the branch occupies has been estimated at $289,000. Excluding the value of the office space, all other non-salary costs of the annuities branch have been forecast at $308,000.


Mr. Halliday: During the first two weeks of November 1981, did an RCMP officer visit the owner of a restaurant in Woodstock, Ontario to inquire for what reason his car was parked near the Chinese Embassy in Ottawa and, if so (a) was the officer, when asked, unable to identify the make, model or colour of the car and did he know only part of the licence plate number (b) what was the purpose of the visit?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: An RCMP officer did visit the owner of a restaurant in Woodstock, Ontario as a result of having received incorrect information concerning the identity of a registered owner of a motor vehicle.
Note: Re parts 3 and 5: Statistics are available only at the end of a fiscal year.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	During November 1981, was a radio "base station" set up by the RCMP anywhere near Parliament Hill on the same frequency as that used by the uniformed protective staff of the House of Commons and, if so (a) from whom was the base station obtained (b) was the base station originally for purposes of necessary communication between the RCMP and the House of Commons protective staff during the demonstration on November 21, 1981?
2.	Was this base station returned to the House of Commons or elsewhere and (a) if so, on what date (b) if not, does the RCMP listen in on conversations between the officers of the Protective Staff on Parliament Hill?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: 1. Yes.
(a)	Director of Security, House of Commons.
(b)	Yes.
2. No.
(a)	Not applicable.
(b)	No.


Mr. Halliday: 1.	Do any employees of the Department of National Health and Welfare possess diplomas or certificates in tropical medicine and, if so, how many?
2.	Is there a requirement or an opportunity for such employees to take periodic refresher courses and, if not, for what reason?


Mr. Doug Frith (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. Yes. Seven employees of the Department of National Health and Welfare possess diplomas or certificates in tropical medicine.
2. There is no requirement for such employees to take periodic refresher courses. However there are opportunities to do so. Depending on their location, employees can go to such institutions as the Walter Reid Hospital in Washington, D.C., or the London School of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene. In Canada, short-term seminars are organized from time to time by teaching university hospitals. Employees who are posted to tropical posts are encouraged to attend medical seminars, lectures and rounds at the local teaching hospitals to enable them to become more proficient in tropical diseases.


Mr. Cossitt: Did persons in the Department of Finance, attached to the department or working for the department furnish the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation with any details concerning housing provisions in the 1981 budget and, if so (a) what were their names (b) on what date, at what time and to whom was such information furnished, prior to November 12, 1981?


David P. Smith: I am informed by the Department of Finance and the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation as follows: no.


Mr. Greenaway: 1.	For each year 1970 to date in Nova Scotia, how many cases of brucellosis were diagnosed in (a) dairy (b) beef cattle and, in each case, on how many premises?
2.	How many premises were depopulated?
3.	By year, what amount was paid in compensation to farmers per premise?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: 1.	(a) Dairy	(b) Beef Cattle	Premises
1970-71					
1971-72	1	-	11972-73	1	1	21973-74	_	2	21974-75	1	4	51975-76	-	1	11976-77	1	-	11977-78	6	4	81978-79	165	4	91979-80	3	2	51980-81	1	1	21981-82	-	Total	179	19	362.	One.3.	See list below.
Amount per Premise
1970- 71	none
1971- 72	174.00
March 18, 1982

1972-73	Amount per Premise 101.00
1973-74	97.00 110.00
1974-75	120.00 188.00
1975-76	160.00 200.00 180.00 200.00 451.00
1976-77	600.00
1977-78	190.00
1978-79	865.00 97.70 151.96 296.01 94.94 282.00 167.00 171.09
1979-80	8.28 44.00 70.89 179.00 143,051.60 154.60 48.02 24.84 203.00
1980-81	467.50 366.40 575.40 420.80 301.95
1981-82	618.20 none


Mr. Herbert: 1.	For each of the past five years, what was the difference between the amount paid in family allowances in the province of Quebec and the amount available for distribution on an eligible child per capita basis?
2.	In Quebec for the last year for which statistics are available, how many parents received payments for (a) one child (b) two children (c) three children (d) four children (e) five or more children?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. On an eligible child per capita basis, the difference between the amount paid in family allowances (FA) in the province of Quebec and the amount available for distribution would be the difference between the rates shown below and the comparable federal family allowance rates.
FA Rates in Quebec	Federal
Age	FA Rates
1978	0-11	12-17	First child	$15.42	$21.84	Second child	23.11	29.53	$25.68Third child	47.45	53.87	(each child)Fourth and subsequent child	59.13	65.55	
Order Paper Questions
1979	0-11	12-17	First child	$12.00	$17.00	Second child	18.00	23.00	$20Third child	36.95	41.95	(each child)Fourth and subsequent child	46.05	51.05	1980	0-11	12-17	First child	$13.08	$18.53	Second child	19.62	25.07	$21.80Third child	40.28	45.73	(each child)Fourth and subsequent child	50.19	55.64	1981	0-11	12-17	First child	$14.37	$20.36	Second child	21.56	27.55	$23.96Third child	44.27	50.26	(each child)Fourth and subsequent child	55.16	61.15	1982	0-11	12-17	First child	$16.15	$22.88	Second child	25.65	32.38	$26.91Third and subsequent child	62.43	49.16	(each child)
2. Family allowance accounts do not distinguish between one-parent and two-parent families. The figures for sections (a) to (e) below represent the 1981 monthly average number of families receiving family allowance benefits in the province of Quebec, by the number of children on whose behalf Family
Allowances were paid:
(a)	one child	423,781(b)	two children	367,398(c)	three children	131,875(d)	four children	33,022(e)	five or more children	11,202


Mr. Herbert: On the last day of each month of the last year for which the information is available, how many persons were receiving unemployment insurance benefits and how many were known not to be available for work for reasons such as pregnancy or sickness?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: The information on the number of persons receiving unemployment insurance benefits in 1981 and not available for work for reasons such as pregnancy or sickness is not available on the last day of each month. It is available rather on the second week of each month (same reference as the labour force survey) as follows:
Total	Sickness	MaternityBeneficiaries	Beneficiaries	BeneficiariesJanuary	873,781	23,350	32,564February	880,894	25,672	35,286March	862.970	25,666	35,872April	800,479	24,915	36,069May	687,621	24,227	36,369June	582,463	24,155	37.734July	576,207	23,832	37,424
March 18, 1982
Order Paper Questions
Total	Sickness	MaternityBeneficiaries	Beneficiaries	BeneficiariesAugust	596.897	23,718	38,928September	568.598	22.666	39,475October	621.759	23,179	39.005November	696.782p	20.225p	37,405pDecember p: Preliminary	86I.0501'	2I.068P	37,028p


Mr. Herbert: 1.	On the last date for which the information is available, by province, what is the average time that persons without employment were receiving unemployment insurance benefits?
2.	In 1981, how many persons received unemployment insurance payments for their maximum entitlement period?


Lloyd Axworthy: 1. The following is the average time (weeks) that persons without employment were receiving unemployment insurance benefits as of December 1981:
Newfoundland	25.2
Prince Edward Island	24.0
Nova Scotia	21.6
New Brunswick	24.3
Quebec	21.4
Ontario	15.8
Manitoba	16.6
Saskatchewan	14.5
Alberta	11.0
British Columbia	14.7
Yukon	19.0
Northwest Territories	16.2
Outside Canada	17.2
Canada	18.5
2. The number of persons who received unemployment insurance payments in 1981, for their maximum entitlement period amounted to 443,370.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	On what basis can a laid-off employee continue to receive remuneration from the previous employer and also be eligible to draw unemployment benefits?
2.	Can the payment of accumulated holiday and sickness benefits to a laid-off worker be deferred indefinitely or, alternatively, paid over a long period of time, so as to ensure eligibility for unemployment insurance payments?
3.	Can a lump sum severance payment be allocated and paid on a weekly basis, so as to ensure eligibility for unemployment insurance benefits?
There may be situations, however, where accumulated holiday pay is not payable until a time subsequent to the layoff. (For example, when it is payable at a fixed time every year under a collective agreement and there is no vacation period involved). If the claimant happens to be unemployed when it is received, the accumulated holiday pay is allocated from the week that it was actually paid. On the other hand, if the accumulated holiday benefits are paid or payable only after the claimant has exhausted his unemployment insurance benefits, then such a payment will have no effect on that person's past entitlement to benefits.
As for accumulated sickness benefits, these are not considered earnings for unemployment insurance purposes, and therefore will not affect a person's eligibility for benefit upon being laid off.
3. A lump sum severance payment can include many types of payments such as vacation pay, accumulated sick leave credits, severance pay and wages in lieu of notice. Some are regarded as earnings and some are not. Severance pay, for example, which is generally a payment from an employer to an employee in recognition of past years of service, is not earnings and would not affect eligibility for unemployment benefits. On the other hand, wages in lieu of notice are earnings that do affect eligibility for benefits.


Mr. Cossitt: Does the (a) Unemployment Insurance Commission (b) Department of Employment and Immigration (c) Canada Post Corporation (d) Department of National Defence (e) Department of Transport have access to government telephone lines when calling from Brockville or Prescott, Ontario in the constituency of Leeds-Grenville by calling the telephone number 345-0001 and using a code?


John Gerald (Jack) Masters: In so far as the Department of Communications is concerned, the reply to the above question is as follows: Transport Canada is the only department in Brockville or Prescott, Ontario which has a valid call code billed to that location. However, any holder of a valid government of Canada call code billed to another location, who may be in Brockville or Prescott on travel status, has access to the network via telephone number 345-0001.


Lloyd Axworthy: 1. A laid-off employee who continues to receive remuneration from the previous employer would not be eligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits.
2. Most provinces require that accumulated holiday benefits be paid to laid-off employees at the time of termination of employment. Accordingly, the question of deferred payments, or payments extended over a long period of time generally does not arise.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	For each of the past twelve months for which figures are available, by province, what amount was paid in unemployment insurance benefits?
2.	For each of the past three years, by province, what amount was (a) paid out on a per capita basis (b) paid in by (i) employees (ii) employers (iii) government contributions?


Lloyd Axworthy: March 18, 1982

Order Paper Questions
1.	Amount of Unemployment Insurance Benefits paid by Province
for each of the Twelve Months of 1981
($ million)
Month	Nfld.	P.E.l.	N.S.	N.B.January	32.3	5.6	24.4	27.6February	29.3	5.9	24.8	28.1March	36.3	7.1	28.4	34.1April	30.0	5.7	23.6	28.4May	24.6	3.9	18.3	22.9June	19.0	3.1	16.4	20.6July	14.4	2.5	14.1	16.1August	15.9	3.3	16.3	19.1September	15.1	2.6	15.1	16.0October	17.6	2.8	14.9	17.6November	25.7	4.6	18.6	25.4December	33.4	6.0	21.9	28.0Total	293.7	52.9	236.9	283.9Quebec	Ontario	Manitoba	Sask.	Alberta183.0	128.6	14.0	10.3	15.8174.0	127.5	13.8	10.8	17.0193.0	136.8	17.0	12.7	18.7166.0	120.8	13.6	10.7	17.5137.9	97.4	10.9	7.7	14.4136.5	92.7	9.9	6.3	13.6116.5	80.9	7.8	4.8	9.2121.2	80.7	8.5	5.1	9.8138.0	94.7	9.3	5.7	13.8129.3	88.0	8.3	5.4	12.4140.4	91.0	10.5	6.6	12.8180.9	118.9	13.5	8.7	14.91816.6	1258.0	136.9	94.7	170.0B.C.	Yukon	N.W.T.	Outside Canada	Canada44.5	0.7	0.4	0.1	487.243.5	0.8	0.5	0.1	476.144.7	0.8	0.5	0.1	530.340.7	0.8	0.5	0.1	458.336.3	0.7	0.4	0.1	375.634.5	0.5	0.4	0.1	353.730.9	0.4	0.2	0.0	297.832.5	0.4	0.3	0.0	313.139.0	0.4	0.3	0.1	350.235.8	0.5	0.4	0.1	333.040.3	0.6	0.4	0.1	377.048.8	0.7	0.4	0.1	476.0471.4	7.3	4.7	1.1	4828.3
Figures may not add up to totals due to rounding.
2 (a) Amount of Benefits paid out on per Capita Basis
($)
1979	1980	1981Newfoundland	408	458	501P.E.l.	353	376	426Nova Scotia	228	246	276New Brunswick	324	355	400Quebec	242	255	287Ontario	120	144	146Manitoba	103	113	133Saskatchewan	76	82	97Alberta	61	68	79N.W.T.	122	99	110British Columbia	175	162	174Yukon	352	291	331Outside Canada	-	-	-Canada	169	184	2002. (b) (i) Amount	of Premium paid by Employees ($ million)	1979	1980 (Preliminary)	1981 (Forecast)Newfoundland	19.1	20.6	31.8P.E.l.	4.2	4.6	7.1Nova Scotia	35.0	38.6	59.7New Brunswick	27.7	28.7	44.4Quebec	297.0	331.9	513.1Ontario	455.3	502.5	776.9Manitoba	45.7	52.6	81.4Saskatchewan	35.5	39.9	61.7Alberta	110.6	131.9	204.0N.W.T.	2.6	3.0	4.7B.C.	135.1	156.9	242.7Yukon	1.4	1.7	2.7Outside Canada	2.5	2.7	4.1Canada	1,171.6	1,315.6	2,034.2
Figures may not add up to totals due to rounding.
2. (b) (ii) Amount of Premium paid by Employer ($ million)
1979	1980 (Preliminary)	1981 (Forecast)Newfoundland	26.7	28.8	44.5P.E.l.	5.9	6.4	9.9Nova Scotia	49.1	54.1	83.6New Brunswick	38.7	40.2	62.2Quebec	415.7	464.6	718.4Ontario	637.5	703.4	1,087.7Manitoba	64.0	73.7	113.9Saskatchewan	49.7	55.9	86.4Alberta	154.8	184.7	285.5N.W.T.	3.6	4.2	6.5British Columbia	189.1	219.7	339.7Yukon	2.0	2.4	3.7Outside Canada	3.5	3.7	5.8Canada	1,640.3	1,841.8	2,847.82. (b) (iii)	Government Contributions ($ million)	1979	1980	1981 (Preliminary)Newfoundland	121.6	124.7	124.3P.E.l.	21.5	18.6	19.7Nova Scotia	78.3	67.3	69.1New Brunswick	103.7	92.8	100.7Quebec	540.2	410.5	421.3Ontario	236.5	202.1	166.4Manitoba	22.3	15.3	14.8Saskatchewan	10.8	8.0	6.6Alberta	16.4	9.6	5.1N.W.T.	-	1.1	0.9British Columbia	143.6	85.3	64.6Yukon	-	1.6	1.6Outside Canada	-	-	-1,295.0	1,037.0	995.0
For the year 1979 the government contributions for N.W.T. and Yukon are included in Alberta and B.C. respectively.
Figures may not add up to totals due to rounding.

March 18, 1982
Order Paper Questions OFFICIAL LANGUAGES


Mr. Herbert: What percentage of public servants working in the Department of Agriculture in Quebec indicate English as their first official language?


Eugene Whelan: The answer is 4.4 per cent.


Mr. Herbert: What percentage of public servants working in the Department of Communications in Quebec indicate English as their first official language?


John Gerald (Jack) Masters: In so far as the Department of Communications is concerned, the reply to the above question is as follows: According to January 29, 1982 data, three employees working in the Quebec region declared English as their first official language, that is 1. 9 per cent.


Mr. Herbert: What percentage of public servants working in the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs in Quebec indicate English as their first official language?


Mr. Gary F. McCauley (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: On a total of 1,531 employees working in Quebec, 786 (51 per cent) indicate their first language as English, indicated as follows:
Hull:	777 of 1,259
Montreal:	7 of 191
Others:	2 of 81


Mr. Herbert: What percentage of public servants working in the Department of Employment and Immigration in Quebec indicate English as their first official language?


Lloyd Axworthy: The most recent information available is as of December 31, 1981, 68.2 per cent. This includes national headquarters employees working in Hull, Quebec.


Mr. Herbert: What percentage of public servants working in the Department of National Health and Welfare in Quebec indicate English as their first official language?
Mr. Doug Frith (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Health and Welfare): As of December 29, 1981, 3.12 per cent of the public servants working in the Department of National Health and Welfare in Quebec indicated English as their first official language.

Question No. 3,726-Mr. Herbert:
What percentage of public servants working in the Department of Public Works in Quebec indicate English as their first official language?


Paul James Cosgrove: The
answer is 2.4 per cent.


Mr. MacKay: 1.	Is Massey-Ferguson Ltd. seeking support from the government for major financial restructuring only six months after signing a $715 million refinancing agreement and is the government considering varying the existing agreement and, if so, what effect will this have on the loan guarantees or other financial arrangements?
2.	What action is the government taking to protect the taxpayers' interests and what actions are being taken or what suggestions are being made to improve the company's performance?
3.	Is the government aware of the results of the recent study, commissioned by Massey-Ferguson, designed to improve the company's performance?
4.	To the knowledge of the government, how many copies of the study were (a) produced (b) distributed (c) destroyed?
5.	Is the government in possession of projections for the company's profit or loss position in the company's current financial year?
6.	In December, 1980, what were the projections given to the government by the company for its profits for 1981 ?
7.	Will the government be taking any steps to influence the company to change management, in view of its drastic losses?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: In so
far as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned:
1.	No.
2.	The government is monitoring the company's activities on a continuing basis to ensure that the commitments of the agreement between Massey-Ferguson and the government are met.
3.	Massey-Ferguson regularly commissions studies on various aspects of its business as part of its efforts to improve its performance. The company has advised us that it has not commissioned on over-all study to improve its performance since the refinancing.
4.	Refer to answer to part 3 above.
5.	Yes.
6.	Information on the company's projections for the future are provided to the government on a confidential basis.
7.	The government has no evidence of a need for change in the management of the company.


Mr. Fretz: With reference to the intergovernmental council of the International Program for the Development of Communications (IPDC) meetings held in June, 1981, in Paris and in January, 1982, in Mexico (a) which departments and nongovernmental organizations determined the form of Canadian participation (b) what broad outlines, goals and programs were agreed to in principle at the 1981 meeting (c) what proposals did the government present and what financial and manpower commitments did the government make at the 1982 meeting (d) what mechanisms were put in place and what projects were agreed upon in which regions and countries (e) which countries serve on the council?


John Gerald (Jack) Masters: In so far as the Department of Communications is concerned, the reply to the above question is as follows:
March 18, 1982

cations is concerned, the reply to the above question is as follows:
(a)	Department of External Affairs Department of Communications Canadian International Development Agency Canada Post Corporation
Canadian Commission for UNESCO Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
(b)	Elections of president and bureau members to guide the work of the council between sessions. It should be noted that these elections took a considerable amount of time, which cut down on the time available for consideration of the substantive issues.
President:	G. Garbo (Norway)
Vice presidents:	Iraq
India Mexico
Members:	Benin
France USSR
After general debate on the rules of procedure, it was agreed that "in (the council's) deliberations, priority should be given to seeking a consensus."
Identification of needs: the UNESCO secretariat was tasked with preparing and distributing a questionnaire to complement the information already available on communication needs in developing countries.
Criteria: the council agreed on the following broad criteria for project support; regional and subregional projects should receive priority, at least in the initial stages of the program; any national project submitted should figure in the national development plan of the country concerned; a counterpart contribution by the country/countries concerned with a project is a fundamental principle.
System of financing: a resolution was adopted reiterating the terms of previous resolutions and requesting, inter alia, that the director general of UNESCO appeal to all member states and other potential sources to contribute to the Program.
(c)	At the January, 1982, meeting Canada announced a contribution to the special account of $ Cdn. 250,000 for 1982-83.
(d)	Separate commissions of the January meeting reviewed the status of contributions, elaborated criteria and priorities for project selection, and reviewed projects submitted to the Council.
The council approved the following funding for 1982:
Order Paper Questions
ACCE Institute for Communication	S 10.000
Development and Research
Establishment of a network for the	$ 10.000
exchange of economic news among the press agencies of the CEAO countries
Determination of needs, preparation ol S 125.000 projects and training
Arab States
Arab project for communication planning $ 56.000 and exchange (ACPE)
Arab states regional broadcasting	S 30.000
training centre
Asia and Pacific
Asia-Pacific News Network	S 80.000
Pacific Radio News Exchange	Sponsorship to be negotiated with
the government of Australia
Regional bank of films and television	$ 100.000
programs in Asia and the Pacific
Latin America and Caribbean
Caribbean regional project for broadcasting, $ 45.000 training and program exchange
Creation of Latin American special	$ 70.000
Information services agency (Al.ASEl)
Centre for communications research	$ 40,000
and application (Mexico)
Centre for automated publishing and	$ 10.000
translation (AS1N)
Training of technicians for the development $ 15,000 of communication at the community level
Inter-Regional
Feasibility study on facilities for	$ 20.000
international dissemination and exchange of information by global satellite systems
Application of communication technology $ 30.000 to rural areas
Total	$741,000
(e)	The following countries serve on the council:
* Mozambique Netherlands Nicaragua Nigeria
Argentina
Austria
Bangladesh
Benin
Canada
China
Cuba
Democratic Yemen Egypt France Gabon
German Democratic Republic Federal Republic of Germany India Indonesia Iraq Japan Mexico
Norway
Peru
Saudi Arabia Senegal Sri Lanka Tunisia
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics United Republic of Cameroon United Republic of Tanzania United States of America Venezuela Yugoslavia Zaire
Africa
Pan-Alrican News Agency (PANA)
Regional project for development of co m mu n ica t i o n t ec h n o I ogies


[Stage Direction]
Sponsorship to be negotiated with government of Austria
Term of office will cease at the end of the 22nd General Conference, to be held in 1983; the term of office of those countries not marked with an asterisk will cease at the end of the 23rd General Conference, in 1985.
[Stage Direction]
March 18, 1982
Order Paper Questions OHIP PREMIUMS
Mr. Herbert: In cases where both the husband and the wife are public servants and live in Ontario, does the government contribute to the payment of hospital insurance premiums for both employees?


Norman Kelly: The Ontario Health Insurance Plan (OHIP) monthly premiums are $23 for "single" coverage and $46 for "family" coverage, and the government's current contribution on behalf of its employees toward those premiums is $10 and $20 respectively. Where both husband and wife are federal public servants, it is usual for only one to pay a premium at the "family" rate. However, if for some reason both wish to pay premiums at the "single" rate that is permissible since the total government contribution on their behalf would be the same.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Is any investigation, consideration or experimentation taking place under the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority with regard to eventually instituting winter shipping through the seaway?
2.	Has a winter shipping study been or will it be carried out and, if so, what are all the details?
3.	What is the purpose of the existing boom used to control ice from entering Lake St. Francis?
4.	To the knowledge of the government, are Quebec Hydro and American power authorities opposed to the winter shipping concept?
5.	What is the government policy with regard to winter shipping in the St. Lawrence Seaway?


