1982-11-29

MOTIONS UNDER S.O. 43   TRADE EXPORTS TO JAPAN

['No.']
Mr. Thomas Siddon (Richmond-South Delta):: Madam Speaker, whereas officials of the Japanese government are presently in Ottawa to negotiate conditions relating to imports of Japanese automobiles, and noting that the Minister for Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Lumley) has stated that he intends to talk tough and play hardball with Japan on this issue, while at the same time his colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen), has been advocating an end to protectionism at the GATT talks in Geneva, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Cariboo-Chilcotin (Mr. Greenaway):
That the Minister for trade be directed by this House to refrain from throwing any curve balls which might jeopardize Canada's position as an exporter to Japan, especially in light of the fact that Japan has already cut back by some 30 per cent on coal shipments from western Canada, and bearing in mind the thousands of Canadians jobs in coal, fishing, tourism, automotive and transportation industries which will be threatened by increased protectionism against Japan.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.



Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Madam Speaker, in view of the announcement in The New York Times on Sunday to the effect that the Canadian Government is considering the establishment of diplomatic ties with Albania, a Communist country leaning towards the Chinese view of Communism, and which is wedged geographically between Greece and Yugoslavia and wedged ideologically between Moscow and Peking, and in view of the Prime Minister's boast that he cleared the way for U.S. recognition of China by opening Canada's mission in Peking as a forerunner of such
recognition, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald):
That the Government make a statement on motions concerning this proposal indicating first of all whether, in making this move, Canada hopes to be trailblazing on behalf of the U.S.A., and secondly, what this move means in terms of additional cost and priorities, bearing in mind the need to strengthen Canada's relations with Latin America.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


THE LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION
Mr. Bob Ogle (Saskatoon East):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Over 20 years ago the then Conservative Minister of Justice told the youth of his party that the essential characteristic which identifies the Conservative is his belief that there is and must be an underlying moral and spiritual content to all political philosophy and action. Since the current Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) was probably in the audience at the time, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-St. James (Mr. Keeper):
That this House congratulate the Leader of the Official Opposition for finally giving us an update of the outlook of his Party when he said last week, "Forget about principle, the only principle that I am interested in is winning."


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


GREY CUP GAME, 1982 CONGRATULATIONS TO EDMONTON ESKIMO FOOTBALL CLUB
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Madam Speaker, in view of the fact that the Government has no representation in western Canada, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor):
That this House congratulate the Edmonton Eskimo Football club for its success in winning five Grey Cup victories and its efforts in promoting national unity.

November 29, 1982


Madam Speaker:: The Elouse may want to applaud the Edmonton Eskimos,


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine):: Madam Speaker, in the Senate Report of 1981 on veterans affairs entitled "They Served, We Care", it was recommended that the Government appoint a committee composed of officials from both the Government and veterans' associations to review and update the recommendations of the Woods Committee which have not been implemented. I therefore move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Grey-Simcoe (Mr. Mitges):
That this House call on the Minister of Veterans Affairs to appoint such a committee without further delay to make recommendations about the anomalies which still exist in the treatment of veterans and their survivors.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


POLITICAL PARTIES
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Madam Speaker, I also rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Recently released questionnaire results from the Tory Convention in May confirm what we have been saying for years-the Tories "think" like the Liberals "do". This is particularly true of women's issues. The typical Tory delegate wants to cut spending for daycare and family allowances, sees no need for better job opportunities for women, and is against affirmative action programs. I therefore move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson):
That the Tory-Liberal coalition be given the "Ostrich of the Decade" award for their head-in-the-sand position on issues of importance in women's struggle for equality in Canadian society.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Mr. Roger Simmons (Burin-St. George's):: Madam Speaker, under Standing Order 43 I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for London West (Mr. Burghardt):
That this Flouse salute the Government's landmark decision to facilitate the subdivision of the Northwest Territories; offer congratulations to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development on a job well done, and encourage the Minister to continue to take all reasonable steps to further the political development of the North, subject only to the clear and unmistakable provision that his understandable enthusiasm for this historic task must never mislead him into making any deal with the Hon. Member for Yukon to cross the floor to this side. That would be too high a price for us to pay, under any circumstances.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Nielsen:: Flattery will get you nowhere!