Jesse Philip Flis: 1. Yes, in relation to the possible implementation of a 9'A-month navigation season.
2. Two studies have been carried out, both primarily cost/benefit-oriented. The report of October, 1978, prepared by L.B.A. Consultants, Limited, concluded that an extension of the navigation season was not cost-beneficial under existing capacity demand conditions; the June, 1981, report prepared by Hickling Partners, Inc., arrived at the same conclusion.
3.	The existing boom control is used to alleviate ice management problems during the opening and closing periods of navigation.
4. The hydroelectric power entities are concerned that winter navigation will further restrict the flow capacity of the river's winter regime, reduce power production, and inhibit their ability to comply with the flow regulations of the International Joint Commission.
5.	The government policy is to continue to evaluate an extension of the navigation season to 9xk months while at the
same time evaluating other options to increase the capacity of the system.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	With reference to the amounts of money paid to federal election candidates in the 1979 and 1980 general elections under the authority of the Canada Elections Act, is the Chief Electoral Officer satisfied that in all cases such funds payable to the candidates were turned over as required by law to the official agents of the candidates or to their constituency associations?
2.	Were any possible infractions investigated and, if so, what were the names of the candidates and the results of the investigations where any fault was found?
3.	Is there any evidence that one candidate diverted approximately $8,000 from such funds for the purpose of paying personal legal expenses that had nothing to do with the 1980 election or his position as a Member of Parliament?


Yvon Pinard: I am
informed by the Chief Electoral Officer as follows:
1.	On the basis of the information provided by all candidates at the 1979 and 1980 general elections the Chief Electoral Officer is satisfied that all funds were turned over in the manner prescribed by law.
2.	No alleged violations with respect to candidates at elections having failed to turn over funds as required by the Canada Elections Act came to the attention of the Chief Electoral Officer and consequently no investigations were conducted.
3.	The Chief Electoral Officer has no knowledge of the existence of such a situation.


Mr. Herbert: What is the present number of staff of the Trade Commissioner Service and where are they located?


Mark R. MacGuigan: The Trade Commissioner Service which was fully integrated into the Department of External Affairs on January 12, 1982, has 238 trade commissioners and 170 locally-engaged commercial officers working in 91 offices and 66 countries advancing Canada's commercial and economic interests abroad.
The Trade Commissioner Service is also responsible for the management and deployment of 53 tourism officers and 18 locally-engaged travel promotion officers in 21 offices in 8 countries, mainly in Europe, the Pacific (Australia, Japan), the United States of America and Mexico. They are involved in the promotion of Canada as a travel destination.
In addition, there are 85 trade commissioners working in Canada, 20 of them in ITC regional offices across Canada. Those in Ottawa are working in the trade sections of the department of Industry, Trade and Commerce (now part of External Affairs) and in other federal government departments or agencies, in positions primarily dedicated to the
March 18, 1982

promotion of Canada's international trade and economic interests.


Mr. Herbert: What is the present (a) personnel strength (b) annual budget of the industrial co-operation program of the Canadian International Development Agency and where are the personnel located?


Mark R. MacGuigan: (a) 19. (b) $17 million of which $2.2 million is for the Canadian Executive Service Overseas by a separate vote. The Industrial Co-operation Program is located at 200 Promenade du Portage in Hull, Quebec.



STATEMENTS BY MEMBER FOR LAC-SAINT-JEAN

['Agreed.']
Yvon Pinard: No.


['No.']
Yvon Pinard: No.


['No.']
Yvon Pinard: No.



David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, if question No. 226 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Does the House agree that question No. 226 be made an order for return?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


CENTRAL MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION PROGRAMS
Mr. Herbert: 1.	What were the names, objectives, descriptions and budgets of all Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation programs in force on March 31, 1979?
2.	Since April 1, 1979, were any of the programs (a) curtailed (b) discontinued?
Supply
Return tabled.


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


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Madam Speaker:: Since there are two motions on the Order Paper for today, it is my duty under Standing Order 58(4)(b) to make a selection. 1 do so with the knowledge that there are still two allotted days left after today in this supply period. Therefore, I intend today to propose a motion standing in the name of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark).


ALLOTTED DAY, S.O. 58-PARLIAMENTARY REFORM
Charles Joseph Clark: That in the view of this House the future effectiveness of Parliament as a democratic assembly, representing the needs, beliefs and aspirations of the people of Canada, requires that an immediate review of all its rules and practices proceed without further delay, and this House therefore urges the government to refer the document "Position Paper: The Reform of Parliament", tabled on November 23, 1979, to the Standing Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization as a basis for commencing discussion, along with proposals for reforming the budgetary process.
He said: Mr. Speaker, given the tensions that have crystallized since March 2, this is not an easy time for any member of this House to speak calmly to the House of Commons. But I think it is an essential time for us all to speak about the House of Commons. We must do more than speak; we must begin to act on reforms that will make Parliament both more efficient and more democratic. I emphasize both of those goals, the goal of efficiency and the goal of democracy. They are both important and I will come back to the importance of both later.
But first, let us be frank about emotions, both in Parliament and in the country. We talk a lot in Parliament about a sense of collegiality and about good will in this institution, but that pretence has prevented us from facing Parliament's own problems squarely. There is anger in this House. There is frustration here and there is a certainty that we are not doing the job that Canadians expect of us. That state exists among members of all parties on both sides of the House. It is confirmed whenever we go home to the people who sent us here and stand accused of being powerless to do the job that we were sent here to do. One member of this House used the
15580

March 18, 1982
Supply
phrase the other day that private Members of Parliament are regarded as-

-poor little parish priests.

Unhappily, that member is right. We all wear the clothes of authority but only a handful of the members of this Elouse, the central ministers, have any real authority. That, Sir, is wrong.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: One of the reasons there was such support in this country for the ringing of the bells is that Canadians know that such centralized authority is wrong and want it changed.

In Le Devoir of March 17, editorial writer Jean-Louis Roy said the following, and I quote:
After the absurdity of federalism without provinces, Canadians have been treated to government without Parliament.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, we have been without a Parliament for quite a long time. No matter which party is in power, our rules and practices allow the government to impose its will on Parliament and to govern by orders in council and by regulations without even consulting Parliament. Worse, the system practically prevents ordinary members from having their own concepts or proposals adopted by Parliament. Private members' motions are seldom passed, and when they are, the reaction is usually one of surprise. Hon. members know cases where some of their constituents are on the verge of bankruptcy. What can they do for these people? Others are in danger of losing their homes. What can they do for them? In every riding in Canada, Canadians are losing their jobs. How can we help them? Many members have good ideas that Parliament would do well to consider. And why not? What it boils down to is that most members can do no more in the House than rise, speak and bow. Is that democracy?

When the government House leader was first appointed, he indicated his interest in parliamentary reform. I look forward to hearing his proposals today, and I hope he will agree to allow the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization to start immediately on a wide-open consideration of the ways we can renew parliamentary democracy in Canada.
We put forward some proposals as a government in a position paper published by the then president of the Privy Council, the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker). Those proposals include a fundamental strengthening of the power of parliamentary committees, including the power to initiate inquiries into questions that the government might not want investigated.
We proposed a major change in the power of private members to have their proposals considered seriously and at length in the House of Commons. We proposed a system to reestablish Parliament's control of spending by extending debate
on the estimates of any two departments which the opposition might choose without prior advice from the government.
We proposed a means to require parliamentary consent to regulations before those regulations can take effect.
In the interests of efficiency, we proposed to limit the length of speeches in the House to 20 minutes each, and to establish more regular sitting periods for Parliament. I make the point, sir, that these significant changes, to increase the power of Parliament and to reduce the power of the executive, were made when we were in government, yet they reflected, I believe, an understanding of the way governments can abuse their power.
These proposals go a long way toward reform, but they were designed then to begin the discussion, not to limit it. Our attitude today is the same. We suggest these proposals be considered as the basis for commencing discussion in the standing committee.
I am obliged to note that the reason this paper was not referred to committee in 1979 was that the present Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen), then the Liberal House leader, indicated the Liberal Party would want to debate for some time the question of a reference to committee. I can indicate to the government House leader now, that providing the reference to committee is wide enough to allow full and positive consideration of fundamental reforms in Parliament, there would be no such delay from this party.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Canadians will also know that we have proposed a major change in the way budgets are prepared, a change to ensure that in the future there will be full public discussion in advance of significant tax changes so that the government on the one hand, and individuals, companies and organizations on the other hand, can assess the impact of those changes and plan their implementation. That recommendation did not arise simply from this party. That recommendation arose as a result of a series of public hearings held in 16 communities across Canada by a special committee of the Progressive Conservative caucus on the budget and the economy which heard representations from 168 organizations and hundreds of individual Canadians. We would want that proposal, to open up the budget-making process, to be considered as well in the committee as a means to protect Canadians against a process which resulted in a budget which the government's own ministers now describe as a disaster.
It is worth pausing on the question of the budget because it demonstrates that when Parliament is weak, bad law is the result. The budget was a major mistake. It underestimated the depth of the recession in Canada. It introduced tax measures which look good in theory but were a disaster in practice. It has driven job-creating investment out of Canada and contributed directly to Canadians losing their homes, businesses, farms and their confidence. It happened because Parliament let a group of civil servants make decisions which the House of Commons should be making.
March 18, 1982


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: The only time the government asked people who knew whether what they were doing on the budget was right was after the government had acted and committed itself to a course which is proving disastrous, not only to them politically but also to hundreds of thousands of individual Canadians who face the prospect of losing their jobs, homes and businesses, or simply losing the kind of hope which has been the fuel of growth in this country. If this government had asked those questions first, many of these measures would not have been brought in and we would have avoided some of the bankruptcies, foreclosures and some of the thousands of lay-offs in Canada.
The point is that when Parliament works badly, Canadians get hurt. That is not just a question for Members of Parliament; it touches directly the lives of people who are affected by what Parliament does or, indeed, fails to do.
What has happened with the budget has happened on other questions. For examples, why was Parliament shut out of any consideration of the VIA Rail closings which affected so many communities across this country? How can orders in council be passed giving the government the power to establish internment camps without the House of Commons being consulted? Why should the government have the power to change the express will of Parliament and make the metric system mandatory when the House of Commons said it would be voluntary?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: These are not just questions for Parliament; these questions affect the lives of individual Canadians, sometimes profoundly, and yet their Parliament has no role. That is wrong, and if we in this House have any self-respect, if the hon. member heckling opposite has any self-respect, if indeed he has any respect for the people who sent us here, then we will change that system and take advantage of those changes.

Mr. Speaker, I mentioned the need for democracy, and that is one of our requirements, but Parliament must also be effective. Our country has changed tremendously since confederation, and its problems are more numerous and often more complex. We cannot solve today's problems with nineteenth century tools. There must be a way to agree on limiting debate. Common sense and mutual respect must prevail if differences are to be resolved. We have proposed a number of ways in which Parliament could be made more effective, and we are willing to give serious consideration to any proposals from the other parties, especially proposals that stress respect for democracy and a desire for effectiveness. We are convinced that agreement is possible if we demonstrate our good faith and if we share the conviction that Parliament has a central role to play in governing Canada.
Supply

Sir, I have outlined the specific proposals put forward by my party and by us as a government. I would like, if I might, to speak a little more personally, on the basis of an experience which is not widely shared in this House, as someone who has had the opportunity to serve as a private Member of Parliament, as Prime Minister and head of a government, and as the Leader of the Opposition.
I should say at the outset that there will always be, at the base of discussions about the role Parliament should play, a difference of view as to whether Parliament is here simply as the body to which the government is responsible, or whether parliamentarians themselves should be involved directly in the formulation of public policy. Arguments can be made on either side. As someone who had responsibility for leading the government of this country, my own view, very strongly held, is that Members of Parliament should be here not simply to be reported to, not simply to hold the government accountable, but to participate directly in the formulation of the public policy of this country. In my view, that is our role.
I believe, Sir, that the weakness of Parliament is a major threat to the country, indeed a major danger, because this House is the only national institution to which every corner of the country has a claim, to which every corner of the country sends a representative, and in which every corner of the country has a voice. As a consequence, we are the only national institution which can speak with legitimacy in expressing the will of Canadians and in responding to their needs. That is in the nature of this institution, and it is ours uniquely and ours alone.
We are, for many individual Canadians, the only connection they have with their government. Public servants are not that kind of connection; government advertising programs are no substitute for Members of Parliament. We are the only connection that most people have with their government, the only ones they can call to account for reflecting their needs and aspirations. Therefore, this House has to be at the centre of the people's government or else it is a government which responds to something other than the will of the people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: In my view, the weakness of this House is based on three major developments. One of those has been that, as the business of government has become more complex, instead of turning to the talent, understanding and experience of members of this House, consecutive governments have turned to the public service and ceded more and more of the decisions of responsibility which should rest here to professional and unelected experts.
Second is the proliferation in number and subject matter of federal-provincial conferences and consequently the number of decisions which reflect directly upon the business of this House, yet those decisions are taken elsewhere before they come to this House and agreements are made before they come to this House. There has been a significant and dangerous

March 18, 1982
Supply
movement of the power of decision-making away from the public and their Parliament to the private quarters of federal-provincial conferences.
The third, and perhaps most crucial development, has been the natural tendency of those who hold power to try to keep it, indeed to try to enlarge upon it. The most recent victim of that tendency, I regret to say, has been the freedom of information legislation which, when we were piloting it through the preparation stages of government, encountered time and time again objections from various vested interests in the government who did not want the public to know. My colleague, the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker), as government House leader, prevailed to ensure that the balance was struck much closer to the needs of the public, and perhaps exposing and putting at risk some of the preserves of government. That unfortunately has changed, because the private sources of power in Ottawa have again been exercising their influence to ensure that the power of the executive expands and the power of both Parliament and the people of Canada diminishes.
I also regret to say, but it is germane and important to say it now, that that same tendency, that same determination of those who have the power to keep it or to enlarge it, has been at the base of most of the proposals for parliamentary reform which have come from governments. There is a natural preoccupation on the part of governments to enlarge the power of the executive, to focus on the need for efficiency. There is no doubt at all that this institution needs to be much more efficient than it has been. We all agree with that. However, efficiency can be won along with democracy, not in the teeth of democracy.
I want to propose ways, psychologies and attitudes which, in my view, can accomplish that goal. However, those three developments-the determination to hand public servants, not elected members, the power to resolve questions which grow more complex; the growing role of federal-provincial conferences; and the perhaps natural but, nonetheless, resistible temptation of those with power to enlarge power-have fundamentally changed Parliament and raised real weaknesses, real dangers and real menaces for our country. I believe that since those changes have been fundamental, the reform and the renewal of Parliament must be equally fundamental.
Let me now express a view in which my colleagues may not yet want to join me. I do it as a party leader. I do it as a former Prime Minister. It is my view that we can afford to limit radically the mandate and the control that parties exercise over individual hon. members of the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: You are fired, Joe! Enough of that!


Charles Joseph Clark: You have had enough of that, Ed?


John Edward Broadbent: What heresy! You are out of the club now!


Charles Joseph Clark: Someone just suggested that I talk to an independent member. I am in the House to speak to all members, because I feel the problem is one facing all parties and all the members of this House. I feel that it is a very basic problem for the House of Commons, and I hope that the Liberals will show the same determination I have seen here, namely, to put a priority on democracy and the rights of regular members and their constituents.

Let me just pursue that further for a moment, if 1 may. I think on the question of what constitutes a matter of confidence, I see no reason at all why it should not be possible for us, for a Parliament, for a government, to sit down with its members before a session begins or shortly after the Speech from the Throne has been published or given, and we should be able to say; "Here are the measures which are of fundamental importance to the government. Here are the questions on which we will stand or fall. Here are the questions on which party lines will be enforced and the whips will be imposed." They would be a minority. We should be able to say: "But here are the other questions which will arise in the course of our mandate, questions which have already arisen concerning the public view and on which the party has no strong consensus."
I see no reason why there could not be a division made and stated at the beginning of a session by a government as to which will be the fundamental questions of confidence on which its existence, its lifestyle, will depend or fall, and which will be those questions which can be addressed directly, independently, if you will, by individual members of the House of Commons. As a party leader and former Prime Minister, I have no fear of that. I have no fear of the judgment of my colleagues, whether my colleagues in this party or my colleagues in the whole House. I happen to have faith in the collective judgment of the elected members of the House of Commons, if those members are allowed to express their judgment. That is what I seek to have achieved.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: As to those other matters which are not questions of government confidence, let them be considered on their merits. Let them stand if they deserve to stand. Let them be rejected if they deserve to be rejected. What in the world is wrong with that? That is the way most of the people who elect us think this Parliament works. That is what they think Parliament is. They would be shocked if they knew the degree to which party voting is imposed here on all sides of the House. They would be shocked by that, and so should they be, because it is unnecessary and a betrayal of the trust that all of us hold as individual members of the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: I seem to have won some support for that view from at least my colleagues and, I gather, from some hon. members of the NDP, including their leader, as well as a couple of hon. members on the Liberal side. I am pleased to
March 18, 1982

see that happening. I hope there will be more of that and that we can carry on in that spirit in the parliamentary committee.
However, let me suggest that an approach of this kind can lead to at least two results. One would be a more extensive participation by elected Members of Parliament in the formulation of public policy. Personally, I see no reason why we should not prefer the public judgment of elected people to the private judgment of appointed public servants.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: I recommend that the government House leader and his colleagues most seriously consider this second point. I believe this would create a much more positive attitude toward the work of governing on the part of hon. members on all sides of this House. I am not speaking here of the role of government. There is no doubt that some of my colleagues, and perhaps I myself, would act most quickly to introduce sunset laws and other pieces of legislation which would reduce the scope of government. I am speaking here of the work of governing. There is no doubt that one consequence of frustration in this House is that many members on all sides feel that they cannot contribute to it so they should stop it. There is no doubt that that is an attitude which has taken root in this House of Commons. There is no doubt that it is wrong and against the generally positive nature of most of the people who are elected here.
I believe that if individual Members of Parliament were given much more opportunity to play a larger role in the formulation of public policy, then the government's problems with respect to getting bills through would diminish. The question of time would not be as contentious as it is now. I believe that if we give Members of Parliament from all parties positive things to do, they will concentrate on doing positive things and will not be interested in finding nits to pick. Instead, they will be concentrating their efforts on ways in which to advance the public interest of the country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: We are not speaking here entirely theoretically. A preceding government to this one, a Liberal government, allowed Members of Parliament to help formulate an immigration bill and, indeed, allowed public hearings across the land. That was a highly complex bill which, if my memory serves me correctly, passed through this House in four days, despite its complexity, because Members of Parliament and the people of Canada had been involved in its formulation. They had a chance to speak on the content of the bill, not simply to say "yea" or "nay" at the end. That is a model for the future, in my view.
Sir, the events of the last few weeks have been unusual only in degree. It was the first time that a government had sought to act on such an omnibus measure. It was the first time an opposition had used the bells that way. However, the issue has been building for a long, long time. Our system has been changing for a long time, gradually giving more power to
Supply
governments and parties and gradually limiting the rights of Parliament, the rights of private members and of the people we all represent. If that continues we will waste the talent of the hon. members who serve here, lose the trust of the people who sent us here and gradually erode our democracy. We cannot let that happen.
We are here to pass good laws and to prevent bad ones; but we are also here to protect the symbol and the instrument of democracy in a free country. Suddenly, in a way which no one could foresee, large numbers of the Canadian public have become aware that there is something wrong in Parliament. They know that the people with power will not listen and that the people who listen cannot act. They want this institution renewed and they count on us to renew it. I believe that the great majority of hon. members in all parties in the House genuinely want a Parliament which is both democratic and effective. I hope we will seize this opportunity to begin that most basic reform.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I feel that the motion presented by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) should be seen against the background of the events of the past few days, and I should like to start by congratulating my colleagues on the government side who, during the past two weeks, have made it abundantly clear that they respect Parliament by remaining available throughout this time to enable Parliament to function and to continue to exist, despite the attempt to degrade this institution. They have shown that it is possible to resolve an unprecedented situation through purely parliamentary means, in a truly dignified manner, without giving in to blackmail.
So, first of all, I want to pay tribute to those who, in traditionally Liberal fashion, continued to support the institution of Parliament throughout the unfortunate events that took place during the last two weeks. Mr. Speaker, I feel that since I only have a few minutes to speak to the motion presented by the Leader of the Opposition, it is my duty to clarify once more the circumstances in which the hon. member is proposing parliamentary reform. Subsequently, I shall try to suggest several possibilities for bringing about a number of very desirable changes in our institution. Finally, I shall give other members of the House a chance to cover other aspects of the subject and formulate their own suggestions, because I fully intend to take note of any positive proposals that may be made today in the course of this debate.
Mr. Speaker, during the last two weeks, Parliament was prevented from functioning by abusive means that have never been used before in all of the 115 years that Parliament has existed in Canada. The bells that rang for 16 days have existed for 115 years, and never, not even in recent years under Mr. Stanfield or even under Mr. Diefenbaker, has an opposition

March 18, 1982
Supply
party ever found it necessary to let the bells ring for so long, in fact paralysing the entire parliamentary system, for the purpose of attracting public attention to the political aspects of one of their claims. This is the context in which today, the Leader of the Official Opposition is presenting a motion to change the Standing Orders of this House. It reminds me a little of the man who pushed his mother under water when she was drowning and shouted: "Help, help! I am trying to save my mother!" That is exactly what the Leader of the Opposition is doing now. For more than two weeks he has been sabotaging this institution in an irresponsible, childish and shameful manner, and now he has the audacity to tell us to save Parliament, modernize the institution and change the Standing Orders. Those, Mr. Speaker, are the circumstances in which the Leader of the Opposition has dared to make his proposals before the House. I listened carefully to his speech here in the House and on the television monitors behind the curtains. I looked for any positive proposals for change that would help prevent the abuse of practices that we have witnessed in Parliament during the last 12 months. There was nothing on limiting the ringing of the bells and there was nothing on the use or misuse of points of order or questions of privilege which occurred during the debate on the Constitution, when the Conservatives used another ruse, another childish and irresponsible subterfuge, to paralyse Parliament. So those are the circumstances, and I feel perfectly justified in speaking as I do. I am not a hypocrite and I prefer to speak frankly. When I see the Leader of the Opposition smiling as he is right now, after having sabotaged the Parliament of Canada for 16 days-he is still smiling, he seems to think it is a joke- and, meanwhile, the unemployment rate in this country is high. We want to create jobs. We are trying to remedy a difficult situation, and the hon. member thinks it is all very funny, after preventing Parliament from introducing practical solutions to the present financial situation; I find it very sad. I think his attitude shows disrespect for Parliament and 1 think these things should be said.
It is because I am honest that I want to tell him frankly what I really think. However, Mr. Speaker, this will not prevent me from being constructive and positive in seeking ways to modernize Parliament and make it more effective, and I can see that the Progressive Conservatives do not seem interested in this type of modernization and efficiency. They object as soon as the government speaks about efficiency, about introducing bills which will help to solve the problems of this country, such as the bill to amend the National Housing Act, which aims at creating 15,000, and perhaps 40,000 housing units as well as 70,000 jobs immediately. Not so long ago, for seven days, they prevented the passage of this bill at its very first stage. They forced the government to limit debate because they wanted to avoid the vote on second reading. We forced them to take a stand and they had to support the bill. This points to a problem which should be corrected as soon as possible. It reflects a truly destructive and obstructionist style
of opposition, and I believe that if we are to speak about parliamentary reform so that changes can be made as soon as possible, which will allow this institution to better meet present requirements, the official opposition will have to be much more honest; it will have to act in better faith, and the Leader of the Official Opposition will have to abstain from abusing certain rules or the absence of rules, as he has done in the last eight months, to hog-tie this institution and prevent for all practical purposes the government from passing legislation which could help solve the problems which exist in our society.
Mr. Speaker, the bell rang for 16 days for procedural and political reasons. The procedural reasons are easy to understand. One need not be a genius to realize that the bell could go on ringing indefinitely if the whip of the Progressive Conservative Party kept away from the House. This is elementary, but in 115 years, no one had used such a destructive, negative and obstructionist tactic. As we all know, the Progressive Conservatives moved a motion to adjourn the House because they were not satisfied with a ruling of the Speaker that the energy bill was in order. They caused the bell to ring, and then they hid and refused to come to vote, hog-tying Parliament for all practical purposes for over 15 days. Under our procedure, therefore, we were unable to conduct parliamentary business because the official opposition refused to come to vote, and because of this, Parliament was unable to operate for the last two weeks.
The political reasons underlying this motion of the Progressive Conservative party and this tactic which prevented Parliament from operating seem obvious to me. Earlier, on the motions moved under Standing Order 43, on the first day after the end of this strike by the Progressive Conservatives, the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gustafson) moved a motion and began his preamble in these terms: In view of the NDP-Liberal coalition in December, 1979, in defeating the then P.C. government. Those were the first words we heard today after 16 days of idleness in Parliament. Anyone who wants to know the true reasons for the ringing of the bells during the last 15 days can find them in the preamble of the hon. member for Assiniboia. The Progressive Conservative Party has never accepted its defeat in the House in December, 1979, and has never been willing to behave as a responsible official opposition since. This is unfortunate because, after trying to behave as a majority government when holding only a minority, this party is trying to use Parliament and to sabotage its work in order to relieve a continuing frustration which is not only eroding the type of official opposition offered in Parliament, but is also literally destroying the Leader of the Official Opposition who now has a price on his head and whom we shall no longer see after January, 1983. Mr. Speaker, it was important that I first put the motion of the Progressive Conservative leader in this context because these are the facts.
Those who refuse to face this fact are either extremely partisan or would rather not know the truth. The arrangement
March 18, 1982

made to stop the ringing of the bells is very simple. I paid a tribute a while ago to the parliamentary spirit shown by the Liberals during the past two weeks. And the way we succeeded in stopping the bells and solving that problem was strictly consistent with parliamentary rules. We referred to a Standing Order which enables us to set allotted days and this gives us a six-day period to negotiate how we could consider Bill C-94 on energy security. Well, such agreement is quite simple. We have not departed from any parliamentary principle as far as we are concerned, because the negotiations on the energy bill only began after the vote on the Tory motion, when the bells stopped ringing. This was sacred for us. We could not be forced to negotiate on Bill C-94 while the bells were ringing and we were asked to pay a ransom.
The principle was safeguarded, Mr. Speaker, because the negotiations began after the vote on the Tory motion yesterday. The second principle which was safeguarded was the right of the government to set, as you know, the order of business under Standing Order 18(2). If we had agreed to introduce some other government bill instead of the energy bill, then we would have created a dangerous precedent, because each time the opposition would like to alter a bill or would be displeased with the contents of a bill, it would only have to blackmail the government saying: "Change the orders of the day or otherwise we will be filibustering. We will let the bells ring 15 days as we have just done for the energy bill and we will raise ridiculous points of order or questions of privilege, as we have done during the debate on the Constitution to cripple Parliament."
One will readily understand that we could not give in on that point. We did not either. So, finally, a compromise was reached: the government agreed to negotiate the form, the manner in which the energy bill would be debated, but to do so only once the bell had ceased to ring, that is, after the vote on the Conservative motion, once the knife was no longer held to our throats, and to negotiate during a maximum period of almost six days, which could be considered adequate time for the parties to come to an agreement on how to divide the bill, and also negotiate a reasonable calendar for the completion of the study of all parts of the bill as divided.
So, essentially, the compromise is twofold: first, the bill will be divided; that guarantee is on the table, provided, second, there is also on the table the guarantee that a reasonable parliamentary timetable will be respected. That is understood. I feel chances are excellent that an agreement can be reached well before next Monday. Negotiations are now under way and they will continue; but I think it is also very important, in the context of this debate, that I should make clear the nature of the agreement reached yesterday because it is imperative that parliamentary supremacy be safeguarded, that negotiations not be pursued while the government, so to speak, has a knife pointed at its throat, and that the right and obligation for the
Supply
government to decide what the order of the day will be should be upheld. Those principles were safeguarded. At the same time, the solution is parliamentary because, just as it has always been with parliaments worthy of the name, problems are solved by negotiation. We have about six days to negotiate the form of the debate on the bill which, as you will note, is not a precedent; we are willing to break up the bill provided, of course, a reasonable parliamentary calendar is set to complete the debate on each one of the parts of the bill so divided.
That being said, Mr. Speaker, not only is parliamentary reform a necessity, it is also an urgency.
It is true that as soon as I was appointed President of the Privy Council, I indicated that I was interested in modernizing this institution, in making it more human and efficient. But one must also consider the circumstances that have prevailed in these last two years since my appointment in order to understand where discussions stand in respect of the necessary changes to our rules. In the first place, I should say that when I was appointed when we were elected as a government in 1980, we inherited the aftermath of two elections in less than a year. We had to negotiate and put some sort of order in the business of supply that was in a mess and to which the Standing Orders were no longer applicable, due to the fact that the main estimates could not have been tabled in time because of the election date. All this is very technical, but the consequences were tremendous. An agreement was needed to revive rules that included time limitations. Negotiations were required, an agreement had to be concluded, some sort of order had to be put in the whole area of supply proceedings that are the raison d'etre of this Parliament, the very foundation of the House of Commons and the Senate.
Such an agreement was reached after negotiations. We also inherited a tremendous accumulation of legislative measures that were on the Order Paper, again because of two elections in less than a year, and we managed during the first months prior to the summer of 1980, from April to the end of June or early July, to dispose of a backlog of legislative measures with the passing of some 25 to 30 bills. Then summer came. We had our summer recess and hon. members had other duties to perform in their constituencies, meeting with their constituents. With the fall of 1980 we had the constitutional debate. Everyone remembers the atmosphere that prevailed in this House during the constitutional debate. Everyone remembers the bitterness that was rampant here. It was far from being conducive to the consensus needed to change the rules and proceed to parliamentary reform. So it was that through those months from the fall of 1980 to the spring of 1981, we had that hijacking of Parliament I referred to earlier. The atmosphere was assuredly not favourable to attempts at negotiating procedural changes. After the constitutional debate, the need arose last fall for a second budget to address the economic situation.

March 18, 1982
Supply
As soon as the estimates were passed after the Christmas recess, I proposed to the House leaders a procedure for dealing with the matter of reform, and then there were discussions. 1 suggested a specific formula to deal with the issue, since the matter of supply had by then been settled, the legislation backlog resulting from holding two elections in less than a year had for the most part been dealt with and we had tabled our budget, the dust had settled and the atmosphere was more favourable to the consensus needed for procedural changes. So, as soon as we came back from the Christmas recess I proposed to the House leaders a way of dealing with the matter of reform, but our discussions were interrupted by the bells.
This is where matters stand. What I would like to explore today, as a possible avenue to practical, positive changes within the best possible time frame, is this: the Leader of the Opposition is asking us to send a general reference to the committee, and I will consider this.
Keeping in mind the circumstances 1 have related, the urgency of making changes and the fact that some changes have already been closely scrutinized and recommended to the House and could be implemented without reference to a committee, I would be more inclined to test the good faith of the opposition and consider the advisability of going ahead with some of those changes at the earliest opportunity. That could be done without any reference to the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization and without at the same time asking the committee, which is the appropriate forum to study changes and the whole question of parliamentary reform, to consider the document tabled by the Progressive Conservative Party when they were in office, a document which contains a few useful suggestions but which is not exhaustive by any means, namely the Lambert report, the Economic Council of Canada studies and the Peterson report on regulations. All those documents ought to be carefully reviewed and a detailed report by the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization should come out in due time. What I am saying, however, is that the way to go about it would be to find out whether the Leader of the Opposition is truly sincere and whether the members of the Progressive Conservative Party want reform and changes.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, the tradition-based parliamentary procedure to make changes in the House is to have the changes examined by the House committee which deals with such matters, the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization. In 1976-and that had begun in 1975 if I am not mistaken-that committee sat and travelled during several months and it went to London. It was chaired by the then government House leader, the Hon. Mitchell Sharp, and included the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker)- it was Grenville-Carleton then-the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacGuigan) to name a few, and I was also on that committee along with a number of other members who are here in the House, including the hon. member for Rosemont (Mr. Lachance) who will have an opportunity to give us his views later on today. That committee
spent several months considering the general concept of parliamentary reform and was indeed able to produce quite an exhaustive report.
I am ready to test the good faith of the opposition by making the following suggestion. Let us continue the House leaders negotiations on the subject, let us select those changes in the report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization which have undergone the parliamentary test of analysis by the committee members and let us implement them practically overnight and refer the rest to the committee. The changes which might thus be considered in the negotiations I will be having with the other parliamentary House leaders in the immediate future in the hope of reaching agreement very quickly could include 20-minute speeches. That was one of the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization, and 1 refer to page 20:55 of that report. Twenty-minute speeches have been advocated since 1976. It is the subject of proposal No. 41 of the Progressive Conservative document and there is absolutely no reason why we could not immediately set a time limit on speeches.
I recall quite vividly that last year during a debate on parliamentary procedure I challenged the Leader of the Official Opposition to implement forthwith the 20-minute limit on speeches, but at the time he did not have the courage to take up the challenge. Today I am making the same suggestion to him and if he wants 20-minute speeches we are quite prepared to go ahead with that suggestion right now. However, I am convinced that they are not prepared to agree to anything today, but still I want to continue my efforts to seek the required consensus at least to make those changes which are of a non-controversial nature.
Another non-controversial change which does not settle the whole question of parliamentary reform but would be a token of good faith would be to proceed with all the votes at a given time. Mr. Speaker, Parliament has 282 members and a $75 billion annual budget to manage, and here we are running along corridors like school children called by bells which more often than not ring too long. It seems to me it would be normal. In much smaller companies where decisions are made about much smaller amounts of money and where those decisions have far less impact, the directors are tactfully advised in advance of upcoming voting meetings so as to be able to arrange their schedule and plan for those decisionmaking meetings.
Consequently, if the opposition is sincere, it should have no objection to defer all the votes to a given time. This way, the members would know in advance when a vote would take place. There will be no more hide-and-seek games to try to catch somebody off guard, no need to call back members away on official trips, no attempt to break the traditional parliamentary rule of pairing or to take the government by surprise. These are childish games, and I think they explain, among other reasons, why the people are cynical toward us. In my opinion, it would be normal for us to determine the time of the votes. It would prevent a recurrence of the shameful incident which occurred lately. On page 2067 of the committee report I
March 18, 1982

mentioned a moment ago, smaller committees made up of 15 to 16 members are recommended. In its recommendation No. 22, the Progressive Conservative Party advocates eleven-member committees. We are prepared to consider the immediate implementation of this proposal. All we need to implement it without referring it again to committee is a little show of good will on the part of parliamentary leaders and all members.
Concerning the quorum, even the Progressive Conservative Party, along with the committee report, recommends that there should be no fooling around in the House, that the House should not be prevented from going about its business because some members have to answer phone calls or attend committee meetings. I think the bells should be allowed to ring for several minutes, maybe ten, before the Speaker can adjourn the House because of a temporary lack of a quorum. Another change that might be considered, if there is a consensus before the matter is again referred to committee, is to go to a four-day week, while keeping the same number of hours. At the present time, the House sits for twenty-seven hours a week. We could easily sit longer, for twenty-eight hours if necessary, which is just one hour more. I have a detailed breakdown of these hours spread over four days, which means that members could visit their ridings more often without exhausting themselves in the process and without risking their lives as has often happened to a number of members, and while being able to discharge their twofold responsibilities, that is, to represent and meet with their constituents and to come to the House and perform their legislative duties.
I have just mentioned four or five changes that have already been considered by the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization. Recommendations have been made and I feel it would be utterly ridiculous to refer them again for consideration. It seems to me that if the opposition is sincere, these changes could become effective before the summer recess. At the same time, we could consider asking the appropriate committee to prepare a more in-depth analysis of parliamentary reform in general, taking into account the studies I mentioned earlier.
Another possibility, considering the present situation, the attitudes we have seen during the past year and the opposition's destructive approach in the House, would be to create an independent committee made up of former Members of Parliament, who would examine the subject of parliamentary reform, unfettered by excessive partisanship, and would report within a specified period, probably before next fall, and refer the report to the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization for-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order please! I am sorry to interrupt the minister, but his time is up. He may continue with the unanimous consent of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Supply


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There appears to be agreement for the hon. member to continue.


Yvon Pinard: Not to abuse the time of the House, I will conclude my remarks in less than three minutes.
Mr. Speaker, the avenues which I have just mentioned are available. If there is good faith on the side of the official opposition, some changes which have been scrutinized and analysed in depth already by a parliamentary committee could be implemented very quickly, or an independent committee could be asked to submit a report to the government, a report which would be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization, which in turn could report to the House, and we could come to a decision on this here. That is another avenue I am willing to look into very seriously within the next few days. Nevertheless, except for these avenues which are available to us to streamline this institution, to render it more modern and efficient, to reshape it so that it could respond more readily to reality, there is something that matters more than a simple change of mechanism, Mr. Speaker, and it is a change in attitudes. Even if this institution was provided with the best Standing Orders in the world, even if we tried to correct all flaws so that Parliament could function better, even if we had a Standing Order book a mile thick and covering all imaginable angles, these changes would be to no avail if hon. members, especially those of the official opposition, did not change their approach from a to z. It will always be possible for a madman to throw a monkey wrench into the works or for a negative opposition to disrupt the orderly functioning of the system, whatever regulations we may adopt. What I am seeking, therefore, from hon. members from both sides of the House is not only a will to come to a consensus to bring about changes as soon as possible, but also an effort to change attitudes, so that the Canadian people may look up to this institution. Unfortunately, experiences such as those we have just lived through have a very negative impact not only on the Leader of the Opposition, but also on hon. members generally; and in the light of that unfortunate experience, I hope that in the foreseeable future and in keeping with the suggestions I have just made, we will be able not only to improve our Standing Orders, but to change some attitudes, so that Parliament may be respected, function and operate effectively, and that as servants of our people, we may be proud to serve the Canadian Parliament.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, in speaking to this important motion-important in the context of what we have gone through for the past couple of weeks in the House of Commons and, beyond that, important to the future of parliamentary democracy in Canada-I want to address my comments to two concerns in the democratic system.
One is to have the opportunity of dealing effectively and promptly with the problems the nation faces; that is to say the right of a government to govern and to do so expeditiously. The other is to have the opportunity to make suggestions about

March 18, 1982
Supply
what could be done to improve the effective participation of Members of Parliament as Members of Parliament.
I think it is quite possible, indeed I would say in the context not merely of recent events but of the performance of Parliament in recent years it is more than possible, it is desirable, if we are to restore effective respect across the country for Parliament itself, that we act now.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: I listened with interest to what the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) had to say and, of course, I have read the report tabled by the then leader of the Conservative government in the House. I want to say on behalf of my colleagues that we find many of the ideas, probably the majority, quite acceptable and desirable and would like to see them implemented soon.
I want to make some specific suggestions about what we think would be desirable and would make this place more effective in dealing with legislation and more just in terms of giving rights to members.
Whatever changes we make in the rules and practices of the House, in my view there is a very important matter that goes well beyond the rules. It is essential to the working of any democratic institution, any democratic government, whether in continental Europe, the United States or here. That is the question of trust, Mr. Speaker. I will put it bluntly. In my view, no changes that we make, indeed no changes that will be accepted by all of us in the future in regard to the procedures, rules and practices of this House, would have avoided, in my judgment, had they already been in effect, the recent two-week impasse in Parliament. I will come back to that point in a few minutes.
Important as practices and rule changes are, in a democracy, both outside this institution in society as a whole and in this institution, attitudinal questions are of fundamental importance to the functioning of our system. I want to put forward a few things that we think are desirable that were set out in the white paper put forward by the former Conservative government and which we think should be acted upon reasonably soon.
The suggestion that speeches be reduced from 40 minutes to 20 minutes duration makes very good sense.
As for idea of having fixed adjournment dates so that not only Members of Parliament and their families know when we recess for Christmas, summer or Easter, but constituents know on a regular basis when they may expect their Member of Parliament to return to the constituency, it is time we got better organization into our lives in Parliament. This would have a net benefit beyond our immediate circumstances. This is about the only legislative body in the world that does not have fixed adjournment dates and this change is long overdue.
On behalf of my colleagues I want to say very seriously that we believe committees need to be strengthened. That could be an important step not only for the feeling of more effective participation by regular Members of Parliament but the reality of their participation, if it were done in a serious way,
would not put into jeopardy the fundamental principle of parliamentary or cabinet government, namely, the government's responsibility to govern and the opposition's responsibility to be effective critics on behalf of the people of Canada.
We think the committees would be strengthened immeasurably by providing them with their own independent staff. These staffs would be there on a permanent basis. Hopefully some of them would acquire seniority and expertise over the years so that when Parliaments change, committees and regular backbenchers would have competent, professionally trained committee staffs to advise on technical matters of which they must be aware. This would improve the performance of all Members of Parliament, but particularly I think it is important for regular members who are not in cabinet or in leading positions of opposition parties.
The committees ought to be able, on their own initiative, to decide to study certain subject matters. They should not be dependent upon a reference from cabinet or from government to initiate work in a certain direction.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: I should like to deal with another item which goes more directly to the other side of the House than to this side. Hon. members on both sides must come to grips with the reality that it now takes almost twice as long to produce legislation in the House of Commons than it did ten years ago. As members of Parliament, we must all be concerned about this fact. We must improve the efficiency with which we deal with legislation, because housing and unemployment problems are real and energy bills must be dealt with.
Speaking as the leader of an opposition party and on behalf of my colleagues, I say that we must come to grips with the issue of timetabling to meet the legitimate need of government to govern. Also we should provide ample opportunity for opposition parties to make their points in debate when they disagree with the government. I happen to think it can be done. Most legislative systems in the world accomplished it a long time ago. We should look at the timetabling principle in a serious way. We should accept the notion, but then say that for each opposition party in each session there could perhaps be two or three bills to which the normal timetabling for the scheduling of bills would not apply, and that there would be no fixed limits in the debate on the two or three bills selected in each session by opposition parties. I simply put that forward as one suggestion among a number of means one might select to implement the idea.
In supporting the reference to committee before the House, we should have a very hard look at the West German experience in terms of the allocation of time of Members of Parliament. At present Members of Parliament know very well that we have obligations to legislate and to debate important matters of substance before the House, to present legislation on the government side, to criticize it on the opposition side,
March 18, 1982

and to pose questions during question period-but not obtain answers. These are important duties but we also have duties to our constituents, and increasingly so. The past experience of my predecessors in the House of Commons indicates the workload from a constituency point of view has certainly increased immeasurably. Therefore, my suggestion is that we should have a very serious look at our responsibilities in Ottawa and in our constituencies in light of the West German experience.
West Germany is a federal state as well. As many hon. members know, its parliament sits for three weeks in each month-and members spend the fourth week in their constituencies. This is an established, fixed practice. It is something at which we should look with a great deal of care. In a country as diverse as ours, hon. members have an obligation to return to their constituencies in order to meet with farm groups, small businessmen, trade unionists and other constituents. We should look at this idea with a great deal of seriousness. If we can tighten up our rules and practices to enable us from a legislative point of view to accomplish in three weeks what would normally take four, there is no reason we should not be able to allocate the fourth week for hon. members to do effective work in their constituency offices. We should look with care once in a while at new ideas that have been implemented somewhere else.
I have put forward a number of suggestions which, along with those proposed by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition and by the government House leader, would help make government, the House of Commons and individual Members of Parliament more relevant in their different obligations in the House of Commons. However, in putting these suggestions forward I emphasize that we cannot delay any longer. There should be a reference of the position paper mentioned in the motion to committee, along with the ideas I have suggested and other documentation proposed by the government House leader, and I think that reference should be made soon. Also I think it would be very advantageous if the committee submitted a report not later than June 30, 1982, or before the summer recess, with very specific recommendations.
Further, I take for granted that these suggestions would come on the basis of an all-party consensus, and that all parties would work seriously to achieve this goal. We would have the report before the recess, and I suggest that we could try the new proposals when we return in September or whenever until December. We could have a House order to that effect and we could try them for that three-month period. If we found that they were effective improvements with which we as Members of Parliament could live, they could become part of our permanent practices. If, after the experience of the fall, they were found to be defective, we could revert to the present system and hopefully continue to look for improvements. I am sure the Leader of the Opposition, and I hope the government, agree that we cannot wait any longer for reform. Let us move and move now.
I should like to make a few comments regarding the question of trust and its profound relevance to parliamentary
Supply
democracy. As I said earlier, and I repeat and emphasize now, none of the proposals made today by the government House leader or the Leader of the Opposition, if they or the best possible set of rules imaginable had been in operation, would have avoided, in my judgment, the parliamentary impasse we experienced during the past 16 days. No matter what set of rules or practices are in existence, if a political party represented in the House of Commons wants to grind Parliament to a halt, it can do so. Parliamentary democracies operate on the fundamentally important principle of trust at two levels. First, there is the trust which ordinary people-truck drivers, bank clerks, farmers, small businessmen and all Canadians-have in their elected representatives. It is very important to maintain that trust. The second trust is one which is essential if we are to function as a legislative body. It is essential for the parties in the House to have trust for one another.
If there is to be the first trust to which I referred, that is the trust of Canadians in their Members of Parliament, then all politicians must be seen to be doing what they promised. In that context, politicians must be seen also to be relevant to the everyday concerns of the ordinary people of this country. Without that kind of relevance and integrity, cynicism becomes rife in a democracy, whether in Canada or in any other democratic country. My own sense of the reality of Canada right now is that cynicism about politicians and about political institutions is growing. It is something other than high school level speculation. Perhaps that is easy to say, but it is so easily dismissed as being a cliche or a trite observation.
Those who have studied European democracies between the wars know very well that attitudes formed by the public toward political institutions have great significance in terms of the survival of those institutions. We in the House of Commons have to be concerned about the growing state of cynicism in the country about politicians and about the House of Commons.
Trust is important. The trust Canadians have in Parliament is also related to the way we as politicians-and to put it in more relevant terms, we as parties-perform here in this House and how we relate to each other day in and day out, whether in practices or procedures. In this television age this becomes more and more important because increasing numbers of Canadians quite literally see us here responding to each other. In my view, when they see Liberal Party members, Conservative Party members or New Democratic Party members, they see parties who differ profoundly on important questions facing the nation.
There are now and always will be seriously different approaches to what is the desirable goal for Canadian society. There is now, and I hope always will be, very tough-minded debates in the House, and a no-pulling-of-punches attitude when we deal with matters of substance that we think and feel deeply concern the future of this nation. However, this does not mean that for parliamentary democracy to function, the