Mr. McDermid:: You could not afford him; you would not know what to do with all that talent.


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Lethbridge-Foothills):: Madam Speaker, 14 years ago Canada had a balanced yearly budget, a small national debt, and sound hospital insurance, medicare and post-secondary educational systems. Now our national debt is over $140 billion, the deficit this year is over $25 billion, and health insurance, medicare and post-secondary educational systems are breaking down. I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Cariboo-Chilcotin (Mr. Greenaway):
That the Liberal backbenchers respond to the clearly demonstrated desire of Canadians to have an election so that they can defeat the Liberal Government which lied to them and cheated its way into power.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


NATIONAL PARKS
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Roberts) has stated that Parks Canada asked Mr. Buchanan and company to build their housing complex in the only park in the townsite of Banff which had beautiful 100-year old trees, with bridges over the stream, and constructed paths and benches, making it a restful
November 29, 1982

place for Canadians and visitors to enjoy. Therefore I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Okanagan-Similkameen (Mr. King):
That the House condemn the Minister for making this deal and demand his resignation, as a man who desecrates a park should not be Minister of the Environment.
Acid rain takes years to destroy the trees in a park; the Minister does it in three days with chain saws.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


MANPOWER
Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg-St. James):: Madam Speaker, whereas the Government is refusing to grant a subsidy of $30 million to Davie shipyards in Lauzon, unless their employees agree to the 6 and 5 wage restraint plan, a plan that constitutes a direct attack against the collective bargaining process and is also a useless economic policy, 1 move, seconded by the Member for the Beaches (Mr. Young):
That the House demand that this Government abandon this policy of blackmail which may well cause 1,500 jobs to be lost at the shipyards.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Madam Speaker, whereas the Provinces of Canada are able to benefit from investments made in provincial securities by the Canada Pension Plan Investment Fund, but neither the Northwest Territories nor Yukon are able to so benefit, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker):
That the financial transactions between the Government of Canada and the Governments of the Northwest Territories and Yukon be adjusted to reflect the fact that, pursuant to federal legislation, the latter are prevented from taking advantage of Canada Pension Plan Investment Fund placements.
Oral Questions


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Mr. Lome Greenaway (Cariboo-Chilcotin):: Madam Speaker, as the National Research Council estimates that, if the existing 1,000 high-technology firms in Canada doubled their gross output by 1990, the net benefits to Canada's balance of payments would amount to $12 billion and the creation of 650,000 jobs, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Richmond-South Delta (Mr. Siddon):
That the Minister of State for Economic Development waste no further time in placing his high-tech industrial strategy before Cabinet in order to foster the creation of permanent, meaningful jobs.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Preliminary reports indicate a further decline in the economy in the third quarter of this year, which will make it the fifth consecutive quarter in which we have seen negative growth in the country. During that period some 540,000 Canadians have lost their jobs. The Minister indicated in his economic statement on October 27 that the turnaround in job creation would come in the fourth quarter. Given the continuing decline in the economy, does the Minister now stand by his forecast in October and, if so, does he expect to see some improvement in the unemployment figures which will be released this Friday?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, in the statement 1 made to the House on October 27, I indicated at the time that indeed we expected there would be a continued decline in the third quarter and that we expected, however, there would be a turnaround in the fourth quarter. This is still our hope.

November 29, 1982
Oral Questions
As far as unemployment is concerned, I have indicated that it would remain very high and that it would decline only gradually during the course of next year. Thus I do not expect a decline in the rate of unemployment this Friday, but I do not have any more information in this regard than the hon. lady. We will await the reports of Statistics Canada in that regard.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: That does not offer much hope either for those already unemployed or the ones who are fearing for their jobs today.