March 18, 1982
Adjournment Motion
toughness in debate, the firmness and logic, the depth of understanding and the difference of the parties in this respect should carry over into a lack of respect about the other party. I take that to be a matter of great significance for a democracy. There must be a will in the parties to accept the difference of view that is on the other side of the House or between the two parties on this side of the House, a will that says that whatever our differences are we can agree on procedures to resolve those differences, and that however we may differ in philosophy and program, we can agree on the methods of coming to decisions.
But this requires an attitude of trust between the parties. It is my judgment, rightly or wrongly, that we would not have undergone what we did in the past two weeks if there had not been a breakdown of trust. I say that in terms of the other two larger parties in this House. For whatever reason, and I will not speculate on the causes, there was no trust or respect between them in terms of procedure about the importance of parliamentary democracy. For whatever reason, bad feeling that got beyond differences in policy and bad feeling that got beyond differences in philosophy interfered with the effective working of Parliament.
When we look back at the past 16 days, it will be realized that Canadians witnessed an unfortunate spectacle. Canadians saw that the men and women elected to do a job were not there to do it. In my view, these men and women did not do their job because of a lack of fundamental respect for each other, a respect that is so essential for the functioning of our democratic system. As a result of that, who suffered? While we were not sitting, public business certainly suffered. We did not deal with legislation that ought to have been dealt with. Housing problems were not met. Programs were not initiated to deal with unemployment. As a result, the public suffered. Politicians also suffered because the level of respect felt across the country for this institution and its members in my view diminished. But more important, because we are a democratic country, our society somehow suffered in a broader sense than that conveyed in the economic issues to which I have just referred.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for York North (Mr. Gamble)- Finance-(a) Change in application of sales tax-possible remissions of excess tax, (b) Inquiry respecting government's intention; the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert)-
Public Service-Implementation of special committee recommendations on employer-employee relations; the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Hudecki)-Justice and Legal Affairs-National mobility of lawyers.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark):
That in the view of this House the future effectiveness of Parliament as a democratic assembly, representing the needs, beliefs and aspirations of the people of Canada, requires that an immediate review of all its rules and practices proceed without further delay, and this House therefore urges the government to refer the document "Position Paper: The Reform of Parliament", tabled on November 23, 1979, to the Standing Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization as a basis for commencing discussion, along with proposals for reforming the budgetary process.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The allotted time for the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) has expired. He may, however, continue with the unanimous consent of the House.


Mr. Benjamin:: That is another rule change that we need.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I will not abuse the consideration of the House in allowing me to continue. I want to conclude by saying that a number of good suggestions have been made by all parties in this debate. I think the committee should get on with its work and that we should modernize our rules and procedures to improve the efficiency of government and the effective participation of Members of Parliament.
I want to emphasize also that we should not be deluded when we make these changes, as I hope we will, into believing that once they are there everything will function well. What has to be done and done now for this Parliament to perform effectively for the rest of its term is to restore a sense of trust between the parties so that we can work within that framework to debate the serious differences in policy that we have.


Mr. Claude-Andre Lachance (Rosemont):: Mr. Speaker, I agree with those members who, in referring to the parliamentary deadlock we have experienced during the past two weeks, concluded that some good might come out of all this and that perhaps the experience would strengthen the resolve of all the members of this House to address the problems of parliamentary reform in a concrete manner and without further delay. It is a truism to say that we all have our views on the subject. We
March 18, 1982

all want Parliament to be more effective. However, there is a danger that we get so tied up in details that we lose sight of the fundamentals. That is why I should like to take a few minutes to consider the real problem of parliamentary reform. Obviously, parliamentary reform involves Parliament. And we often tend to forget what Parliament actually is, when we stress any of Parliament's specific roles or functions, give our own perspective, and support a measure beause it reflects a specific concept or definition of the parliamentary system.
What are Parliament's roles? It is perhaps useful to recall them at this point. There is a legislative role, of course, and a budgetary role, because Parliament must approve the estimates tabled by the government, enabling government to administer programs implementing the legislation approved by Parliament itself. In addition to these two roles, Parliament has a normative function which I do not think is being questioned here. Every day the House sits, members have an opportunity to hold the minister accountable for his actions and thus provide the assurance to the public that the country is being governed according to acceptable standards.
We must not forget, however, that in addition to these two roles and this function, there is also the basic premise underlying the functions of Parliament, and that is the principle of responsible government. We could have endless and probably futile discussions on the merits of stricter separation between the executive and the legislative function than what we have in our own system. In any case, our system is patterned on the British parliamentary system which combines the legislative and the executive functions within the same institution. It is not necessarily a bad thing, since as a result, we have a healthy give-and-take which is usually creative and in the final instance makes it possible for the two orders to live together and act as a mutual stimulus. But it is a very real constraint.
We must not forget that when we discuss parliamentary reform, we cannot make a mental reservation and ignore the fact that in our system we have the principle of responsible government. I shall come back later to the proposal made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) which I took upon myself to applaud and which referred, in the context of party politics, to giving greater freedom to parliamentarians when they have to approve legislation introduced by the government. On the basis of this constraint, which is absolute, we have imposed upon ourselves a number of relative constraints which have developed throughout the years because of tradition, as a result of rulings made by successive speakers during the 700 years of existence of Westminster and since the beginnings of confederation in Canada, and of our Standing Orders, which is the final analysis are a consolidation of these rules that we have ourselves established and which help us fulfil our duty as parliamentarians in view of a certain balance between the opposing forces. When I speak of opposing forces, I do not mean simply bilateral, but also multilateral forces because we
Supply
have on one hand government forces and opposition forces, and on the other hand the forces of members of Parliament in their legislative capacity and the forces of the executive and its overriding importance confirmed by tradition and regulations. In other words, this creates a certain balance of power which has brought us to this point and which the crisis of the last two weeks forces us to review, because balance implies selfdiscipline and implies most of all, since we live in a democracy, that everyone involved must accept the rules of the game and that the balance of power must be reviewed when they are no longer accepted.
Yet, I am afraid that for certain people, parliamentary reform means simply functional arrangements within this traditional balance of power without involving any review of the balance of power itself. This brings about a contradiction, a paradox which, in my opinion, will be difficult to correct and which may have prevented any real parliamentary reform until now. Several attempts have been made since I came to this House in 1974. I sat on the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization with the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) and other members, including the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau). This committee examined three very specific and well-defined issues which were of concern to parliamentarians at the time, namely, the role of Members of Parliament in introducing legislation itself, in other words, what are erroneously called private bills and are finally public bills introduced by private members, time allocation and committee work.
Therefore, I fear that if we look simply for new arrangements, we shall be faced with an impossible paradox, on one hand a government which quite legitimately wishes to introduce legislation and deal with government business with as few obstacles as possible, which is quite normal, and on the other hand, and completely opposed to this legitimate desire of the government to play its role, the also quite legitimate desire of parliamentarians to play a concrete, positive and constructive role in the affairs of the country in this House, which means discussing bills and estimates submitted by the government. How can this paradox be resolved? The one who can resolve it should perhaps be beatified or decorated with the Order of Canada or something else, but by resolving this paradox, we would finally be giving a true meaning to this institution. Without necessarily solving it once and for all, and it should perhaps remain unsolved, because there would no longer be this creative tension between the two orders of government and we would no longer have, at least as we know them now, the British parliamentary system and responsible government, which are the foundations of our government, we should perhaps, just the same, seek a new balance.
As I said, we could all make suggestions based on our own experience. It is true that we are probably all rather frustrated by the inconsistencies of this institution, its really antiquated aspect, its obsolete mechanisms that require us to go through

March 18, 1982
Supply
some foolish exercises such as the ringing of the bells, prompted the NDP leader to say that some Canadians were cynical. Unfortunately, it is true and that cynicism goes beyond the parties and is directed at the institution itself. Elowever, apart from our own experience and the suggestions which could be made to improve the operation of Parliament, the fact remains that we all want the members to play the role that the Canadian people think they ought to play.
I have taken it upon myself, Mr. Speaker, and I assure you that I do not claim to have the monopoly on truth, of putting on the Order Paper on February 23 last a motion which seeks to conciliate in the abstract or at least which attempts to launch a debate on a well-defined aspect of our parliamentary activities, the committee system. I must regretfully admit that in the past few years I have lost faith in the House to a certain extent. When I refer to the House, I mean the House gathered here with all its members present and I am rather inclined to work in committees. Why? Perhaps because the groups are smaller, the issues more specific, there are fewer representatives from the media as well as less partisanship, but it is still possible sometimes for a parliamentarian to make a useful contribution.
I have, therefore, centred my attention on the committee system which, 1 am sorry to say, Mr. Speaker, does not operate very well, to try to strike a new balance between the opposing forces which might promote the creativity of an hon. member while safeguarding the legitimate aspirations of the government, because, as the system and the people so require, the government must govern. I will not explain my motion in detail, Mr. Speaker, for it would serve no useful purpose at this time, but, I want to say that as we are dealing with parliamentary reform, if we really want to promote this creativity which we should show at all times instead of only once in a while, we will have to strike a new balance between the opposing forces.
Let me give you an idea of what Parliament could be. The Leader of the Opposition mentioned the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration, a committee on which I had the honour to sit, which has done in fact a tremendous job and whose efforts have resulted in a bill that had gone through the various legislative stages fairly quickly.
1 also had the privilege to be a member of one of the task forces set up by this government and approved by the House at the beginning of this session. I must say that it is probably the most fascinating and certainly the most positive experience I have had here, and it is undoubtedly the most constructive and dynamic development to take place in the House in quite a while and which some members who have been in the House longer than I can probably remember. Why? Because a number of small groups with well-defined terms of reference and fairly large working resources, and especially terms of reference entirely devoid of partisanship, I mean, these groups of seven parliamentarians finally managed to rid themselves of
the old reflexes and the absolutely intolerable weight of partisanship and petty politics to carry out constructive work. And you can see the results, these substantial reports which both the Canadian Parliament and the general public have received with relief.
My time is almost up, Mr. Speaker, so I will simply conclude by commenting on the issue raised earlier by the Leader of the Official Opposition about giving members more freedom when divisions are taken, in other words to free members on both sides of the House of any party commitment on certain bills. Ideally, of course I fully agree, Mr. Speaker, and I repeat that I applauded the Leader of the Official Opposition when he made that suggestion. But would not that be putting the cart before the horse, for if we are to relinquish the party guidelines which have set our course for so long, that means we would have to acquire self-discipline, Mr. Speaker, and that is something we cannot draw out of a magician's hat. We will have to learn to discipline ourselves as parliamentarians. We have been in shackles for so long that we will have to learn to act responsibly as individuals. The Leader of the Official Opposition did seem to suggest that hon. members be allowed to drop those shackles, and I agree with him, but at the same time we would have to set up new mechanisms to enable members to learn to work individually and constructively without those party guidelines so that we will at last be able to come to grips with that basic proposal since the very essence of the British parliamentary system is at stake, namely, responsible government. And once we have reached that stage it will mean that the House has fully grown up and that it operates in the eighties rather than in the past when things were probably simpler.
Mr. Speaker, 1 am gratified that we are discussing parliamentary reform. 1 hope the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization will soon, in fact very soon, have an opportunity to consider this matter. All I can say is that I hope the show of good will sparked by the events of the last two weeks will not subside in a matter of days. We must not fall back into our routine of saying: Well, parliamentary reform can be discussed later when we have a better consensus or when there is a better show of confidence by the House. We must understand that confidence is what we are going to get as a result of parliamentary reform and not the other way around. All members of this House must get involved in this discussion as soon as possible, and tangible proposals must be made without delay so that, as was said earlier by the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent), they can at least be tested, if we want to become better Members of Parliament and play a useful role in this House.


Mr. Friesen:: I think the hon. member has a minute or two left in which to speak. Would he entertain a question?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Agreed.
March 18, 1982


Benno Friesen: First of all, I want to applaud the hon. member's speech. I thought the tone was excellent. I thought he was creative in the suggestions he made and I am particularly interested in his supportive concept of doing away with block voting. I am very much in support of that.
I wonder what we could do in order to do away with the label of having either bolted the party or been disloyal to the party. How can we destroy the old image of breaking cohesion if we do not continue block voting? I think the hon. member understands the dilemma. I would like to see us take up the cause of following his suggestion. I would like to see whether he has an immediate suggestion as to what we can do to break that kind of pattern in this House.


Claude-André Lachance: If I were to be presumptuous I would say that if one approves my motion and puts it into application, it will lead to that. However, I will not be presumptuous. I will only say that that is the objective, but I do not think we can achieve that objective right away because the old reflexes are there. It will take a bit of time before we start to act responsibly, both as individuals and collectively.
However, what will be discussed in the committee will be a way, maybe as an experiment, in which we can give meaning to the so-called confidence motions. I do not know whether hon. members have ever asked why there are non-confidence motions if all the bills are non-confidence. Therefore, is it relevant to have a non-confidence motion if everything is confidence? Therefore, if one starts defining confidence and deciding when confidence will apply in true terms, one will get slowly to the point, of course, where one will be responsible. We will reach the point where we could get away from this very heavy burden that we all have to carry. However, that is somewhere down the road, and we will not get there like that, with a snap of the fingers.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, may I begin my speech by sharing the sentiments expressed by my colleague, the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen) with respect to the very constructive attitude taken by the hon. member for Rosemont (Mr. Lachance). May I also say that I believe that speech of my hon. friend from Rosemont has set the tone which is very much needed in this House of Commons. It has been set also by certain other members. It is very much needed in this House as we consider this very important question of change.
I would also say something about the member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta. The paper which is referred to, which was tabled in my name when I had the honour of serving a government in the House of Commons, was inspired to a great degree by the work which was done by the member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta in the period of time preceding the opening of the Thirty-first Parliament. The work of that caucus committee within our party, which he chaired, which was shared by many people within that party, led to a paper being submitted to the government which formed a large part of the proposals which seemed to have found some favour with the member for Rosemont and the leader of the New
Supply
Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent). I want-because it is now possible for me to do this-to pay tribute and express my grateful thanks, personally and on behalf of the House, to the member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta whose work has led to this.
Mr. Speaker, there was something said by Madam Speaker today that I think all of us ought not to forget. There may be questions about what she said, but there is a phrase which I copied down and which I think none of us ought to forget. She said "We must review our parliamentary procedures" She was right: we must do that.
We have gone through an unprecedented period in the last little while. Those of us who in this House speak about a change of attitudes are right. It is because of the requirement that we be cognizant of our attitudes that I am not going to comment today on what was the most extraordinary speech, in the circumstances, by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard). It was a most extraordinary speech in the face of the motion which has been placed here, but I am not going to comment on that. I have been a government House leader, and the problem of being a government House leader from time to time is that all of us have to bear crosses, and we bear them all the time. So I can have some sympathy, in a way, with the burden that is put on his shoulders, because I carried some burdens as well. What we are trying to do here, I hope, by this motion is to change somehow the attitude in the House of Commons.
I want to suggest to my hon. friend that if there had been some follow-through by the government on the promise that it made in the Speech from the Throne two years ago almost- and now we are in one of the longest sessions in history-that we would implement changes in the procedures of the House of Commons, I dare say the atmosphere, the attitudes, and indeed this House itself, could have been profoundly moved in a different direction-had that promise been kept. I say as a parliamentarian that I regret-the strongest word I am going to use today-that the government has not seen fit to follow through with that proposal, which was welcomed by every member of the House of Commons.
Mr. Speaker, all of us here talk about short speeches or shortened speeches and it is probably a good thing that that should happen. But we have to make some changes in this House which are much more fundamental than that. And they are not just changes for the opposition. They are changes for Parliament. What has happened to this Parliament? Well, because of the onrush of business, because of the intervention more and more by government into the daily lives of Canadians, because of a whole host of things that we could number, each of us, on our fingers, government has come to assume and require a greater part of the parliamentary day in this House.
It follows from that that there has been a diminished role for the private member. The private member is sent here to represent his voters, whether they voted for him or not, for the time that he is here. This Parliament is more than just a rubber stamp, certainly, but it ought to be much more than

March 18, 1982
Supply
what it is today. It is more than a place which by rote or by parade automatically supports every government measure on one side of the House and the other side of the House is opposed to every government measure.
The paper that I had the privilege to table in 1979 had as a fundamental principle that it was in keeping with the basic principles of parliamentary government to see in the House of Commons a more aggressive representation of the voters. That was the purpose of it. But while this process was going on over the years-and it was allowed to happen, and it was forced to happen in 1969 by the use of closure-governments occupied more and more of the time, and Parliament therefore came under the thumb of government to a greater and greater degree.
What these reforms are designed to do, and what is needed in this Parliament, is not to denude government of its power, enormous as it is, but to leaven that bread of power with the ability in this Parliament to hold government accountable, to provide the tools to Parliament, not just to the opposition, Mr. Speaker, but to Parliament, to hold the government accountable.
The government House leader said he would be prepared to throw a challenge out, to agree to 20-minute speeches. This is just not a House leaders' matter, but I imagine there would be general agreement in the House of Commons. I believe there would also be agreement in the House of Commons to a counter-challenge that I might throw to him: as an experiment, try the idea of independent references for committees that are set forth in this paper. If the House leaders are to discuss this-that is his suggestion-then let them discuss that as well, and I wager that there will be agreement among the private members of this House of Commons for that kind of change in our procedure.
You, Mr. Speaker, who occupy the chair now, chair the Standing Committee on Transport; and I say to you, Sir, that you are respected as the chairman of that committee. I will tell you the difference between our system and what should be in place in keeping with the parliamentary system, and it has to do with the tragedy of the Ocean Ranger. Parliament wanted to look at that matter. It was within the ambit of authority of the transport committee to look at it. Instead, a royal commission is looking at it. Yet I saw on public broadcasting in the United States the maritime committee of the Congress of the United States investigating a tragedy that occurred off the shores of Canada that involved to a greater part the loss of Canadians lives. And yet, if it wanted to, Parliament could not investigate that unless the government gave its go ahead to investigate.
I think it is a departure from what people think is the role of this place when that happens in our Parliament. As a member, I am prepared to trade the length of speeches as well as many other things if, on the other side of the scale, the government is prepared to make a trade with respect to accountability. I believe that this view is shared by all members in all parties of
the House. We have been asking for that for years and that is the purpose of this motion.
Why do we ask the government to consider these reforms? Why do we ask the government to make a reference to the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization? The reason is that Parliament is not just the place of House leaders, nor is it just the place of party leaders alone. It belongs to all members in the sense that here is where we function. The way in which members can express themselves on the operations of Parliament is through the work of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization. It is made up of members from all parties.
We have proven in the House that committees will work when there is good will. I believe in this House when you cut through all the partisanship that exists here-even though it is legitimate in part-you find a feeling of frustration and anger among members on all sides of the House, anger and frustration that this place is not working as they thought it should when they came here as members.
As the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) said, there is very little opportunity for input into public policy. There seems to be a feeling that all the wisdom is with the government, regardless of its stripe, or with the bureaucracy, when we know that it is not. Elected politicians can bring an overlay of wisdom to government decisions. Certainly this place is not here for the convenience of the government. It is here to pry, probe and question the actions of a government regardless of what government is in office or whether the Member of Parliament who is questioning is a Liberal, Conservative or New Democrat.
The advantage of sending this proposal and all others which were mentioned by the government House leader to a committee is that it will become evident that this place is not just the preserve of the members. It is also the preserve of the public because it also has views to express on how this place performs and whether it is functioning as it expects. Members of the public cannot come to the bar of the House to speak or sit in these benches to speak, but they can come and speak to the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization. That is the reason for committees, and you will recall that one of the issues in the energy security matter was that the public should come to speak.
There are countless organizations, not all academic, which are concerned about the operation of this place. There are business organizations, such as the Business Council on National Issues, which are worried about how this place is operating. James Gillies, who was the member for Don Valley East, wrote a book about the involvement of business, and the private sector in the political process.
I suggest that it is time for the public to become involved in the political process. It will only get involved on a day to day basis if the balance changed-not the delicate balance referred to by the government House leader in his speech to the federal lawyers club in November, but the gross imbalance which exists in the House of Commons between the weight of the government on one side and the influence of the private member on the other.
March 18, 1982

Some say that my proposals will not work because there will always be a majority of government members on those committees. I say that is wrong. Many committees have proven in the House that they can work. For example, there was the subcommittee on prison reform which was chaired by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacGuigan). There was the committee concerned with fiscal relationships between the provinces and the federal government chaired by the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau). There was the committee on regulatory reform chaired by the hon. member for Willow-dale (Mr. Peterson). There was the committee on the National Trading Corporation, and the committee on the disabled which was chaired by the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Smith). Finally, there is the committee which is chaired by my colleague, the hon. member for Well-ington-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty), co-chaired by Senator Godfrey, the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ohter Statutory Instruments, dealing with the whole matter of regulatory reform and the place of regulations in any system.
These examples have proven that from time to time, when faced with the appropriate issue, party labels can drop and we can begin to probe for the truth as we see it.
Another example is the Standing Committee on Public Accounts which has worked magnificently under the member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington) and the member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Clarke). That committee has worked diligently and has made some progress toward the improvement of the control of Parliament over expenditures and the reporting of the government with respect to estimates.
So the capability does exist. It requires good will, it takes trust as well as some initiative. It is no longer acceptable to me as a parliamentarian that this government does not bring forward the proposals which it had promised in the Speech from the Throne. It is not only unacceptable to me but it is so to many other Canadians. It is equally unacceptable to Canadians that parliamentary debate be overlaid with frivolous and vexatious matters. That is not to say that debates should not be partisan-certainly they should be partisan-but they should not be meanly partisan and they should be directed to the issues affecting Canadians.
When I talk to my constituents, they ask me what Parliament can do about the various issues facing them. I have to tell them that it cannot do very much. Do you know why? Two-hundred eighty two Members of Parliament cannot act on every issue in Parliament, but committees can act. However, they cannot take action immediately with respect to matters affecting Canadians unless the government says so. The government rarely agrees. That is the problem with our system, and I humbly and respecfully submit that this is what those reform proposals are there to remedy. I invite the government House leader to rise above some bitter experience and to review all the reports and documents which we have here-including those which he may be presenting before the government which so far have not seen the light of day-all
Supply
the public, private and inside information that there is, and at least put it before the committee so that we may deal with it.
When the government House leader was referring to my proposals, he was quoted in an article in the Ottawa Citizen as saying in the House that they were interesting, had some possibilities but were incomplete. I want to say to the government House leader that, incomplete as they are, I have never said that they were the last word in proposals. Rather, I have taken the view that they are the first words. There is the problem. They are the first word. There has been no other word, and if there are proposals from the government that will help to make this place work, then we are prepared to look at them. But we want to see them. I think that outside there is a silent but large constituency in Canada which wants to see this place work. It is tired of pettiness. It wants us to rise above ourselves and engender some of the things we do with trust and honest partisanship.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but his allotted time has expired.