POSSIBLE EFFECT OF TRADE RESTRICTIONS
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. The GATT talks, as we all know, have failed to create the conditions for an expansion of world trade. Indeed, some countries may try to restrict their trade even further. That will make worse the opportunities for job creation here in Canada where 30 per cent of our economy is based on trade. Has this unsettling possibility been taken into consideration by the Minister and, if so, what effect will it have on his relatively optimistic forecast for 1983?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, it is very unfortunate that the GATT ministers meeting did not come up with more productive results. Canada, which chaired the meeting in the person of the Minister of External Affairs, while there was also a delegation headed by the Minister of State for International Trade, did everything it could to strengthen the cause of anti-protectionism at this conference. Unfortunately, it seems we were not very successful. The Canadian Government is going to continue its campaign to encourage a lessening of the protectionist tendencies existing everywhere, including Canada. As far as our forecasts are concerned, these were made against the background that existed at the time, that is, in October 1982, and nothing that has happened since then, at the GATT conference, for instance, has provided any justification for changing them.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I guess there is a difference of opinion there, because what I am trying to indicate to the Minister is that things have worsened economically for Canada since he brought down his economic statement in October.


MEASURES TO PROMOTE JOB CREATION
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Madam Speaker, the Minister will be meeting with his provincial counterparts on December 16, and given recent developments, the two that I have mentioned, that is, the continuing negative growth in the economy and the failure of the GATT talks, could he tell us what he plans to propose to provincial ministers in the way of new measures for job creation and growth in the country, or will he just sit back and let Canadians suffer
until the Macdonald Royal Commission brings in its interim report?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I have indicated that there would be only a gradual recovery, that we would see increases in the Gross National Product during the course of next year, and that the turnaround would come, we expected, during the last quarter of this year. I also indicated that, unfortunately, the rate of unemployment would decline very slowly.
I announced on October 27 a number of measures worth $1.1 billion. That amount comes on top of some $2.2 billion worth of various programs already announced by my predecessor. It takes a few weeks for programs to come into effect. The Minister of Employment and Immigration has consulted with his provincial colleagues already. Some provinces have not only supported our program but they have added funds to it, which is quite encouraging.
At the federal-provincial conference of Ministers of Finance we intend to review the economic situation together, to try to make sure our respective policies will reinforce each other rather than work at cross-purposes. We will be examining any steps that could be taken by the provincial Governments or the federal Government on the occasion of our respective budgets. I will have an opportunity to discuss the general thrust of my budget with my colleagues, and I expect that I will also be able to exchange views on how provincial ministers are preparing their own budgets which in most provinces, as the Hon. Member knows, come during the spring.


GOVERNMENT POLICIES
Blaine Allen Thacker: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. It relates to the Youth of Canada. In 1968 when the present Grade 12 graduates were about four years old and the present university graduates were between seven and eight years of age, Canada had a balanced budget and a small national debt, yet we had the world's best health insurance, medicare and post-secondary education systems. Also we had a business climate that created jobs for all. We now find there are not enough jobs, the health insurance, medicare and post-secondary education systems are breaking down, the national debt is over $140 billion, and the yearly deficit is about $25 billion. Does the Prime Minister realize what his policies have done to young Canadians? They have denied them opportunities in a land which should be full of opportunities.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, I am happy to remind the Hon. Member that, during the entire course of the 1970s, Canada had the world record in job-creation of all industrial nations, and that is what our policies have done.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Madam Speaker, is the Prime Minister telling us that the whole Government existed just to create jobs in the
November 29, 1982

1970s? What about future planning for the children in the 1980s and the 1990s?