Mr. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Continue.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The hon. member may continue if there is unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Walter David Baker: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and I thank my colleagues. Let me finish now. There are some ministers in the House today. The Minister of the Environment (Mr. Roberts) is here. The Secretary of State for External Affairs is here. There is a parliamentary secretary here too, and some former ministers are here. If those gentlemen want to do a service to this House, they will speak to the government House leader and ask him to make this reference, because the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the New Democratic Party have given an undertaking that such a reference, assuming it is broad enough-and I am sure it would be-will go to the committee very, very quickly without prolonged or long debate. I think the time has come when every one of us must be concerned about this place and must agree that we should begin to look at it anew.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mark R. MacGuigan: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on this motion today as a strong partisan of parliamentary institutions. Like that of most members of the chamber, my understanding of and feeling for Parliament has grown, I think greatly, since I was first elected. I was elected in 1968, and during the last 14 years I have witnessed all the great debates, the ones in which our great parliamentary colleagues have given strong institutional leadership to our democratic traditions.

March 18, 1982
Supply
I think Parliament has become a better place because of the MacEachens and the Baldwins and the Douglases and our very much missed friend, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). When we survey the history of Parliament over these past 14 years, I think we will credit these men and many others with advancing the cause of parliamentary democracy. The qualities they brought to Parliament, which have, in turn, nurtured Parliament, stem from a single belief in the sovereignty of the people as it is exercised through Parliament. Even in the most difficult moments they never lost sight of the fact that neither partisanship nor opportunism is sufficient justification for challenging the very sovereignty of the institution of Parliament.
Members of all parties over the years have understood that there are limits beyond which they can go only at peril to Parliament itself. I am sorry to say that I believe these limits have been exceeded in the last two weeks by the Conservative Party.


Mr. Greenaway:: You guys too.


Mark R. MacGuigan: While what I can only call the travesty of the Conservative behaviour was bad enough, what in a sense is even worse is the attempt now by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) to endow their anti-democratic behaviour with a gloss of concern for Parliament. No one mindful of the history and traditions of this institution could close the doors of the House in the name of reform. This conduct speaks not of a party or group committed to parliamentary reform but of a party that is so thoroughly committed to power at any cost that it would force Parliament to cease functioning.
Have they not read history? Do they not know that our political ancestors fought kings to keep this institution functioning? Do they not know that our privileged tradition of democracy has been based on the notion that Parliament is the ultimate forum for discussion and debate? Do they not know that they have set an insidious precedent which brings no credit to them, and none to the institution?
Parliament offers ample opportunity for all sides to be heard, and even to be heard at some length. Filibustering, political manoeuvring and just plain politics have all been used by the opposition.


Mr. Taylor:: And by you.


Mark R. MacGuigan: And by us, I admit, when we have been in the opposition, and by the government, yes, when it feels keenly about issues. But in all cases parties have kept the House going in the search for solutions. Now my hon. friends opposite have established the precedent that an unruly opposition has the right to muzzle the very institution they were elected to support and to close down the debate on the nation's business which they were elected to discuss. Where are the democrats in the Conservative Party and their great tradition?
If they are on the opposition benches today-and I am prepared to concede that the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) is very likely one of those-they must indeed be anguished by the events of the last two weeks.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Why didn't you split the bill?


Mark R. MacGuigan: They cannot be proud of muzzling Parliament and of creating a new and dangerous precedent which could be used by others again to thwart the will of the Canadian people.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Why did it take you so long to split the bill?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Surely what faith they had in their leader must by now have completely evaporated, because I find it hard to believe that the heirs of Macdonald, Cartier and Borden would gleefully and carelessly participate in such tactics.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: What did you hear about the naval bill?


Mark R. MacGuigan: The last two weeks cannot be conveniently explained away on the ground of concern for Parliament. It is like arguing that one should deliberately crash an aeroplane in order to advance transport safety.
We have learned much about the Leader of the Opposition and his House leader in the last fortnight. We never experienced events like this during the tenure of the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton. We have learned that the right hon. gentleman is prepared to sabotage the very institution he professes to love so much, if it will serve his immediate personal ambitions, ambitions which many of those seated closely around him seem very eager to truncate. We have learned that if respect for Parliament is not enough to give the right hon. gentleman second thoughts before he corrupts parliamentary traditions, then neither did respect for the Canadian public restrain the right hon. member in his public pronouncements.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Get rid of your dictator, and it wouldn't happen.


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1 have here a comment by Michael Valpy of The Globe and Mail, in which I believe he spoke for many Canadians. He wrote:
The purpose behind-
The recent parliamentary impasse.
-has acquired more shadow with each increasingly dishonest and dangerous statement from Joe Clark-about Tories being barons confronting King John; about the omnibus bill being one more attempt by Mr. Trudeau to fundamentally change the structure of Canadian society and government.
Does the man really have to go across the country milking hate and discord on, for heaven's sake, a Parliamentary issue, pandering to the basest and most unthinking political discontent in the country? Is that what has happened to the Conservative Party?


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: This is sick of you, Mark.


Mark R. MacGuigan: I do not know the answer to this rhetorical question.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Tell us about Forsey.
March 18, 1982


Mark R. MacGuigan: However, I do know these comments represent widespread public opinion on the question and, as much as the right hon. gentleman opposite may pin his failing hopes on this soothing motion, I am afraid it will not be possible for him to use it to draw the wool over the eyes of the Canadian people as to the real motives behind his action.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Remove your own leader before you start talking about ours.


Mark R. MacGuigan: I do not think I have ever met a parliamentarian who was opposed to parliamentary reform. As this party's House leader said today, and I hope I quote him
correctly:

That being said, Mr. Speaker, not only is parliamentary reform a necessity: it is also an urgency.

While 1 do not have the exact words of the leader of the New Democratic Party, the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broad-bent), I know that he too spoke of the urgency of parliamentary reform. There is no disagreement among members about this.
In the 14 years that I have been in the House I have seen the role of the private member enormously enhanced. We now have a role in committees which did not formerly exist. We have changed some of the procedures of the House, and improved the lot of members through the provision of more adequate staff and research assistance for the parties as well as adequate remuneration for members and improved conditions of service involving such petty details as the use of telephones. So in the 14 years that I have been here I have seen the role of the private member spectacularly enhanced. Not enough has been accomplished, however. While the lot of the member has been improved in many ways, we have not yet dealt with many of the most crucial questions involving his or her role. I have written extensively on this subject myself and I do not propose to repeat views which I have expressed elsewhere.
The debate so far has shown that members have many ideas about how reform could be accomplished. The House leader of this party suggested some changes which could be made immediately to improve the institution. That does not exclude, of course, the more far-reaching changes that we would all like to see take place.
In summary, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that Canada has been privileged to have a democracy which stretches back to the birth of the country 115 years ago. Parliament has served many generations of Canadians with fairness, tolerance, and, I believe, a certain amount of wisdom.
Within these walls Canadians, regardless of their partisan differences, have been able to bring their beliefs forward to discuss them. Every side of an issue is relevant here and the rules permit and encourage full debate. For this reason I
Supply
regard the sorry events of the last two weeks as a grave breach of our traditions.
If it is parliamentary reform that the right hon. gentleman wants to effect, he will get a chance to air his views-as he has done today-and he will have the ear of every member of the House. But if his objectives are the darker ones implicit in the strangulation of the House in the last two weeks, then he will have perpetrated great harm on parliament and on our people.
The institution of Parliament is larger than all of us. It is more important than our careers. In the short time that we are privileged to be here as trustees and representatives of the Canadian people we must all remember that our first loyalty must be to Parliament and to the Canadian people.
It is in this spirit that we must approach parliamentary reform. Indeed, it is in this spirit that we must make parliament operate every day. That is the spirit of true parliamentary democracy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gordon Edward Taylor: Parliament didn't impose metric on the people.


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me to take part in this debate. I feel particularly honoured because I believe that of all the parliamentarians who have spoken, I am the one with least experience in the House. I intend to dwell on that point to a certain extent.
When I came here I brought with me a great amount of awe and enthusiasm. To demonstrate how naive I was about parliamentary rules and traditions, I will tell you that the first time I heard the bells ring, I was so concerned about not doing the right thing that I stayed in my seat until they stopped and the vote was taken. I did not want to do anything that was out of order. I am sure other hon. members have had similar experiences when they were new. None of us are born with 20 or 30 years' experience. We just have to acquire it. I believe many new members have insights and objective judgments about the place that may escape those who have been here for a long time.
I should like to deal with the parliamentary process itself, Mr. Speaker. The reason for a parliament in the first place was that there would be a forum in which the expenditure of money could be scrutinized. Its purpose was to look after the public purse. That is why it was established initially. In England, when King John got out of hand, the noblemen of the day were very concerned. They summoned him to Runnymede and said, "King John, we are not prepared continually to give you money from our estates unless we have a say about how the money is spent." We are really involved in the same process today because our main responsibility to our constituents is to see to it that the tax money collected by the treasury is spent in a proper fashion. It is a very, very important function.
It is in that context that we need to examine some of the budgetary processes, Mr. Speaker. I had the privilege to be a permanent member of a committee struck by my party which travelled for three weeks throughout the country, from coast to

March 18, 1982
Supply
coast. It was a very interesting and rewarding experience. I had a chance to meet Canadians all over the country and hear their concerns about the budgetary process. This is a very, very important part of our parliamentary responsibility. I also had a chance to study some of the institutions that exist for scrutinizing the budgetary process in this country and compare that with what is done in the United States. It seems to me that in this country we have fewer checks and balances than are available in the United States, and I should like to compare the two systems to show how important scrutiny is.
In the United States there is the House of Representatives and the Senate, either of which may stop a budgetary measure. There is also the executive branch which is totally separate from the legislative branch. The executive branch would be similar to our cabinet. Each institution can act as a check and balance on the public purse and on the others. We do not have that system in this country, Mr. Speaker. To a large extent that responsibility lies with each individual member of the House of Commons. If its members are to exercise that responsibility, then they must have some authority-perhaps that is going too far, but at least they must have some input into the decision on how tax money is spent.
When we arrive here as new members I do not think any of us expect to make momentous decisions that will shape the course of history in any significant way, but I think it is fair to say that our constituents expect us to be able to ask some basic questions once in a while. They do not expect us simply to vote yea or nay on an issue but they expect us to make useful suggestions that will be heeded. They expect us to ask why something is happening or why it is not happening. I think we must ask these questions about the budgetary process and the expenditure of tax money by the government.
Just to give an example before I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil) had a private member's bill-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair until 8 p.m.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, when the House rose at six o'clock I was digressing somewhat to talk about some of the problems we encounter as individual members. The example 1 was attempting to use was one which referred to a private member's bill of the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil). It dealt with taking some $9 million that had been collected from farmers during the life of the prairie farm administration act. When this act ceased to exist, the $9 million was held by the government on behalf of producers. It was not distributed. Everyone agreed the money should be distributed to the farmers, but it has been held since 1972 despite the fact that
everyone agreed it should be distributed. Nothing has transpired, and almost ten years have passed since that time. I understand, however, the problem is to be solved soon. But in the meantime we have lost something like $4,000 a day in interest on the $9 million. When people outside of this institution see things like that going on about which everyone is agreed, it is small wonder people become concerned about the way this place functions.
I want to return now to the task before me tonight and that is to talk about the parliamentary process as it relates to the budgetary system. It seems to me there are three time frames surrounding a budget: the proposal stage of a budget, dealing with it in the House, and dealing with it after it is presented in the House on budget night. I refer first to pre-budget time during which the Department of Finance formulates a budget. There should be no reason why a minister of finance cannot let Canadian businessmen and taxpayers know what kind of tax changes are being proposed in an upcoming budget. If a minister of finance were to do that, it would be a signal to the taxpayers and to business people of Canada of what they might expect with regard to changes. This would also give people a chance for input into the budget. They could make submissions to the minister of finance. He would have the benefit of people's opinions as to how his proposed tax changes might affect the country. That would help the minister of finance prepare a better budget. There is not enough interaction in this country. There seems to be no reason to me why something like this should not take place, because it would benefit everyone.
A second concern many people have is with respect to budgetary secrecy. Admittedly, there are some legitimate concerns over budgetary secrecy having to do with people taking unfair advantage through prior knowledge of tax provisions or tax changes in a budget, for instance. That is understandable. But generally there are two concepts in the budget relating to secrecy.
I want to quote from a document entitled "Canadian Study of Parliament Group". In referring to the budget secrecy rule, we read with reference to budgetary secrecy:
In theory, it would seem to rest on two premises. The first is that no one should be able to gain a private advantage by reason of advance information about matters to be dealt with in a budget;-
That seems to be obvious to all of us in the House. The paragraph continues:
-the second is that all important statements of government policy ought to be announced first to the House of Commons.
Those are two general principles to do with the budget as it is prepared and presented in the House. I do not think many of us quarrel with that. But within those two premises, there is no reason why we could not open up the budgetary process considerably from what it has been in the past without calling into question or compromising those two basic premises. They should surround the budget in the way it is prepared and presented in the House.
March 18, 1982

If people were given the right to have input into a budget, it would be more readily acceptable. They would be aware of possible contents. For a country like Canada that is important. As far as I am concerned, Canada is the only country made up of Five distinct geographic regions. When taxation or Fiscal measures are brought down in a budget we should realize that those measures will not affect each geographic region in the same way. On that basis, it should be important for the government to give a signal to the country through all of its regions of what the government proposes to do in terms of budget changes. If that kind of a system were adopted, and once laws were passed, people would have more faith and trust in the changes. People would not feel set upon by a government. They would not be as frightened or alienated by a government because they would have had input into the budgetary process. This is very important because governments today, in one form or another, take a very large percentage of income from us.
For instance, if one were to look at the average taxes paid by an individual Canadian, most of us end up working from the beginning of the year until some time in June for one government or another, which is a tremendous amount of taxation imposed on individuals by governments. Therefore, on that basis it is very important that individual taxpayers have as much input into the budgetary process as possible. That conclusion was evident to the committee of our party on which I served as we travelled the country during the First few weeks of 1982. Three themes kept recurring.
First, taxpayers in general could not understand why governments did not trust them and why governments did not discuss with the people what was going to happen. This viewpoint was particularly brought out with respect to the budget of November 12, 1981, which proposed a major taxation change.
The second theme which cropped up in the hearings concerned the fact that many of the taxation measures of the last budget were put into effect retroactively. That was unfortunate. It called into question the very basis under which our taxation system has worked in this country. It has worked on the basis of voluntary compliance. If the government ever gets itself into a position whereby it changes the rules, as it has done in some cases, particularly having to do with life insurance in the last budget where retroactive changes were made, it will Find that that type of move makes Canadians think that they do not necessarily want to play square with the government. Several people told us that if the government cannot respect laws it puts in place upon which people plan for their retirement, these people naturally feel they want to retaliate, and when the time comes to Fill out taxation forms, they consider the possibility of devising their own forms. Those kinds of things were very disturbing to hear.
The third theme that kept cropping up before our budgetary committee was the fact that many provisions in the budget have not been clarified. That was in January, two months after the budget had been brought down. Since then two more months have passed and still many provisions have not been
Supply
clarified. People do not know how to conduct their business affairs based on the November 12 budget because the government has not come forward with many of the changes in terms of legislation or regulation proposed in that budget. For instance, let us consider the change in the Excise Tax Act from the manufacturing to the wholesale level. There are many changes about which people are not yet familiar because the government has not fully established what it intends to do. Those are three areas that we need to address in terms of the budgetary process.
We need more input in the pre-budgetary process. I am not so sure there needs to be the total secrecy required now around the budget presentation itself. After the budget is brought down, the government should make every effort it possibly can to clarify what it intends to do with respect to tax changes proposed in the budget.
I intend to fulfil, at least in spirit, the suggestion made earlier by several members, namely to limit the time we take to make speeches in the House.
I want to close by referring to a couple of things the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said. This week in Toronto, he said:
-the way in which democracy was destroyed was closing down Parliament-
I want to suggest there is more than one way to close down Parliament. Simply because we are here does not mean that Parliament is working the way it should. In many ways there is a much more insidious way to close down Parliament; that is to have members here and have them do nothing. But I would challenge the Prime Minister. If he is serious at all in his statement, he should look at ways to make Parliament function, to make it more useful and more productive for members of the House and, as a result, for the constituents we represent. So, if Parliament closes down simply because it becomes irrelevant, the statement made by the Prime Minister is reprehensible. I would challenge him to see that Parliament is not closed down in terms of its ability to function. To me that is a lot more important than simply worrying about having people physically here. I would much sooner have people here doing something constructive rather than going on in the system we have now where, it seems to me, we become more and more irrelevant all the time.
The other point I would like to make has to do with what was said in the last page of the Speech from the Throne delivered here almost two years ago. It says:
Like all of your colleagues in the House of Commons, you who represent the people of Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia-
And I can add to that the people of rural Manitoba where I come from:
-have a responsibility to represent your constituents to the nation. You also have an extra responsibility in the present circumstances to represent the nation to your constituents. It is a task no one else can fulfil.
I totally agree with that statement. If we are to fulfil that task, then we have to see that this institution functions in such a way that we can fulfil that task. Believe me, all those who

March 18, 1982
Supply
come to this House do so with the utmost sincerity and integrity, and all of us have a certain amount of talent and special ability, and if individual members are prevented from seeing that kind of talent used, we will all be the poorer for it. So I would like to urge all of us in this House to take seriously the suggestions made here today and that we go forward in a spirit of good will to see that some of the useful and worth-while suggestions made here today do not end up as simple rhetoric to be referred to by future scholars, but rather that something very useful and worth while comes out of this debate today.


David P. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate. It is a subject in which I am quite interested, and given the events of recent days I think we all feel it is quite timely and we hope we can come to some consensus on improvements which might be made with regard to parliamentary reform.
I think it is fair to say that in recent years the government has demonstrated a genuine interest in parliamentary reform in several ways. Such things as the introduction of television, the very active role which special committees have played in the last couple of years-and I will speak a little more about that later-and the facilities which are now available to members compared to what they were some years ago, I think indicate a genuine commitment on the part of the government to parliamentary reform. I remember that in the mid-1960s you would see a couple of members and a couple of secretaries jammed into one little room. The working environment was quite intolerable and the work output tended to reflect that. Now, however, we have well funded research staffs for the various parties, which I think has gone some way to improving the conditions under which Parliament operates.
I have to say that I have some doubt about the sincerity of some members opposite, and I say "some" because, for example, the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) has a genuine interest in and commitment to parliamentary reform. But because of some of the hijinks which have occurred here in the last couple of weeks, things that I can only describe as guerrilla tactics, we were prevented from doing what we were elected to do, that is to say debate, ask questions, answer questions, discuss legislation, move amendments and vote on them, and, in the final analysis, vote on the legislation. I am mystified as to how that blockade is somehow justified in the name of hoping to bring about parliamentary reform. I think that, coming hard on the heels of the hijacking we saw during the Constitution debate when we heard a hundred-odd spurious questions of privilege and points of order, it is a little difficult to accept as genuine the interest in parliamentary reform of everyone on the other side.


An hon. Member:: You are perfect, aren't you.


David P. Smith: I think it is very important that we all bear in mind the function and role of the opposition and the government, in a parliamentary democracy. That is why we on this side of the House felt quite strongly that one principle on which we were not prepared to give in the recent war of wills, if you can call it that, is that it is the obligation and duty of the government to set the legislative priorities of the House. That
is something on which we will have to go to the people to justify whether or not we have properly managed our mandate and whether we have set those legislative priorities in accordance with the wishes of the majority. If we have not, we know the political consequences which can flow from that when we have an election. However, I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it is a perversion of parliamentary democracy to suggest that somehow the opposition, which is in the minority, through an abuse of what is a tradition, not even a rule, can prevent Parliament from functioning in the way I think it is supposed to function.
I must say also that I regretted a couple of the references that were made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) today to things which I think really do not add a constructive tone to this debate. He referred, for example, to the emergency planning order. In recent days I think some people have tried to damage the integrity of the government by exploiting this and presenting a version of that order which is totally contrary to the facts. I regret to say that I think the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition did that today when he said the government had given itself the authority to set up internment camps. Nothing could be further from the truth. The only conclusion I can come to is that he has never read the emergency planning order because if he does he will see in Section 3 that it says:
Every minister appointed to preside over a department or responsible for the administration of an agency of the Crown or a Crown corporation shall
(a) be responsible for the identification of possible types of emergencies
within or directly related to his area of responsibility and for the preparation,
evaluation, testing and implementation, when required, of appropriate related
emergency plans and arrangements;
Now, in a document prepared for me by the research branch of the Library of Parliament which is entitled "The Validity of the Emergency Planning Order" it states:
The provisions of the order require the various ministries to develop plans which are to include methods of implementation. This includes preparation for implementation. The order does not purport to authorize the implementation of the plans so prepared.
Going on further, the document says:
In summary, the order requires various government ministries to develop plans for emergencies and prepare for the implementation of such plans. However, there are no provisions which, properly characterized, amount to authorizing the implementation of the plans.
In order to implement these plans legislation would be required, and I would suggest the Leader of the Opposition knows that full well. I regret that he has chosen to paint a picture of what is happening here in Parliament which I suggest is, in fact, very misleading. He is doing it for political purposes, but I do not think it is constructive in a serious debate on parliamentary reform.
He referred today to the number of orders in council which this government has passed. To listen to him you would come to the conclusion that there is something inherently wrong with orders in council, that there is something evil about them. It should be pointed out that an order in council has to be issued pursuant to the authority of some act. Now, you would get the
March 18, 1982

impression that the Conservatives, when they were in power, never issued an order in council. Well, we all know that they did, and I became so annoyed listening to the sanctimonious utterings of the Leader of the Opposition today that I checked with the Privy Council on the Clark government's record on orders in council. They have complained about the volume we have produced. Well, they were in for nine months and how many orders in council did they grind out? One thousand and fifty-one.


An hon. Member:: Shame.


David P. Smith: So, having listened to what they have had to say in recent days about orders in council, I think they should literally be ashamed to stand up on their feet and bring that up again. I hope it has now been laid to rest because they will not get off the hook with that red herring anymore.


Charles James Mayer: You guys had 3,700 last year.


David P. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak very briefly about one aspect of parliamentary reform which I feel quite strongly about. There are two points I wish to make. If there were one quick change which I think would be legitimate, given the experience of the past couple of weeks, it would be that a motion to adjourn the House, once moved, if not voted on by the automatic adjournment hour of the day on which it is moved, should become void. This is because if an adjournment motion were carried, the work of the House would be terminated for that day only in any event. If the motion cannot be brought to a vote by virtue of the fact that one whip on one side of the House has decided to stay out and break the normal practice and tradition, putting the Speaker in an awkward position, as has been the case in recent days, I belive that that is really an abuse of the tradition. I do not think anyone would be ill served by a change which simply stated that if a motion to adjourn the House has not been voted on by the time of the automatic adjournment hour of the day in which it is moved, the motion should become void. I do not think anyone would consider such a change in the Standing Orders to be an abuse.
The tactic which was used in recent days could still be used. However, hon. members would have to get up and move that motion every day. If they did that, the scrutiny and the spotlight of public opinion would prevent them from doing this very often.
What I would really like to speak about is the whole subject of committees, particularly special committees. I have had the opportunity of chairing one of these committees, which I am still chairing. It is the Special Committee on the Disabled and Handicapped. We have a seven-member committee comprised of four government members, two Conservative members and one NDP member. First of all, I would like to say that I really believe there is a lot of merit in having smaller committees. I think that what happens is that a greater commitment to the subject matter is developed among the members. I think one agrees to serve on a special committee only if one has a genuine interest in the subject matter of that committee. As a
Supply
matter of fact, when those six special committees were set up a couple of years ago, it was stated in the order of reference that the membership of the committee could not be changed without a House reference. This meant that there was no revolving door. In the larger standing committees, whenever a vote comes up, the troops from either side will come in and look to their leading spokesman to tell them which way to raise their hands.
I think there is much merit in the concept of a smaller committee. I suspect that if we had smaller committees around here, and if members served perhaps on just one or two committees at the most, we would find that members would develop a much greater commitment to participation in those committees.
Our particular committee travelled across the country. We held hearings in 18 different locations. We divided ourselves into two parts. We heard over 600 witnesses. I think that all of us who served on that particular committee have found a lifelong interest in and commitment to improving the lifestyle of the disabled in this country. It was a very moving experience. It would also be fair to say that it familiarized us with the subject in a way which has enabled us to make a contribution to Parliament, because we find that members from that committee tend to ask questions in Parliament and tend to oblige the government to continue to focus on our various recommendations. I think that all of that is a good thing. I personally feel, although not everyone is of this viewpoint, that the style and the format of report which we used was a welcome change. Quite frankly, many parliamentary reports published in the traditional way are about as interesting to look at as the phone book. They are deadly dull. We used a format which included a number of photographs, a headline style, a punchy style, with the result that many people wanted to read it.
I simply want to make those comments for the record to indicate my very strong support for the concept of special committees. One of the most enjoyable and satisfying things that I have ever done in my life was to become associated with the work of that committee. I am making this contribution as a private member in the hope that when the various aspects of parliamentary reform are reviewed by the House leaders, serious consideration will be given to continuing the opportunity for special committees to do the very fine work they have done in the last couple of years.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to participate in this debate on the motion of my leader. I thought he gave one of the more constructive speeches of his career this afternoon when, in a very even way, he pointed out some of the problems of this institution and suggested some remedies. We have just come through a very difficult time in this institution. Frankly, I do not think there is one member on either side of the House who was very gleeful while listening to those bells. Other hon. members have spoken on parliamentary reform tonight. The hon. member for

March 18, 1982
Supply
Portage-Marquette (Mr. Mayer) said that perhaps he was participating as one of the youngest and newest members of the House. I find it almost remarkable that I am likely the most veteran member to have participated in this debate, knowing that time is starting to move on and there will not be that many more hon. members who will be able to participate tonight.
However, once we get away from this particular period, and when we let the columnists and the commentators dissect the last 16 days when we all heard that clang of the bell, I am suggesting to Your Honour that Canadians away from this place will put different interpretations on why that bell rang for so long. I would venture to say that my friends on the government side were surprised as were we, frankly, on this side that the bell rang for so long. I will not go into all the reasons why it might have been possible to shorten the bell. However, I can tell Your Honour that in terms of the area that I know best, my own riding, and Altantic Canada to a point, many people phoned me who had never phoned a politician before. Certainly, in the first week, that was so. Admittedly, during the second week, the people who phoned were more partisan. The good Tories were phoning to give support, as well as people who took a position as good Liberals, if one can find them, and there are still some around.


William James Kempling: Name one.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: They phoned and, of course, they were against the bell. However, these were the committed people after that first week or ten days. I seriously believe that unless this House reforms itself, people will say in the not too distant future that that bell was ringing for this institution. It is almost that serious. One can look around tonight. I am not casting stones because it is the opposition motion. There is not a great, horrendous throng behind me tonight to support whatever I might say or what the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) had said earlier today when he made a very reasoned contribution to this debate. However, I am telling Your Honour that I have been on a procedure and organization committee. I was a member of the last one that sat, goodness knows how many years ago. It is almost an absolute scandal in terms of priority of reform in this institution. This is the three hundred and eighth day of this first session of the Thirty-second Parliament. This session of Parliament started on April 14, 1980. It will likely be known not only as the Parliament of the clang, but also long known as the long session. Perhaps there will be other, more derisive terms than that. I will not comment. I will take a lead from my good colleague, the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton. This afternoon his strongest word was "regret" at the President of the Privy Council's (Mr. Pinard) contribution to this debate, when he took on, as also the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan) took on, the personal attributes or the personal motives of my leader. I am not going to get into that other than to say this, that my leader is not one to take a back seat to anybody on parliamentary reform. I say that, especially when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) or the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien), the two of them, cannot agree on what is a separatist or a terrorist, or on defining the
Prime Minister's most memorable statement last week when he was implying here that this is fascism and that there were reds in the opposition, led by their leader.
I am not going to say anything more than that, but the fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that this is a government which has said in the Speech from the Throne that it was interested in reform, yet we have gone into 200 days of sitting and we have gone into a second year and we have not even structured the procedural organization committee. That is an insult to all members of this House.
This is a very funny thing, and I do not know if there is a conspiracy somewhere. I am going to surprise some members now by saying that the Prime Minister in another utterance some years ago stated that the Members of Parliament on both sides were nobodies. He was speaking from a debating point of view and he was speaking as a supporter of that claim, and I could be also a supporter of the theory. In terms of policy we all know this. Members have said this here today. We do not really have that much input into policy. The whole history and purpose of this institution was not to legislate but to try to control the power of the purse.
I am afraid, Mr. Speaker, that the Prime Minister does not appreciate that from me, a backbencher-and someone, I think it was the member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau), said that he was referring only to the opposition members, but I am referring both to the opposition and to those on the government side.
I can tell you that if I felt like a nobody in the opposition as a backbencher, I really lived as a nobody when I was a backbencher on the government side, in my own party, in terms of real input in policy.
My point is that I am afraid that the Prime Minister does not understand in his dissection of the problem in his very theoretical logic, that that is not a solution to that problem.
If I am a member, elected by my constituents, and I am a nobody, if members of the opposition are nobodies, then I am going to extend this to the backbenchers on the government benches, and if I do not think they are really nobodies, then that will be a reflection on the people who sent us here, and then these people are nobodies. Mr. Speaker, that is the very thing that we came to try to correct in this institution, that it is slowly dying.
We have a funny paradox here. We have the lights of television on this institution, and some of us were here in the House before television lights penetrated to this institution. And, Mr. Speaker, you were one of those members here when I was here earlier, and I would say, speaking in marginal terms, even though some were nobodies, there was still some input before the fundamental rules changes were made in 1969. At that time, I as a backbencher could stand up and when, for example, the then minister of the environment had his estimates on the floor of the House, I could at least address
March 18, 1982

a question on behalf of the members of my constituency to that minister and I could hold up his estimates until I got some type of answer. We know that those rules have changed. This is why we are directing attention to what has happened in the last 15 days.
It is too much to expect that we could enter this debate tonight lightly. The tone has been good, with a few exceptions, but there is very much scarred tissue from what has happened. We have to remember that much of the scarred tissue has been formed, as was said by the President of the Privy council, not only on the members but a scar is left on the institution. That is why we put this motion forward here today, to cause ourselves to address ourselves to the problem of reform of this institution.
Mr. Speaker, there are so many things in terms of reform that I would say. Like my friend, the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Smith), we all know that people are trying to find answers to some of these fundamental problems, and we know that to some of them there are no fundamental answers. I am not going to talk about the perversion of the bells. We have all listened to them in the last 16 days. I was looking upon what happened in the last 16 days in a most kind way. There was a mechanical filibuster, mechanical except for the bells, ringing and clanging.
Mr. Speaker, you could pick up the newspapers tonight, you could look at your television or listen to the national news tonight, and you would see other problems in other countries where they are shooting each other, where they are killing each other, where they are blowing one another up. Bells are not bullets. We have just had a bell ringing for 16 days. It did cause some inconvenience. Perhaps it caused some auditory problems in the corridors, and also it fouled up the government timetable tremendously. But nothing was hurt fundamentally. The reason for the mechanical filibuster, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council knows full well, is that the Conservatives felt that in so many fundamental rule changes, in terms of opposition, an opposition really cannot debate now until the cows come home, in order to get the message out, and they have to "use" any device possible to try to focus attention on something which the opposition feels very strongly about.
I have been in the House for the last 16 years and I never expected those bells to ring for 16 days, and, frankly, I can envisage when they might ring for another 16 days. I do not know. I can tell you that it was not just the cause of the energy security bill. There is no opposition worth its salt that would dare to try to ring bells for 16 days, if it were just about a complicated 150 or 170-paged bill, with all the implications that that bill contains. That might have been the catalyst, but I do not think there is a member in the House who believes that it was solely the bill that caused those bells to ring. It was a combination of factors, and that was the last straw.
As to the mechanical filibuster, I do not think anyone was really hurt by that. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that even my friends from the government side were a little surprised at the
Supply
focus of attention and the divided opinion as to whether this was a good thing or a bad thing in terms of whatever the people thought about the energy bill, whether they thought that the government should be brought to a halt, whether they thought that there should be an election, whether they thought that Pierre Trudeau had gone too far, whether they thought Joe Clark was great or poor. Many people interpreted that bell in their own way. All I am going back to say is that that bell was ringing for this institution. We have to address ourselves to that problem.
Mr. Speaker, part of the problem is that we do not have the English system here. I do not want the phrase "Mother of Parliaments" repeated ad nauseam in this House. We are not English. We have just had the Canada bill winding its way through the staid, stuffy House of Lords, which is an insult to Canada, as far as I am concerned. Absolutely. So let us not quibble about our Parliament, because that is not relevant to what is going on in the House of Lords regarding the Canada bill. We have a federal system of government here, not the unitary system that they have in a homogenous country like England.
Let us not get into details, following these rabbit tracks when we are hunting elephants, because that is not going to address the problem here.
Also, what they do have in England, and what we do not have here, is a transfer of power, from Labour to Conservative, and in the old days from Liberal to Conservative. We know that in every period of eight to ten years there was a change of government there and that such a change occurs much more regularly than it does in Canada. They are therefore in the position of knowing that they will be in government in eight to ten years. They will not abuse whatever rules they have because they know they will be confronted with that abuse when they come into power. Mr. Speaker, in this country we have an imbalance in anticipation of events, with the government party stalled in central Canada and particularly in Quebec, with the Tory party very strong in western Canada and west of the Lakehead. We do not only have that imbalance but we have an imbalance in the history of transfer of power.
One of the saddest things that has happened in Canada is that the Conservative Party was in power only for eight or nine months, and that meant that there was not an education process for sincere members on the government side to spend some time in opposition, to realize that in opposition it is a very difficult role to hold. When you are in opposition, boy, you will use any process, any ambit or gambit, to try to focus the attention of the public on those things that are fundamental. But you do not have to be in the opposition or the government to know what I have come to realize in this business, Mr. Speaker.
There is a Parkinson's law or Murphy's law, and one day after St. Patrick's day I would like to coin a Patrick's law. If I have learned anything in politics or in Parliament, it is this; the

March 18, 1982
Supply
only consistency in this business is its inconsistency and uncertainty. That is number one.
As my hon. friend from Nepean-Carleton said earlier with respect to Parliament, you can pervert or prostitute any rule of procedure of any institution, especially the House of Commons, unless there is some good will and tolerance and unless there is respect for each side and its arguments, even though you violently oppose their position. What has happened in this institution is that instead of good will, we have rancour; instead of tolerance, we have arrogance; instead of trust, we have suspicion. It is a combination of all those things which caused the bells to ring for 16 days. It was not just the energy security bill. 1 did not understand the details of it when the bells began to ring. I can tell you, as can most of the public, I now know substantially more about the energy security bill than I did on Tuesday, March 2.
There must be the respect, tolerance and good will flowing back and forth in this institution, but it is not possible when the leader of our country says that we are a bunch of nobodies because that means by inference that the people are nobodies. That cannot help the institution.
There is a fundamental reform needed in the House of Commons with respect to prime minsters, not this particular Prime Minister but any Prime Minister. I agree with the paper put forward by my hon. friend from Nepean-Carleton, the former president of the Privy Council. I have also heard some other useful ideas today. The leader of the NDP, the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent), made a suggestion which I frankly feel has a lot of merit. That is that the House meet for three weeks and members spend the fourth week in their ridings, which would be complimentary to their constituency office.
With respect to the mechanics of the House, I am in agreement with the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council. In terms of perks, in terms of staff and in terms of the salary, I am much better off than I was when I came to this institution in 1965 because, unlike him, I shared an office with another member. If a secretary came in the office, one member would have to leave because there was not enough space in that small office. The parliamentary secretary is absolutely right that there has been a tremendous transformation in the mechanics of the House of Commons.
However, there exists a fundamental paradox. Through the increase of perks and technology, we have the ability to communicate, yet I do not think we are being heard, because of this institution, as well as we were heard when we did not have some of the technology, including telephones. We go through the form and we have more paper flowing across our desks. Perhaps we are closer to being nobodies than we were in the mid-sixties when I first came to this place.
You can have all the reforms you want. You can have committees with powers to investigate the matter of the Ocean Ranger, but, as the hon. member for Gloucester, chairman of the transportation committee, said earlier, it is an insult to me as a Canadian to have to listen to the national news about the Ocean Ranger to discover what happened to Canadian lives in
Canadian waters through an American congressional committee when the Canadian committee could not hear that evidence.
My time is almost up but I would like to say that my fundamental premise for reform is that the right of the Prime Minister to dissolve Parliament must be restricted. I believe that this was said earlier by the hon. member for Rosemont (Mr. Lachance) when he was discussing block voting. Unless we are prepared to face the fundamental issue that we only have a vote of confidence for the defeat of the government on a Speech from the Throne, a budget or a tax bill, then we are just toying with the issue. As members we should vote on a bill to determine if it can receive a majority of support in the House. If it cannot, the very next question which should be put by the Chair without debate is, the bill having been lost, does the government have the confidence of the House. In most cases there would not be a vote against the government, it would only be against a particular bill, thereby directing the minister who introduced that bill to redraft it.
Without going any further, I would just say that it is crazy to give me a salary, which is becoming more reasonable, and all the benefits of my office while having me, along with 281 other members, play the same game and in effect vote the same way as was done in the days of John A. Macdonald. The bell is tolling for us, and unless we address our problems and at least organize the procedure and organization committee, this place will be even more ludicrous than perhaps it is now.


Mr. Herb Breau (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I would first like to indicate to the hon. member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan) that the chairman of the transport committee is the hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne) who represents a constituency neighbouring on mine.
I do not want to comment too much this evening about the events of the last 16 days since I would like to make some other points. I would only say that it has been a regrettable period. Basically, I support the position taken by the government House leader, which was to maintain the tradition that the majority in the House of Commons has the duty, responsibility and power to determine the orders of the day and to decide upon the form in which legislation is to be presented in the House of Commons subject to the ruling of the Chair as to its acceptability and its form.
That tradition is basic and must remain that way, otherwise I do not see how any democratic assembly can work. Filibusters have taken place before, and I suppose this form of filibuster which we have seen, because it was different and new, has dramatized a filibuster tactic much more. I think that we have underestimated the extent to which this institution functions on mood and human feelings. Although filibusters will occur in various forms, I repeat that I deplore the sort of filibuster we have just had because it prevented us from coming to the House of Commons to answer or ask questions and debate. However, in a country as diverse and complex as Canada where people have referred to it as a human experience-certainly a political experience-it is understandable
March 18, 1982

that this institution will always be difficult to operate because of that diversity.

1 would like to separate my comments on parliamentary reform into four parts. First, I believe that there are certain reforms or changes which would be easy to bring about that concern our everyday life as parliamentarians. When I say this, 1 mean among other things our trips to our constituencies and our families. 1 would simply like to point out that situations where surprise votes may be called at just about any time do not lead to a parliamentary way of life that should be acceptable today. As recently as this week, I twice had to cancel elaborate plans for meetings in my constituency with groups who wanted to consult with me. This is very important for a Member of Parliament, and twice I had to revise my plans simply because my whip told me that 1 had to be in Ottawa lest there should be a vote. This is unacceptable, Mr. Speaker, and in a country as large as Canada, in a country where the federal government is losing its credibility in certain areas, it is very important for Members of Parliament to be mobile. In order to maintain efficient political and public relations, it is most important for a Member of Parliament, when he has told a chamber of commerce, a municipal council or an industrial commission, that he will meet them at a certain time on a certain date, that he should not have to change his plans two or three times in the same week, simply because there can be surprise votes in the House.
It seems to me that nothing should prevent us from making plans and if this recent crisis should give us the opportunity to effect some changes, I believe that we sought to start by trying to update our system. I am willing to leave in our procedures sufficient latitude for the official opposition to delay the work of the House in one way or another. I believe that we need loopholes here and there for the opposition and even backbenchers to delay the work of Parliament. I do not think that we can realistically expect the Canadian Parliament to have a system completely free of such loopholes.
However, Mr. Speaker, I believe that, in a modern Parliament, we should eliminate the problems of session adjournments, surprise votes and bells which can ring for nights without anyone knowing whether or not the vote will be held, and I believe that this could easily be the first stage of our parliamentary reform. The second issue that I want to raise is the consideration of budgetary estimates, and the third is the handling of legislation. I shall deal with both of them at the same time.
Mr. Speaker, traditionally, and this is important in my view, Parliament votes the estimates in order that the government may govern. Over the years, as mentioned by the previous speaker, we went into Committee of the Whole and ministers were summoned here, on the floor. Members could ask questions, they could delay matters as long as they wished. This was changed in 1969, I was here at the time, so that the estimates could be referred to committee and we could have a
Supply
specific date on which the estimates are deemed to have been reported by committee, even if the latter refuses to do so.
Mr. Speaker, the old custom is worth while, but it is preposterous to suggest that members of Parliament should scrutinize in detail the estimates each year in order to hold government accountable with the means at our disposal. It is not done, because it is not possible in a modern society. We now have accounting methods that were lacking previously. We have computers, we have the Auditor General, we have a Standing Committee on Public Accounts, and I feel, Mr. Speaker, that one of the things we should seriously consider-the hon. member for Rosemont (Mr. Lachance) raised this issue in the motion tabled on February 25, I believe, and I would like to take this opportunity to commend him for that as well as for his speech this afternoon, because I think he has a very considered approach, that of changing the procedure for consideration of the estimates with a view to making government accountable to Parliament.

I believe the kind of examination of estimates we have now is a total waste of time. It is boring for members of the government. It is a boring exercise for us, and a frustration for members in the opposition. We assume it is necessary in a modern society to make a detailed yearly examination of estimates, but it is humanly impossible.
What I would rather like to see, if I had a choice-and here I come close to what my colleague, the hon. member for Rosemont, proposed this afternoon and proposed in his resolution of February 25-is that we give the opportunity to small groups of Members of Parliament in special committees of the House, with the appropriate staffs, to pick five-year plans of departments. We do not change the notion of accountability of ministers, but the mere fact that we are going to look at five-year plans automatically puts an onus on officials to account. Ministers, technically, will have to account, but then those committees can put departments to the test for one year, with the appropriate staffs, and really grill certain departments and find out where they are going in the long term. That is better accountability than what we have now, which is really an exercise in frustration for everybody. It is a waste of time, and we should not even pretend we are examining the estimates of the departments. Officials do not have to account because they know all they have to do is give long answers and the bell will ring at eleven o'clock, and by a certain date the matter has to be reported. I suppose in a technical or parliamentary sense it is still some kind of examination. The government still has the confidence of the House of Commons. We on the Liberal side could decide that estimates are bad, and we could kick the government out. Right now six or seven Liberal Members of Parliament could, I suppose, force the government to change its mind, but that would really not be a proper examination of a department.