MACDONALD ROYAL COMMISSION
Blaine Allen Thacker: Madam Speaker, on the Macdonald Commission, for example, there is no member who could genuinely be said to represent youth. Why would the Prime Minister not have appointed some of the fine young business graduates, or university students, to sit on that Commission?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I am happy to see that the Hon. Member is lending his support to the Government's establishment of a Royal Commission to look at the 1980s and 1990s. If the Hon. Member is making representation for additional Commissioners, I am sure the Chairman of the Commission would be happy to receive that from him directly.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration, but in his absence I will direct it to the Minister of Finance. As the Minister knows, the NEED Program announced by him will employ only one in twenty of the unemployment insurance exhaustees this winter. The Minister of Employment and Immigration's study indicates that over 82 per cent of exhaustees are unable to find work in the first two months after their UI benefits run out. Surely the Minister knows that, in terms of human suffering, there will be an average of 10,000 more individuals every month in 1983 becoming UI exhaustees. What further plans does the Minister of Finance have for work or further financial assistance for these people?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I wish that my hon. friend would get his figures in line with those of other members of his Party who have said we will be helping only one in ten of the exhaustees under the NEED Program. Whatever the figure, it is quite clear that we will not be able to answer the unemployment problem that we are facing at the present time through that particular job-creation program.
As I have indicated before, there are a number of other programs that have been set up by the Government, particularly under the Minister of Employment and Immigration. We
Oral Questions
had put well over a billion dollars into direct job creation before the announcement of the NEED program and the $500 million I have mentioned.
We have also indicated that what is required for real and long lasting job creation is a lowering of the inflation rate and a lowering of the interest rates so that the private sector can get going again to create the jobs in the plants, firms, factories and various industries of the country. This is what we are working toward, trying to make sure that we will have recovery where the private sector will be the answer to growth again.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: The Minister's soft talk sounds very nice in here, but for the people demonstrating today outside in the freezing rain, and the hundreds of thousands across the country who will be forced onto welfare this winter, it is of no comfort whatsoever.



REQUEST THAT BENEFITS BE EXTENDED

Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Madam Speaker, the Minister refers to economic recovery. All knowledgeable indicators are stating at this time that there will not be a recovery and unemployment will not drop significantly for at least a year and possibly two years. In view of this fact I would ask the Minister, since the Government is also facing the prospect of seeing its welfare costs go up substantially this winter as Canadians are left with no other resort, will he instead extend unemployment insurance benefits for the first 26 weeks of 1983 for those Canadians who have exhausted their unemployment insurance benefits already and who are still unable to find work?


Marc Lalonde: No, Madam Speaker. I might add, in answer to the Hon. Member, that in this particular regard we have already increased the premiums that are being paid by the workers and employers by some 40 per cent in order to meet the needs of those who are unemployed at the present time, and that the Government is assuming approximately 50 per cent of the total deficit in the fund at the present time. I am afraid that I cannot entertain the suggestion put forward by the Hon. Member in the current circumstances. I do not think that we can afford it.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: I hope that the Minister fully appreciates the meaning of his answer. It means a greatly expanded burden on municipalities and provinces across the entire country, for welfare costs. Second, his few short words in that answer mean that literally tens of thousands of hard working Canadians will be forced onto welfare this winter. That is an absolute disgrace, and we in this Party are outraged.



JUSTIFICATION FOR GOVERNMENT POLICIES

Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: How does the Minister justify asking Canadians, including all those unemployed Canadians out there looking for work, to accept the poverty of welfare as a way of life, because that is what he is asking?

November 29, 1982
Oral Questions
How does he justify that to those who are ready, able and willing to work, but cannot find it? How does he justify forcing them on welfare and saying, "I am sorry, that is the bottom line"?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member's suggestion is just to extend more handouts. I am trying to tell him that, together, we should all try to build a situation where the private sector will again be able to hire people and get the economy growing again. That is what is very important and what we should all be pushing for together.
I indicated before, in my statement on October 27, that indeed, unemployment would remain very high, distressingly high. I share all those concerns of the Hon. Member. I am sure those concerns about the present situation are shared by many Canadians. However, there is no point in playing make-believe with the Canadian people on such a very important issue.



NATIONAL SECURITY


Mr. Chris Speyer (Cambridge):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. This morning, at the Old Bailey in England, Hugh Hambleton went on trial under the Official Secrets Act on charges of spying. The Attorney General of Great Britain made certain allegations based on a statement made by Mr. Hambleton. Certain of those were as follows: first, that he had been a Soviet agent for more than 30 years, second, that he had contact with Soviet agents both in Paris and Quebec and that seven years ago he met Yuri Andropov, had dinner with him, and was encouraged to run as a candidate to become a Member of Parliament. Are those facts correct? Were they within the knowledge of the RCMP? Why was he prosecuted in Great Britain and not in Canada?
[DOT] (M30)


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):: Madam Speaker, I have not seen those statements that were reported by the Hon. Member, and I would like to wait until I do before commenting on them. I have said, and I will repeat, that the RCMP have co-operated with the British officials to bring this case to the point at which it is now, and that until the case is disposed of 1 should not say anything further about it.



ROLE OF ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE

Chris Speyer: I would like to ask the Solicitor General a brief supplementary question. Were the RCMP informed of all the information that I have alleged today? Is the Solicitor General aware of the facts pertaining to this individual, and did he have any discussions whatsoever with the RCMP on why the prosecution is taking place in Great Britain and not in Canada, notwithstanding the cooperation of the RCMP?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I have indicated that the Department of Justice, through the Attorney General of Canada, advised that a prosecution founded in Canada, on the basis of the evidence that was available at a certain point, would not have been successful. Following that, the RCMP had other discussions with Mr. Hambleton himself, Mr. Hambleton departed for Great Britain, the RCMP had information obtained before and after the decision made by the Attorney General of Canada, and there was co-operation between the two friendly security agencies which have brought the matter to the point at which it is today. I think all of us should be pleased to see that justice is being done in the matter.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon West):: Madam Speaker, my question is also addressed to the Solicitor General. Over the weekend we were informed that Clifford Robert Olson is once again in British Columbia, ostensibly to give information and provide evidence related to certain unsolved murders in that Province. Can the Solicitor General give the House an ironclad guarantee that, in this instance, there are no further deals contemplated with Mr. Olson, either monetary or of another nature, and, in particular, can he give us the assurance the Mr. Olson has not been promised a transfer to Abbotsford or another British Columbia facility, that he has not been offered immunity from further prosecution and, finally, that he has not been offered any cash benefit for giving evidence? I wonder if the Solicitor General can direct himself to those questions.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: 1 can certainly confirm that Clifford Olson was taken by the RCMP to British Columbia last week under a court order obtained by the Government of British Columbia, by the Attorney General, from the Chief Justice of British Columbia, that Clifford Olson is there, that the investigation is under way, and that during the course of the investigation, which is totally under the direction of the Attorney General of British Columbia, I will not have anything to say about it.



RECOVERY OF MONEYS PAID TO CONVICTED MURDERER

Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The Attorney General of British Columbia, just prior to the time the House resumed its session here, denied that it was his direction with respect to the transfer of Mr. Olson to British Columbia.
The Solicitor General's dealing with the Olson matter has been typified by confusion and obfuscation. The Solicitor General has participated in the actual payment of moneys to Mr. Olson while, on the other side of the coin, he has indicated to the families of the victims that he was trying to find some way of collecting, for their benefit, the profits received by Mr. November 29, 1982

Olson. Specifically, I would like to know what the Solicitor General has done, if anything, to assist the families of the victims of Clifford Olson, in particular, to recover the moneys, the $90,000 which the federal Government had a part in putting away and out of the reach of the families of the victims of Clifford Olson.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: As to offenders profiting from their crimes, I have indeed been concerned about it. I have expressed my concern in correspondence sent to my provincial counterparts. There is currently a meeting of deputy ministers of law enforcement under way. It is one of the matters on their agenda.
I have put forward two or three suggestions on courses which might be taken to comply with that very fundamental concept of justice that an offender should not be able to benefit from his crime. However, as I indicated, and as my colleague, the Minister of Justice, has indicated in the House, it is a difficult matter. There is presently no legal machinery in place for depriving an offender of the profit from his crime. If a method were to be found, it would require legislation in this House, or legislation in one of the provincial legislatures, as I indicated in the letter that I sent to my counterparts. Therefore, the matter is under our consideration, but I do not have an answer for the Hon. Member yet.