March 18, 1982
Supply
The way to do that is to do something like the Senate did with the Department of Public Works some five or six years ago and to give a committee a mandate to look at a department and its five year plan. We could have real accountability, and departments-and I include officials-would have to answer to parliamentarians for their actions. Parliamentarians could say, "Instead of the policy you are following, we think you should go another way." Those reports would be read by the government. They would be examined by the public, and they would be taken seriously. The reports we have now as far as the estimates are concerned are not worth very much, unless there is a rebellion on the government side and five or six members of the government decide they want to kick the government out. However, that is not very smart, unless we want to have an election.
What we have now is not really an examination or the accountability of the government to Parliament. If I were to vote against my government and be confronted with an election, that would be somewhat irresponsible. It would be irresponsible for any group of Members of Parliament privately to decide we should have an election at a certain time.
The third part of my speech is related somewhat to the second part with respect to the estimates. I believe we should do a little bit of the same thing with legislation. I think there is value in the parliamentary system, versus a congressional system, in having the majority, that is the government, propose the legislative timetable and propose a philosophical framework. However, once that is done and once the whole House of Commons has voted on a resolution-which could be ten pages long-why not let a committee of Parliament write the legislation? Why not give it the time and hire the staff and have it write the legislation? I have reflected on this a little. I am not a lawyer or a draftsman, but I do not understand why a civil servant who works in the Department of Justice or in the Privy Council can write legislation while any person from the public cannot write legislation. If that were done, members of Parliament would feel they were part of the legislation. If there was a conflict and if something were to block somewhere, it would block on a question of policy and not on some picayune matter which has to do with drafting. As a matter of fact, one could suggest that the government would not have to keep so many of the officials who write legislation now. People in the country would probably develop expertise in the drafting of legislation, and they could work for Members of Parliament or for parliamentary committees.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: There would be a lot of unemployed lawyers.


Herb Breau: In the fourth part of my speech I want to deal with the question of policy formulation. The Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Smith), the hon. member for Rosemont and a few others, including the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker), have talked about parliamentary task forces. In this Parliament where we tend to think we are in a great crisis and the institution is breaking down, it is paradoxical that there has been, in my
view, an important parliamentary reform in this session. I was involved in two parliamentary task forces, and I do not say this only because I was involved in them, but the setting up of parliamentary task forces has demonstrated an important reform in attitude. It was not really a great structural reform, but it was an important reform in attitude. I know the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton is proud of that because he was part of the government, the former government, which in a sense seeded the idea. When the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) formed the government the last time, he found this idea appealing and felt it a good way to involve parliamentarians. That has been an important reform of this Parliament. Never before have Members of Parliament been so involved and so effective in providing policy. That is not proper accountability, and it is not proper examination of legislation or estimates, but in terms of policy formulation I think it has been a great reform. Most, if not all, reports are unanimous. Members from the different parties have been able to agree to a coherent political statement. That is a very important reform and it worked because of members' attitudes. First of all, the subject was chosen by the government and therefore was on the political agenda of the government. It expected a report and wanted the opinion of parliamentarians. Also, it was obvious from the start-because the chairmen were proposed publicly by the Prime Minister-that there would not be the usual kind of party discipline directed to the subject. In the parliamentary task forces that I chaired-and I suppose it was the same in the others-when we first sat down with the opposition it was obvious that the Liberal members were free of party discipline. We were free to hire such staff as the opposition would agree to and were free to go wherever we thought it made sense to go in terms of policy orientation. As soon as that was clear, members of the opposition-who after all are here to do a job for their constituents-as soon as they realized that their opinion was worth something, they worked positively. Any disagreements were disagreements of philosophy, of policy, of substance. Once disagreements are reduced to those terms, it is easy to work them out. With skilful draftsmen it is easy to get around problems and to come up with a statement that is not so diluted that it does not make sense.
I have spoken on four different aspects of this matter, Mr. Speaker. The first is parliamentary life. I want to stress again that we must do away with this matter of surprise votes. Members of Parliament have to be free to go back to their constituencies without worrying about votes. Then there is the question of the bells, the question of voting, the question of fixed adjournments, and it seems to me that we should deal with them very quickly. I do not understand why we do not.
The other three aspects of the matter are estimates, legislation and policy formulation. With regard to these three I believe we must provide a better committee system and rely upon it more.
March 18, 1982



Again 1 would like to commend the hon. member for Rosemont for his motion of February 25, 1982. What I am proposing is very similar in substance to what he is proposing, except that he went further than I did, he proposed a solution. The solution is open to discussion, but what is important is making the government truly accountable to Parliament. This is as far as we can go in a modern society, Mr. Speaker, if we put aside exaggeration or the make-believe suggestion that it is possible for 282 Members of Parliament to make every year a detailed examination of the estimates for some 30 departments. A far better approach, Mr. Speaker, is to examine departmental structure and long-term direction within the framework of a study that can extend over a year, with the staff needed, the resources needed, resources to travel, to call for witnesses and experts. Then hon. members could really pass judgment and influence long-term policy.


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, I have just a few comments to make about the debate. Perhaps I should begin with a reference to the parliamentary impasse that we have just experienced and which is part and parcel of the reason for the debate tonight. 1 think it was a good idea for the official opposition to provide Parliament with an opportunity to debate parliamentary reform.
I should like to reinforce what my leader said this afternoon about the attitudinal dimension of parliamentary reform. As good as the rules for human relationships might be, without the proper spirit we will not be able to proceed to the kind of reform and the kind of Parliament that members have envisioned this afternoon.
There were people on both sides of the issue, of course. There were those who supported the ringing of the bells and those who thought that what the Tories were doing was a terrible thing. People appeared to judge the impasse according to their political loyalties. However, there were a great many people who simply felt that nothing had changed.
As we moved into the final day of the impasse it rather scared me that nobody seemed to care. The relevance of Parliament was being demonstrated by the bells rather than being created by the bells. Among my constituents 1 could not find a sense that the decision-making process had been interrupted. Because there is a feeling in the country that the real decisions are not made in Parliament in any case and in so far as that is the perspective behind the Conservative motion, 1 think it is a good one. People do feel that Parliament does not have as much power or relevance as it ought to.
Personally, as a new Member of Parliament, 1 am dissatisfied with a number of things. Some good reforms have been suggested vis-a-vis committees and I should like to see them go through. 1 find committees to be a sort of make-work projects for Members of Parliament. We have the impression that we are doing something, but it is a false belief. Committees are run by the government. The people who appear before the committees get a false impression too, as they believe they are speaking to people who can do something when in fact they
Supply
cannot. That is unfair to the witnesses and their perspective of the democratic process.
Just recently I read or heard something about the Prime Minister's famous comment about Members of Parliament being nobodies. 1 wish I could remember the source. The problem is not that Members of Parliament are nobodies. When we are in our constituencies we are somebodies; it is only in Parliament that we are nobodies. The minute we walk off the Hill, as far as our constituents and others are concerned we are somebodies because thousands and thousands of people voted to put us here. The minute we walk into this building we become nobodies because of the way things are structured and the attitude of the government party that has been in power too long. In all fairness, I must say that it is destructive of the democratic spirit for the Liberal Party to have been in power as long as it has. But the point that has to be made is that it is only when we are here that we are nobodies.
The point made earlier today by the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Clark) about party discipline is a good one. If there is absolutely no possibility that through good argument and good debate or whatever we have to offer in this chamber we can change anyone's mind on anything, then there is no point to debate. There is no point to it if everyone has his mind made up on how he is going to vote on everything before the debate begins. This seems to me to vitiate the whole notion of what a debate is, particularly now that people give set speeches. I understand that in the "olden days" there used to be a little bit more actual debate when members asked questions of each other. But that tends to spoil the set speech that a member may want to send back to his riding for broadcast on cable TV. There seems to be an unwritten rule that this sort of thing is not done any more because it spoils the entertainment value of the speech.
That brings me to another point, Mr. Speaker, the dimension of modern politics that has been left out of this whole debate, the media. There are other actors in the democratic process who also have a responsibility to ensure that Parliament as an institution and as a symbol of democracy is held in appropriate respect. An incident that occurred earlier today demonstrates this. After the Leader of the Opposition spoke, I was outside the chamber and I noticed that there was a bunch of cameramen waiting to interview him. Doing the good thing, he sat and listened to the government House leader make his speech; then he listened to the leader of the New Democratic Party make his speech. Meanwhile the cameramen were going crazy because they wanted him to come out for an interview. As I walked by, I heard a cameraman say, "Enough of this crap about democracy; I have deadlines to meet".


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Where are they
now?


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Exactly, where are they now? The Press Gallery is empty, and I have looked at an empty Press Gallery more than I want to think about since coming here. People say

Supply
that members of Parliament do not have anything substantial to offer. I want to say something in defence of all of us, even though I have listened to a lot of crappy speeches. I have also listened to many good ones which went completely and totally unreported because it was past the deadline, too complicated, or no one could be bothered to listen to them. This is something I wanted to put on the record. There is a thing called "the media" which also has responsibilities in this business. They are the interlocutors or the people who stand between us and our constituents, between us and the country; they are the filter. I happen to think that from time to time they do not do a particularly good job. If that means that I will not get any press coverage from now until doomsday, so be it.
Another matter the hon. member for Saskatoon East (Mr. Ogle) wanted me to mention is something which I do not think has received enough attention tonight. I am referring to the entire question of voting, the incredible amount of time which is taken up voting in this place, and the need for reform of the amount of time required for us to vote. In many different parliamentary and legislative assemblies around the world, there are methods of voting such as electronic voting and voting with cards. Various mechanisms are available which would make possible a much more efficient method of voting. The one thing I like about the way in which we vote is the symbol of people having to rise to say where they stand on a particular issue. I would be distressed to see that sort of human side of voting taken away by any reform, but perhaps it is something we must consider.
Also I should like to see reform of the way in which we perceive the act of abstaining on a vote in Canadian politics. In many other institutions at least people have three options- they can vote yes, they can vote no, or they can abstain and say why they abstain. There is a third position; politicians are not always caught in this either/or situation of having to vote yes or no. It obscures the quality of decision-making and it obscures the ability of Members of Parliament to say where they are on any particular issue. Everything comes down to the vote-one is either for it or against it. This is a very uncomplicated and, in some cases, primitive way of looking at issues. We ought to have more options available to us. I should like to see some reform in this area.
That is about all I wanted to say. I hope this will be the first step toward meaningful parliamentary reform. I get little attacks of despair when I hear members who have been here for ten, 15 or 18 years rising and saying, "We have been talking about parliamentary reform since way back when". I do not know if I want to wait around another 16 years before we actually get around to doing something. There has already been much talk about parliamentary reform, and it is about time there was some kind of consensus.
I was particularly interested in hearing the remarks of the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau) because he chaired a special task force on fiscal arrangements of which I was a member. We managed to come to some kind of consensus about a very difficult matter, although sometimes the hon. member interprets the consensus differently from me. One of
March 18, 1982
my ideas is that perhaps we should have a special parliamentary task force. Task forces have served us well in the past. Perhaps we should set up a small committee to travel across the country to obtain the views of people on parliamentary reform and to come up with a consensus. If the debate this afternoon and this evening has been sincere, it would be something to which all parties could listen and respect, and perhaps by next fall we might have some parliamentary reforms on the books which would make this place a better place in which to work, a better place for Canadians.


Mr. Jack Burghardt (London West):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak during this debate. While I have been on my feet at numerous times during question period and during the 15-minute period when we are allowed to make motions on anything from the sublime to the ridiculous, I have not had the opportunity to speak at length during debate in the House, due in part to the parliamentary system under which we operate. I know that I can perhaps speak tonight on almost anything, but I will stick to the matter at hand because I feel the subject is of utmost importance to the operation of this great House of Commons.
I welcome the opportunity to speak as the Member of Parliament for the riding of London West, a riding which I believe is the third largest in Canada in terms of population, on this subject of parliamentary reform. Since coming into the House last April following my election, I have had the opportunity of seeing first hand how the parliamentary system works, or does not work. I am afraid to say that quite often the latter is more the case. In coming from a background of broadcast news media which tends to report only the so-called highlights of the action of Parliament, I must confess that it is not until one comes into the parliamentary process in a very personal way that one's eyes are opened to the inaction of much of the parliamentary procedure. Unfortunately, the public, as my hon. friend mentioned just a moment ago, is left with only a sham battle to watch on the television screen and to sit back and watch amazed at the circus antics of question period.
I know that the entire subject of parliamentary reform is a contentious one. I believe it was Mark Twain who said, "Nothing so needs reforming as other people's habits." If this be true, it is no wonder that other attempts at reform have been clouded with doubt and suspicion. For the government side to talk about parliamentary reform is to be viewed by the opposition as some other device to try to slip some piece of legislation quickly through the House. For the opposition to talk about reform is to be viewed by the government as another device to come up with more tactics of delay and of obstruction. Cautious, careful people, always looking about to preserve their reputation and political standing, will not bring about reform. Those who are really honest in wanting reform must be willing to do anything or nothing in the estimation of the citizens of the country.
James Bryce back in 1888 said:
March 18, 1982

Law will never be strong or respected unless it has the sentiment of the people behind it. If the people of a state make bad laws, they will suffer for it. They will be the first to suffer. Suffering and nothing else, will implant that sentiment of responsibility which is the first step to reform.
1 suggest the suffering that Parliament has endured these last two weeks is proof positive of that statement. Is it not time that we all got our act together and entered the real world to get on with the important business of governing our great country?
As a relative newcomer to the parliamentary process, I find that much of my time is taken up in reacting and not enough time is spent in acting or initiating. Because of this reactive nature of our process, I am sure the talents of many politicians in the House are wasted. Backbenchers on both sides of the House need to have greater input into the legislative process. Some might argue that a member has this opportunity in his party caucus. To a point this is true, but the operation of our party caucus is secret. I am not suggesting that we change this, but the public is not made aware of what goes on in caucus. As a result, it is left with a less than honest impression of what Parliament is all about.


An hon. Member:: That is your caucus, not ours.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John O. (Jack) Burghardt: Again, I mention the antics of question period as seen and reported by the media. Obviously some members on the opposite side of the House are more attuned to the media than others, or perhaps the media is more attuned to those members. I guess that is where the news is being made these days. Yet far more time is being spent in the House on debates than on questions. Unfortunately, as we all know, the exodus of members, visitors and media from the chamber and its galleries after question period, leaving the House almost deserted, illustrates this point.
There are valid reasons for this. Debate is too long; it is too repetitive; it is too partisan on many occasions, it is too adverse and quite often it does not do the job. The opposition mentality of being against everything and in favour of nothing reduces the opposition's credibility as an alternative government. On the other hand, I feel the government ought to be concerned that its explanations of legislative proposals are not always communicated in a way that the public, and in some cases the House, can understand. To be honest, there are also grounds for suspecting that a government, because of the system, is sometimes forced to bypass Parliament to avoid delays that weaken Parliament as a whole.
I think it must be recognized that practical limitations on parliamentary involvement are necessary. For example, the Special Committee on Regulatory Reform, a committee which was made up of members from all parties in the House, on page 22 of its report on the subject of practical limitations on parliamentary involvement it reported the following;
We are convinced from what we have been told and from our experience working in this committee, that parliamentarians can contribute more to the regulatory process than they do at present. We must report, however, that the general support we found for greater parliamentary involvement in the regulatory process was tempered by the concern expressed by many witnesses that taking
Supply
on additional functions could, in the long run, be counterproductive. We were cautioned against recommendations that would simply add to the present overload of Parliament and unjustifiably slow progress on the matters that require its approval. We recognize as well that enhanced accountability to Parliament would impose additional obligations on the Government.
Officials in almost all the departments we heard from characterized Parliament as a bottleneck. Significantly, this view was shared by many private sector interests as well. We were advised that some departments had been waiting for as long as four years simply to get bills of "lesser priority" before Parliament. In some cases, measures that might have reduced the burden of federal regulation on the private sector have not been implemented for lack of parliamentary consideration and approval. The parliamentary bottleneck provides further incentive for the government to include broad delegations of legislative power to ministers, regulatory agencies, and the governor in council in new regulatory statutes.
Nothing in reforms should prevent an opposition from opposing legislation before the House vigorously and objectively. But at the same time, reforms must permit a government to get a reasonable legislative program through Parliament. Perhaps a sense of purpose and direction in debate would make it more interesting for all members of the House, certainly for visitors in the galleries and, more important, the media. Normal speeches should be reduced from 40 to 20 minutes. This would make for better use of time in the House. It would give more members an opportunity to speak on a given bill. This proposal to reduce the time for speeches from 40 to 20 minutes has been mentioned many times and as late as this afternoon by the government House leader, and I know the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton has also mentioned it.
In my opinion, the purpose of parliamentary debate is to provide Parliament, and thus its members, with an opportunity to examine legislation before the House intelligently and objectively. This is a process that would create a better atmosphere between Parliament and the citizens of our country. It appears plain enough and easy to understand, but unfortunately, this is not the case. There is an increasing disenchantment with and skepticism of Parliament on the part of our citizens because of the very nature of the present system of rules and regulations which provide for procedural wranglings and delay, giving the impression, with all due respect, that we are nothing more than young school children at play. I believe there will be a greater decline in confidence placed in parliamentary government and little respect for parliamentary institutions if we do not change our ways.
I would like to mention the work of parliamentary committees. I feel parliamentary committees need to have greater control and input in examining a given piece of legislation. It has been suggested before, and I would concur, that our present committees are too cumbersome and that not enough members attend with the proper background and research required to investigate adequately, to scrutinize and criticize a particular bill before them. Too much time is spent in trying to score political points, especially if it is a committee which the media attends.
In many ways the failure, or whatever failure we are encountering in the House of Commons, has been to create a competent committee structure which can have a definite capability of affecting legislation. House committees seem to go mainly through the routine of looking into spending estimates. This point was mentioned earlier tonight. Important as

March 18, 1982
Supply
it is, it is nevertheless a routine without much clout. Any attempt to dwell on a specific area is turned aside.
Having said that, some of our special committees, for example, the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped, have done an outstanding job at getting to the heart of the matter and initiating specific recommendations. The Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Smith) referred to this earlier tonight. He was chairman of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped, and my seatmate, the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Hudecki), also was a member of it. That committee made up of members from all sides of the House did an outstanding piece of work. Unfortunately, again because of the system, action on many specific recommendations encounter needless delay. Alternatives are available to make greater use of committee time and effectiveness. It has been suggested at other times that annual reports of any department or government body be automatically referred to the appropriate committee for thorough investigation. This would give them more adequate opportunity to inquire into the needs and operation of a given department. It would also make for a better use of committee time resulting in a greater degree of accountability.
Another area of concern to me as a member, and I am sure to many members on both sides of the House, is that constant pull between the House and the constituency. Constituents legitimately expect a Member of Parliament to be at their beck and call. While parliamentary procedure decrees a member's presence "on the Hill", this sometimes results in a member being neither here nor there. A Member of Parliament is required to play a number of important roles. A Member of Parliament, as I have already mentioned, must seek to be a legislator in debating and amending legislation. A Member of Parliament must also act as an ombudsman for thousands of constituents who have problems in dealing with government and its agencies. A Member of Parliament probably meets with a more varied and diverse group of individuals more often on a day to day basis than a person in any other occupation. A Member of Parliament must be in a position to relate to factory workers, farmers, lawyers, engineers, office workers, the medical profession, teachers and professors, those in administrative positions and so on. A member must be ready to adjust to the particular subject matter at hand. Unfortunately, there is often not enough time to prepare oneself for these varied tasks.
Any reform must take into account the need of the member to be in the constituency on a regular basis and for a sufficient length of time. Now there has been some indication that sitting hours should be amended, allowing members more time in their constituencies, and that some votes on division be deferred to times agreed upon by House leaders in concert with the Speaker, rather than members be required always to stand by waiting for that bell to ring and then drop whatever they are doing to rush into the House only to wait until enough
members on both sides of the House assemble for the voting ritual.
I am sure the frustration which many members feel is because the talents and skills which brought them so-called success in private life do not count as much in the total operation of Parliament. Having said all this, Mr. Speaker, I realize that these views coming from one of the newer members in the House may seem rather presumptuous to veteran members who, I know, have long contemplated parliamentary reform. Indeed, I recognize that there have been significant and positive parliamentary reforms. Since 1968, committee investigations have been initiated and are frequent. Parliamentary task forces have been created. The research capability of individual members of each of the parties and of the Library of Parliament have been substantially increased. In addition, the operational facilities provided for the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Clark) and the Leader of the New Democratic Party have grown considerably, hopefully allowing each to fulfd his official role more competently. But more needs to be done. I have given these views in an attempt to initiate further parliamentary reform and therefore to provide a better system in which we may better represent the citizens who elected us. On that note I feel very privileged and honoured to represent the riding of London West, a riding made up of people who really care and, I have first-hand evidence of this, who are really interested in what transpires here in Parliament.
Just as our country is made strong by our differences, Parliament is made strong by responsible and responsive differences, such as were not displayed during the last two weeks. Let us have responsible government and responsible opposition in Parliament. Perhaps long overdue reform will help all of us to be more responsible and responsive. Let me close, Mr. Speaker, by telling the story of an old farmer who frequently described his experience in life by saying, "Well, I'm not making much progress, but I'm established." One spring when he was hauling some logs, his wagon wheels sank down to the axles in mud. Try as he would he could not get the wagon out. Defeated, he sat atop the logs viewing the dismal situation. A neighbour who had always felt uncomfortable with the farmer's worn-out description of his life came along and said, "Well, brother Jones, I see you're not making much progress but you must be content because you're well established." We may be "established" in Parliament, Mr. Speaker, but if we are "stuck" we are not very productive.


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, in my initial remarks this evening I want to join with my colleagues in congratulating the hon. member for London West (Mr. Burghardt) on his maiden speech. When I was a student at the University of Western Ontario I was privileged to watch him on CFPL; I enjoyed watching him then, and I enjoyed it even more this evening. I think the contribution he made this evening, particularly as a new member who has not been in Parliament for a long period of time, was extremely constructive and very thoughtful, and it will be very helpful to each of us as we pursue the issue of parliamentary reform.
March 18, 1982

If you have a taste for irony, Mr. Speaker, I guess it will probably be satisfied this evening because here we are, following a two week impasse in Parliament which tied up the business of the nation and prevented members from meeting in this chamber, and the first piece of business Parliament is called back to deal with is a debate on the issue of parliamentary reform, trying to make this institution work again. Yet what we find is that throughout most of this debate, about 85 or 90 of the seats in this House have been vacant. Also, to the best of my knowledge, not once this evening was anyone sitting in the Press Gallery to report on the activities here.
Now, I say this, Mr. Speaker, not as a criticism of my colleagues for not being here this evening because I know something about the schedules which members keep. There is a myth that Members of Parliament are not busy, that there is not a great deal for them to do. Most MPs do put in 70 to 80-hour weeks, and there is a great deal that they would be doing this evening such as attending standing committees, dealing with correspondence or speaking to various groups across the country, or solving constituents' problems. Nor am I critical of the members of the press for not being here. However, I would say to you, Mr. Speaker, that the empty seats here this evening speak far more eloquently to the need for parliamentary reform than anything that has been said by any of us here. Members are absent this evening because they know that what happens in this chamber is not of great importance compared to their other responsibilities. Until we can restore this institution to a place of prominence, a place of centrality in our democratic system, this sort of sorry record is going to continue.
What is happening, Mr. Speaker, is that Parliament is fast becoming irrelevant. As we broke for the supper hour this evening I looked at the fossilized limestone from which the Parliament buildings are made. They were quarried in Manitoba-


Charles James Mayer: Hear, hear!