REQUEST FOR FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL CO-OPERATION ON ISSUE

Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Madam Speaker, my question is also directed to the Solicitor General. On May 4, 1982, he did indeed send a letter to the solicitor representing eight families involved in the Olson tragedy, in which he set out some of the constitutional and jurisdictional difficulties in prohibiting a murderer from profiting from publishing details of his murders. The Solicitor General has perhaps already answered in part the question I would have put to him. The letter, dated May 4, states on the third page:
I undertake to be available to meet with my provincial colleagues to see what uniform action may be taken.
He said, "circumstances do demand action". I would really like to ask the Solicitor General when the meeting with his provincial counterparts will take place. Is there any provincial Attorney General who objects to the appropriate amendment on the provincial scene, involving property and civil rights, which could dovetail with an amendment to the Criminal Code on the federal level, to ensure that those who commit murder are not able to profit from such murder? At the moment I am restricting it to murder.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, subsequent to the letter, I indicated some of the difficulties involved in a measure which could be seen by the courts as impinging on free speech, or expropriating property without compensation. These are two matters which are the subject of protections in the Charter or Rights and Freedoms and in basic principles of natural justice in our country.
Oral Questions
On the other hand, the goal is also one which is very much a matter of public policy, of wanting to prevent criminals from profiting from their crimes. I have received feedback from some of my provincial counterparts who have expressed concern in terms of the considerations that I have just mentioned. However, the meeting of deputies is taking place this week. The meeting of Ministers may take place in the early or late spring. That has not been settled and may depend, indeed, on the amount of progress which is made on these issues by the meeting of our deputies which begins tomorrow.



REQUEST THAT MINISTER TAKE ACTION

John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Madam Speaker, this matter has been kicking around for too many months. In view of the resurrection of the matter in the front pages of this land concerning the dirty deeds Mr. Olson committed, surely this is a lethargic approach to something which is a basic injustice. Not only to protect the civil right of the murderer, but also the collective right of the community and/or the sensitivity and anxiety of the parents involved, something must be done.
Could the Minister at least assure the House that, in terms of his jurisdiction now, and in terms of parole, there will be some type of restriction in a parole order prohibiting a murderer from directly publishing so that he can benefit? If these officials are to take so long, could he not give some instructions to the Law Reform Commission-God forbid-to come in with an objective assessment of the rights and wrongs, pros and cons, of this constitutional issue?
Surely the Minister must know that there are 28 States in the United States which already have legislation taking care of some of the concerns of the Minister, and that the interpretation of the Constitution in the United States is that there is no such thing as absolute freedom of speech when it involves sordid matters or murderers profiting from their murders.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, I think that American jurisprudence is indeed helpful, but some of those States have found the measures that they put forward struck down as being invalid-


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: There hasn't been a murderer yet.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: -under American law. Of course, Canadian law is different. My great worry is that we would see some method which would either be defeated in the court or some method which would work very well for the first case before us, but one which would create considerable difficulty down the road in cases which are not as easy and as obvious as the case involving Clifford Robert Olson.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Or the FLQ.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: It is easy enough to know how to handle such a case, but what would be the consequences down the road of putting a measure in place which would perhaps result in other

November 29, 1982
Ora! Questions
people being deprived of their civil right of speaking out, or of their property rights?


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Let's put something in place.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: It would be easy, in the Olson case, but creating legislation is a serious matter, and a policy cannot be created on the run. It has to be created with consensus between the Provinces and the federal Government, and in a way that will be effective but limited.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. Alexandre Cyr (Gaspe):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. On October 12, I informed the Minister of the poor service provided by Regionair in Eastern Quebec and the Gaspe. We do not care what Quebecair is going to be called, but we do care about good service. Some people who have never even flown with Quebecair are making a regular hue and cry about preserving its name, but we really do not care whether they call it Pepi-nair or Clairair or whatever. Last week, some pilots from Sept-Iles claimed their planes were not safe, and they sent a message to the Minister of Transport asking him to clean up Quebecair's board of directors. Considering the statements by the pilots and numerous complaints from the areas served by the airline, does the Minister have sufficient reason and evidence to request an investigation regarding the safety of Regionair planes in Eastern Quebec?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, there are two sides to this question. First of all, there is Regionair's safety record, and I have already asked my regional administrator in Montreal to start an investigation and send me a report as soon as possible. I must admit that at the time I made the request, I was not aware of details I received later from the Hon. Member. The second aspect is the relationship between Regionair and Quebecair. I cannot intervene at this point to decide how the company is going to be structured, and I can only say that negotiations-which I hope, will start shortly on Quebecair 2 will touch on both Quebecair and Regionair, and there will be no separation, and I think it would be premature if it were to be done now.



NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS


Mr. Terry Sargeant (Selkirk-Interlake):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister, who will know that in the next few weeks contracts will be awarded by the American Air Force for Construction of the MX missile. At least one Canadian company has already been involved in the development of this missile. Now we learn that Boeing of Canada, in Winnipeg, has been granted a $120,000 contribution from the Defence Industry Productivity Program, pending contract award, to help Boeing build part of the reentry system for the MX warhead. How many taxpayers' dollars does the Government plan to spend to put a "Made in Canada" stamp on the MX missile?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, it would seem to me that, if the matter proceeds as the Hon. Member states, of which I have no knowledge, it would mean a lot of jobs for Canadians, rather than taxpayers' dollars involved in this.



JUSTIFICATION FOR CANADIAN INVOLVEMENT

Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: I find that answer rather disappointing. Last week, in answer to concerns raised by my Leader regarding the MX missile and the escalation of the arms race, the Prime Minister admitted that this concern was valid. In light of that, and in light of the Prime Minister's carefully cultivated reputation as a peace maker, what justification can he give for involving Canada-whether through Canadian corporate involvement or through the use of taxpayers' money as incentive-in this latest and ever more frightening step in nuclear arms development, knowing that money spent on arms development creates far less jobs than money spent elsewhere?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: 
Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: They are close.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, some of them argue it, but the Party has not taken the position that we should withdraw from NATO.
Madam Speaker, I see some of the Members nodding their heads, taking this point of view, but this is another example of the schizophrenia of the New Democratic Party.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


Thomas Edward Siddon: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. The Minister is well aware of the crisis situation in Yukon, where the economy is in a virtual state of collapse. Thousands of northerners are leaving because of the shutdown of three very important mines there.
When can we expect the Minister to adopt the three specific proposals which were presented to him on October 6, which he promised to take to Cabinet, almost two months ago, which were submitted jointly by the Legislative Assembly of Yukon, Cyprus Anvil, and the steelworkers' union? When will he show some initiative by announcing an emergency assistance plan to offset the debt of the Northern Canada Power Commission, to facilitate ore shipments by the White Pass and Yukon Railroad, and to provide a short-term loan to Cyprus Anvil on condition that the mine be reopened immediately?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member might be the first to agree, judging by positions taken by his Leader and his entire Party, that it is unlikely any Government, nor would the Hon. Member recommend it, would give a blank cheque to Dome until they can show that they mean business, that they can operate a viable operation and can guarantee jobs for the workers on a long-term basis.


Walter David Baker: You gave them a cheque.


John Carr Munro: We do not intend to be irresponsible with respect to that. The fact of the matter is that Dome has made some offers. We have analysed those offers, but we have indicated, certainly before we take those offers seriously and break them down, that since they are in the private sector, they have an obligation to conclude a labour agreement with their employees. They have not done that yet. I was up there this weekend. Apparently that is close. I would hope it would be settled by the end of this week-


Erik Nielsen: You did not invite me.


John Carr Munro: Then we could at least nail down that variable and get down to business and see when we can get the mine reopened.
Oral Questions REQUEST FOR PROMPT ACTION


Thomas Edward Siddon: No one is
talking about a blank cheque here, Madam Speaker. The Minister knows that that agreement would have been signed long ago if the Government had made a commitment to a permanent remission of the northern benefits taxation.
Given all the millions which his Government is handing out in economic development grants and bailouts to its friends in other parts of Canada and to questionable projects around the world, when is he going to show some leadership to save Yukon, to prevent this irreversible destruction from becoming a terminal disease. How much longer does he expect the people of Yukon should have to wait while he and his Government muddle their way along, instead of acting decisively and promptly?