Henry Perrin Beatty: My colleague from Manitoba is impressed with that fact. In any event, it is fascinating to walk through the halls and see the fossils which are caught in the limestone. I think there is probably no better symbol for this institution, perhaps, than that fossilized limestone of which the walls are made. It gives testimony to the fact that there was once a living, breathing organism there, but today there is a hollow shell, rigid and dead. To a great extent that is what we find in the House of Commons under the present circumstances.
What we have is an institution which was once vibrant, living, important and central to our democratic system, yet today we find it is hollow and irrelevant. The choice we are faced with this evening is whether we are going to allow that decline to continue, whether we will alow the ossification of Parliament to continue unchecked, or whether we will take action to try to breathe some life into the institution and restore it to a position of prominence.
What importance will this debate today have? Well, it may give a chance to some of the members on the treasury benches to blow off steam. For others, including my colleague, the hon. member for London West, who gave such a thoughtful speech
Supply
earlier, it will be an opportunity to put their ideas on the record as to how Parliament can be reformed, and students of political science will be able to read Hansard and look at the various suggestions. But the real issue, I suppose, is whether in fact the debate will lead to a reform of Parliament. Will it in fact lead to a revitalization of this institution, or will it simply give us the opportunity to reaffirm, to give a pledge of allegiance to Parliament and say that we believe in the institution and it is important, and that we lament the fact that Parliament has fallen on hard times? That is really the issue we are being forced to deal with today.
When I watched the hon. member for London West on CFPL I was studying political science at the University of Western Ontario. Anyone who has read a political science textbook has learned about where political scientists feel that Parliament fits into our representative system; it is central. And much of the study which takes place in universities across the country on political science deals with the role of Parliament and how it is the central institution in our democratic system. Here is where decisions are supposed to be made as to the future of our country. Here is where the course, the very direction that the country will be taking, is decided. At least that is the theory, but in fact it is not the practice. The fact is that for many Members of Parliament their most important function takes place on election night when, by their election, they help to determine who the prime minister will be and which of the prime minister's colleagues will form the cabinet. There are members in this House who are relevant and do play an important role; but by and large that role, that importance and that responsibility come to them not by virtue of being members of the House of Commons but rather by virtue of being members of the cabinet. For so many Members of Parliament, the responsibility which is left is to act as ombudsmen, to cajole, to persuade, to prod, to embarrass, to try to get members of cabinet to change their minds once they have made up their minds, or to adopt a particular position before a decision has been made.
That is not the role that I understood Parliament should be playing. It is not a role which I think is fulfilling for most Members of Parliament. It is not a role which I think the average Canadian who voted for us to come here expects us to be discharging. Parliamentarians have become ombudsmen and spokesmen instead of legislators. If we have a job to do here, we must surely restore this institution to a place where, in fact, it is central to our system of government and where, in fact, decisions are made and where, in fact, there is some point to representing our constituents here. We should have the opportunity to do something to change the conditions which affect the average Canadian.
I feel frustrated, and I know that hon. Members opposite also feel frustrated, by the inability of members of Parliament to do the job that they would like to do in representing their constituents. I would like to cite one example. I have received a
15612

March 18, 1982
Supply
thousand letters following the federal budget. The hon. member for Kitchener (Mr. Lang) has publicly mentioned that he has received a thousand letters from constituents concerned about the budget. What is Parliament's role in the budgetary process? What opportunity do Members of Parliament have to correct policies that they believe are wrong or to give some direction and guidance to the government on policies which they feel will be helpful for their constituents or for their country in the future? How many of us can honestly say that we have been able to respond to calls from our constituents who have said, "I will lose my home. What will you do for me?" Have we been able to respond to those constituents who have said that if conditions continue the way they are today, their farms will be lost, or their businesses will have to close? How many of us can honestly say that we have been able to respond to our constituents by saying that we do have some function and that we will be able to do something to ameliorate the conditions which led them to have that concern about their future? I think that if we are honest, very few of us could actually make that claim.
Parliament has been like the gargoyles which we find on so many parts of the Parliament buildings, with very fierce expressions sometimes, frightening to look at, but in fact frozen in stone, incapable of really delivering on their facial threats. Parliament is fast becoming irrelevant. Unless we are prepared to take action now to restore Parliament to a position of prominence, 1 suggest that it shall become even more irrelevant in the future.
I mentioned earlier that when any of us studied political science, we learned that Parliament was supposed to be the centre of our democratic system. If we had the opportunity, I think it would be instructive to ask members of the executive, whether cabinet ministers or members of the public service, which would perhaps be even more informative, to draw an organization chart to describe their role within the whole of government. I think what we would probably find is that the public servant would draw a box with himself in it; above that would be the deputy minister and above that would be his minister. Beside would be the cabinet and on top of that would be the prime minister. Off to one side, like a malignant growth, would be Parliament. Parliament, far from being the central institution in our democratic system to so many in the government today, is viewed, in fact, as being an impediment and an obstacle, something which must be avoided or circumvented. Unless we are prepared to change that relationship, unless we are prepared to redraw the organization chart, unless we are prepared to restore to Parliament the responsibility and the power that is necessary to discharge our job on behalf of our constituents, I think we will find that this institution will slip further and further into irrelevancy.
Many suggestions for changes have been made over the course of the day which could help to make Parliament more relevant. The hon. member for London West made a series of them over the course of his remarks. My colleague, the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) also made suggestions. People have suggested that we could reform the committee system and the budgetary system, and that the whole process needs to be opened up. Others have suggested that we
could have reform of the rules as they relate to the parliamentary schedule, or that speeches could be shorter or that we could perhaps reform the Senate. There is no end to the various proposals that one could make to improve the functioning of Parliament. Personally, I have made a series of proposals on behalf of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments. Our fourth report made a very comprehensive set of recommendations as to how we could improve the functioning of the committee system in Parliament. My own feeling is that probably the single most important parliamentary reform which could be made, but which is generally not considered in the context of parliamentary reform, would be to bring down a tough and comprehensive freedom of information act so that Members of Parliament and the people we represent would have the opportunity to know how decisions are made and how the public's money is spent. Today, that is denied us. A tough and comprehensive freedom of information act could help to redress that flaw in the system today.
Probably the most serious thing that could be done, the most profound development which could take place if we were serious about trying to reform and revitalize this institution, would not require a single change to the rules of Parliament. It would not require that we spend a great deal of money on more staff for ourselves, on better offices or improved telephones. It would not require that we pass new legislation. All that it would require would be a change of attitude in this institution. It would require that there be built a feeling of trust among parliamentarians. It would require that there be, on the part of the executive, a willingness to share power. It would require a recognition of the fact that all sides and all Canadians would gain if we could make this institution functional again and if we could take advantage of the tremendous expertise, the tremendous human resources available in this institution which are not being utilized today. I think that the party in power would find that its position would be improved if this institution were less fractious and less partisan and if we were able to build the same feeling of partnership as there was in the various task forces and as there is in the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments. That would help the government. It would help Parliament as a whole. I think the government would find that its purposes would be furthered if legislation which passed the House were more properly and more fully scrutinized and if improvements were made which prevented problems arising further down the road. I know that the government would feel that its position had been furthered if its own backbenchers felt that they had an important role to play and that they would not be frustrated in trying to discharge their responsibilities for bringing leadership to the country and for serving their constituents. I would suggest that Canadians as a whole would be better served if this institution could help to pass better laws, could help to hold the bureaucracy to account more effectively, could help to scrutinize legislation that we had passed earlier, to ensure that
March 18, 1982

it is still functional, that it is still serving the purpose for which it was intended and that it is still needed. I think that all Canadians would be better served if Parliament could act as a thread which could be used to bind together the disparate parts of Canada. That is what we could do if we were willing to revitalize this institution.
I cannot walk out of this building at night, and I know the hon. member for London West probably cannot either, without looking back on it and feeling a sense of pride and humility. This is, in part, because of the architecture which is so striking and beautiful; in part because of the history of the institution. However, perhaps even more than that, it is because of the potential of the institution. If we are prepared to take action today to breathe life back into this institution and to make it work again, we can serve the purpose of all Canadians. We can ensure that our country is better off for our participation in this institution.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please! It being ten o'clock, it is my duty to inform the House that under the provisions of Standing Order 58(11), the debate on the motion has been concluded.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. John Gamble (York North):: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for this opportunity to deal, albeit briefly, but, nevertheless, in more detail, with a question which 1 directed to the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Bussieres) in the absence of the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) on March 1 relating to the change to be brought about, as a consequence of the budget, in the imposition of federal sales tax. My question to the Minister of State arose out of an answer given by the Minister of Finance to the hon. member for Scarborough East (Mr. Gilchrist).
He had said on February 12:
There is absolutely no increased revenue from that particular change. There is absolutely no additional revenue coming to the treasury. 1 can assure the hon. member of that.
It was with respect to that issue that I posed the question as whether or not the government would be prepared, in the event
Adjournment Debate
that additional revenues did in fact materialize, to remit these additional taxes.
The response that I obtained, in my submission, Mr. Speaker, hardly dealt adequately with the issue raised. In the final response of the Minister of State for Finance he said the answer was as simple as the question, simply that as the question does not make sense no answer is necessary.
The question is based on a simple recognition of a mathematical determination that one may readily make. I would urge the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fisher), or whoever else should reply to this issue in debate, to direct his attention to such a determination mathematically.
It so happens that the only time when there will be no change in federal sales tax, as a consequence of changing the base from the manufacturer's level to the wholesale level, is when there is a mark-up between the manufacturer's level to the wholesaler's level by the wholesaler of 12.5 per cent. Any mark-up less than that would result in a saving or a reduction in the tax. Any mark-up at the wholesale level above 12.5 per cent will result in the imposition of additional tax. For instance, at a mark-up over manufacturer's level of 20 per cent, the increased tax generated will be 6.6 per cent; at a mark-up of 30 per cent it will be 15.5 per cent; at a mark-up of 50 per cent it will be 33 per cent; and should the mark-up double the original manufacturer's costs the increase in tax generated will amount to 78 per cent. That is based upon a change from a level rate of 9 per cent, as it currently stands at the manufacturer's level, to 8 per cent, as appears on page 49 of "The Budget in More Detail" tabled in this House by the Minister of Finance on November 12.
I direct your attention to the first complete paragraph on that page, where the words in the second sentence appear as follows:
The general rate will be reduced from 9 per cent to 8 per cent.
These calculations I have given you are based upon those Figures, which have often been repeated in this House by the Minister of Finance and his colleagues.
The issue does not end there Mr. Speaker. If you will examine the last sentence in that paragraph, you will find the following:
To equalize the tax between large chain retailers buying goods directly from manufacturers and small retailers buying through wholesalers, the legislation will provide for a higher rate of tax on purchases of taxable goods by the former.
While the 8 per cent level is the general rate of tax giving rise to the increases to which I just referred, we know that the minister intends, indeed, to impose a higher rate of tax for purchases being made under circumstances that large chains are selling the goods to an ultimate purchaser. That increases the tax and does not, in fact, reduce it.

March 18, 1982
Adjournment Debate
If we were concerned with the consumer of products to be purchased subsequent to the imposition of this measure, we must have regard to the fact that the cost of administering this project by wholesalers, who hitherto had no obligation to adjust their practices and accounting procedures to look after collection of this tax, will have the effect of increasing the mark-ups to which I made reference. The resultant effect upon the consumers of Canada will be that they will pay more for the intervention by the federal government in this area.
I know that the alleged purpose of this change announced by the Minister of Finance, was to assist Canadian manufacturers whose goods have been, he says, at a disadvantage when compared to the goods which are imported into Canada. That is the alleged purpose. The real purpose is to raise additional revenues.
I might say that I know the government is oblivious to the concern that it should show for the consumers of this country as a consequence of these steps. Under any other circumstances, I submit that the perpetrators of this deception would be prosecuted for fraudulent misrepresentation.


Mr. Douglas Fisher (Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, this proposal has been under consideration for many years. It is one of the most widely discussed and analysed tax measures which has been undertaken by the government. Contrary to what the hon. member has just said, the shift of tax to the wholesale level is not intended to increase the government's revenue yield. To ensure that this change will be revenue neutral, the general rate will be reduced from 9 per cent to 8 per cent six months after implementation of the change. This decrease in the tax rate will ensure that no additional revenues accrue to the government as a direct result of the change in the tax base. The rate decrease is delayed to offset the cost to the government of refunding about $400 million to new licensees, mainly wholesalers, who convert their inventories from a tax-paid to a tax-free basis to avoid double imposition of the tax.
The November 12 budget proposed that the imposition would remove a serious bias that currently exists against domestic manufacturers, vis-a-vis importers, and correct inequities in the application of the tax among the competing manufacturers who market their goods in different ways. The new tax system will also incorporate a number of other important changes, including detailed valuation provisions and expanded appeal systems.


PUBLIC SERVICE-IMPLEMENTATION OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS ON EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONS
Harold Thomas Herbert: Mr. Speaker, on February 26, I put a question in the House to the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston). I asked him if he was aware that that particular date, February 26, was the sixth anniversary of the tabling in both the Senate and in this House of the report of the Special Committee on Employer-Employee Relations in the Public Service. At the time, I was the cochairman with Senator Buckwold. That report contained 72
recommendations. In my question I pointed out to the President of the Treasury Board that there had been no legislative action taken on any of those 72 recommendations. The report was the result of some 18 months of hard work during which witnesses from unions, management groups and from right across this country were heard. As a result of testimony from one witness I put a question to the then postmaster general in March of 1975. The question was the following:
Has the Postmaster General been made aware that witnesses for the Canadian Union of Postal Workers, when appearing before the Special Joint Committee of the Senate and of the House of Commons on Employer-Employee Relations in the Public Service, stated that the objective of the convention mandate to go for a Crown corporation was because of a preference for the Canada Labour Code rather than the Public Service Staff Relations Board?
The President of the Treasury Board is well aware of my opinion that we went the route of a Crown corporation for the post office because we were not prepared to look into the existing problems the public service was finding under the Public Service Staff Relations Board.
It is interesting that the gentleman who produced the report which formed the basis of the study of the special joint committee was Mr. Jacob Finkelman, who was the chairman of the Public Service Staff Relations Board since the legislation was enacted in 1967, and had presided over employer-employee relations in the Canadian public service.
Looking in my files before coming to the House this evening I noted on my shelves an array of books and reports prepared by the Treasury Board with titles such as "Performance Review and Employee Appraisal", "Accountable Management", "Program Performance Measurement", "Roles and Responsibilities of the Treasury Board of Canada and the Public Service Commission in Personnel Management", and "A Manager's Guide to Performance Measurement". What bothers me is that we have failed to take any action to come to grips with the problems raised in the report which was tabled in this House over six years ago.
I would like to put on the record just three of the 72 recommendations. In fact, the first one is just a part of recommendation No. 4 and reads:
-certain revisions to the Public Service Employment Act be made immediately to allow the Public Service Commission to operate efficiently-
I repeat the words, "be made immediately", and that was in February of 1976.
Recommendation No. 5 states:
That Parliament consider the proposed changes to the Public Service Employment Act as soon as possible, bearing in mind their relationship to changes recommended in the Public Service Staff Relations Act.
Again, that was in 1976.
Recommendation No. 8 states:
That there is a need for additional procedural and substantive amendments to the law governing the collective bargaining relationship, and more appropriate remedies for unlawful activity.
March 18, 1982

These are just examples of recommendations made over six years ago in an attempt to improve employer-employee relations in the Public Service of Canada.
I have a letter which was sent by the secretary of the Treasury Board on December 4, 1981. The first paragraph is relevant, and he had reference to 1981:
In March of this year the President of the Treasury Board ... tabled a report to Parliament entitled "Accountable Management". This report described the government's progress in responding to the recommendations of the Royal Commission of Financial Management and Accountability (the Lambert commission). Among other things, the report outlined the measures that had been or were in the process of being taken to improve our systems for the management of human resources, measures that it was felt responded to the recommendations of the Lambert commission and which took into account the work of the Special Committee on the Review of Personnel Management and the Merit Principle (the D'Avignon committee).
The Lambert commission and the D'Avignon committee-in both of which studies I took a very keen interest-performed their work and submitted their reports subsequent to the tabling of the report of the special joint committee. Both of these works were in some measure influenced by and were the result of the report of the special joint committee. When I look at the legislative program for this parliament I recognize it is going to be extremely difficult to introduce any legislation in the current year. Nevertheless, I plead once again with the President of the Treasury Board to table in the Elouse, so we can study and comment upon it, the legislation of the government to take into account the recommendations of the report.


Norman Kelly: Mr. Speaker, during question period on Friday, February 26, the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) drew the attention of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) to the fact that that day marked the sixth anniversary of his tabling in this House of the report to Parliament of the Special Joint Committee on Employer-Employee Relations in the Public Service. As everyone knows, that committee had been established to consider the report on employer-employee relations in the Public Service of Canada prepared by Mr, Jacob Finkelman.
The hon. member served as co-chairman of the special joint committee, so it is understandable that he is anxious to know when the official government response to the 72 recommendations in that committee's report could be expected.
Since the reports of Mr. Finkelman and the parliamentary joint committee were released, the Lambert Commission on Financial Management and Accountability and the D'Avignon Committee on the Review of Personnel Management and the Merit Principle have also reported. There are evident relationships among certain of the recommendations of the four reports, and it quickly became apparent that an appropriate response on the part of the government to the special joint committee's report could not be made in isolation from the related recommendations of the other reports.
When the President of the Treasury Board assumed his portfolio after the 1980 general election, he established a
Adjournment Debate
program to have the recommendations of all the reports reviewed in light of present-day circumstances with a view to developing recommendations for legislative change where necessary. Shortly after the review was undertaken, the minister had occasion to note publicly that the thrust of any such review ought to be to improve the existing system of employer-employee relations in the public service so that it, first, works in the mutual interests of both employer and employees, second, offers adequate and reasonable safeguards to the Canadian public, and third, ensures the existence of a collective bargaining system that is capable of operating in everyone's best interests in the 1980s.
1 am pleased to inform the House that the review program has now been completed, and cabinet now has before it for consideration a number of recommendations respecting employer-employee relations in the public service. In developing these proposals, the minister has relied heavily on the very fine work done by the special joint committee and the extensive review by Mr. Finkelman.
My colleagues will appreciate that I am unable to reveal the nature of the proposed changes until cabinet approval has been obtained and legislation is drafted and introduced in this House. I can say, though, that the minister is grateful for the continuing interest of the hon. member for Vaudreuil in this important matter and the extensive effort he put into the work of the special joint committee.


JUSTICE AND LEGAL AFFAIRS-NATIONAL MOBILITY OF LAWYERS
Mr. Stanley Hudecki (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, one of the crucial issues of concern, not only to Canadian lawyers but to Canadians generally, is the national mobility of approximately 30,000 Canadian lawyers. In this age of specialization in the legal profession a whole new approach to national examinations is needed in order to allow Canadian lawyers to move with ease from province to province, as do doctors.
On February 19, 1982, I addressed this issue in a question to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). His response was as follows:
-1 am not aware of any hard discussions between the various provincial bars or in the Canadian Bar Association itself. I shall have to report the hon. member's concern on this matter to the Minister of Justice.
I would remind the hon. member, however, that when we discussed the constitutional problem with the provinces, one of our concerns was precisely that shared by the hon. member. We insisted on the importance of having a mobility clause in the Constitution with a view to permitting Canadians of different occupations in society to have the mobility within the Canadian union. Of course, we were partly successful and partly unsuccessful. 1 share the hon. member's concern in general, and I will report the hon. member's question to the Minister of Justice.
At the present time in Canada, when a lawyer wishes to transfer from one common law provincial bar to another, he is generally required either to re-article and take the bar admission course, or write transfer examinations, depending upon

March 18, 1982
Adjournment Debate
whether or not he has been actively engaged in the practice of law for three years.
What must be emphasized, however, is that regulations differ from province to province and, in some cases, the degree of difficulty with respect to transfer requirements pertaining to lawyers with three or more years of active practice is so severe that they are often encouraged to take the lengthy route prescribed for those lawyers with less experience; that is, to rearticle and take the bar admission course prior to writing the examinations.
I should like to stress, in speaking of the mobility of lawyers from one province to another, that the difficulties I have briefly outlined mainly pertain to the nine provinces which have their legal system based upon common law. The province of Quebec is a special case, given that its legal system is based upon civil law. Therefore, it is quite logical that some special provisions should apply for lawyers who wish to enter or leave the province in order to establish a legal practice.
Speaking especially about the nine provinces practising common law, it seems relevant to view the difficulties encountered by lawyers in Canada who wish to transfer to another province in light of the new Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and, more particularly, Section 6, which deals with mobility rights. The issue to be resolved would appear to be the following: Do some or all provincial bar societies' regulations relating to the transfer of lawyers, with or without the common denominator of three years of active practice, contravene the provisions set out in Section 6 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms? If it is decided that they do constitute an unreasonable impediment to mobility, then I should like to make the following recommendations: That the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) intervene and confer with the Federation of Canadian Law Societies with the intent of (a) encouraging the elimination of the onerous requirements now in existence in most provinces for lawyers transferring from one provincial bar to another, regardless of how long they have been engaged in active practice; (b) encouraging the development of a more consistent and reasonable model of transfer requirements which all provincial bars across the country could follow; and (c) encouraging the federation to cast aside traditional barriers and to adopt the principle of mobility rights for lawyers, both
in theory and practice, thereby setting an example for other professions which impose undue restraints on mobility within Canada.


David P. Smith: Mr. Speaker, as pointed out by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in the House on February 19, in the course of constitutional discussions with the provinces the federal government insisted upon the importance of a mobility clause in the Constitution, with a view to permitting Canadians of different occupations in society to have mobility within the Canadian union. In a discussion paper entitled, "Securing the Canadian Economic Union in the Constitution", tabled by the Government of Canada at the July 10, 1980, meeting of the continuing committee of ministers on the Constitution, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) specifically raised the following concern:
-under the provincial law, associations for the licensing and regulating of the practitioners in various professions impose requirements that vary considerably from province to province and association to association and sometimes discriminate in favour of provincial residents. For example:
(1) Lawyers seeking to transfer to some provinces must have practised law full time in their own province for a given number of years after the call to the bar in order to be eligible for transfer exams. It is not obvious how this ensures greater familiarity with law in the province to which they relocate.
As to whether any discussions are currently under way, planned among the various bar societies, or at the level of law schools aimed at reciprocity of membership for practising lawyers transferring from one provincial bar to another, I understand that the question of national mobility of lawyers is indeed a matter of such current interest to the profession that it is being examined by the Canadian Bar Association. I believe that association could inform more specifically on the scope and status of the work it is undertaking.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at two o'clock p.m.
At 10.26 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Friday, March 19, 1982