John Carr Munro: Madam Speaker, about the only people trying to get any political exploitation out of this are the Hon. Member and his Party. I have been up there this weekend and I think the residents of the Yukon are entirely satisfied-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carr Munro: -that this Government is doing everything possible to get that mine reopened.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


A. Daniel McKenzie: Madam
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. In June, 1982, the Transport Committee passed a motion unanimously calling on Parliament to provide the Committee with a reference to conduct a full inquiry into the CNR pension fund. I would like to ask the Minister what the current status is of this report, and when the House can expect to have this presented.
If he can wake up, Madam Speaker-


Mr. Epp:: He is on pension.


A. Daniel McKenzie: We know the contempt that the Minister has for the CNR pensioners. I will redirect my question. In June, 1982, the Transport Committee passed a motion unanimously calling on Parliament to provide the Committee with a reference to conduct a full inquiry into the CNR pension fund. I would like to ask the Minister what the current status is of this report, and when the House can expect to have it presented.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, the reason why I did not answer is that the pension

November 29, 1982
Oral Questions
fund of CNR is not my responsibility. It is the responsibility of the Minister of Labour. What the House of Commons Committee on Transportation does is not my responsibility, either. It is the responsibility of the Committee Members to decide what they will do with respect to an inquiry into pensions at the CN, which they were contemplating a number of months ago. My hon. friend should ask the Chairman of that Committee what they intend to do, not the Minister of Transport.



PENSION FUND INVESTMENT

A. Daniel McKenzie: My supplementary is to the Minister of Labour or to the Minister of Transport. The Canadian National Railway pension fund has an 18 per cent share of Cast Shipping Line, which is on the verge of bankruptcy. Do either of the Ministers feel it is appropriate for the CN pension fund to continue to prop up a losing venture when bankruptcy could cost the fund many millions of dollars, and when the money could be put to much better use by increasing payments to CN pensioners?
1 would like to point out, Madam Speaker, that this runaround has been going on for years between the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Transport. It is time they got their act together and did something for these pensioners.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Minister of Labour: Madam Speaker, without going into the substance of the matter which the Hon. Member would like me to look into, I would like to consider the whole question first and give him a well thought-out answer. The Hon. Member is making allegations which, first of all, would have to be checked. Second, it is a substantial matter that has been put to a committee for deliberation. That committee, to my knowledge, has not reported and, therefore, I am not in a position to comment as to any recommendations made by the committee.



PETROCHEMICAL INDUSTRIAL COSTS

Hon. Bud Cullen (Sarnia-Lambton):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, and/or the Minister of Energy. The pricing mechanism for oil-based petro-chemical industries is a matter of some concern to the petro-chemical industry, particularly in eastern Canada, although there is some concern as well in the oil-based industries out West. Many meetings have been held with Ministers, which are appreciated, but there is an Industry, Trade and Commerce and Energy task force which is about to complete its work or has completed its work. I would like to know has the study been completed, and if so, when the findings will be made public.
Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Energy, Mines and
Resources): Madam Speaker, I have had some meetings with the industry and have discussed the matter with the Minister
of Industry, Trade and Commerce, in reviewing the situation. We have received a lot of input, some from Members of Parliament. It is quite a complex issue. We hope that we will be able to deal with this problem in the near future.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. The people of British Columbia view with anger and revulsion the spectacle of convicted child murderer, Clifford Olson, again wheeling and dealing with the federal and provincial authorities to return to B.C. The Solicitor General knows that any transfer from Kingston to the Regional Psychiatric Centre at Abbotsford, British Columbia, is entirely a federal decision within federal jurisdiction. Will the Minister assure this House that Olson will not be transferred at any time from Kingston to the RPC in British Columbia? Will he further assure the House, again within federal jurisdiction, that not one more penny of blood money will be paid to Olson for his latest trip to B.C.?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, there is an investigation under way now in the Province of British Columbia. Investigations are easily disturbed by undue publicity and by statements made. For that reason I choose not to answer any questions about the investigation at this moment. That is the position I am taking.



PROFITS FROM BOOK SALES-REQUEST FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE

Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, once again Clifford Olson seems to be leading the Solicitor General around by the nose. The people in British Columbia have said very clearly they do not want him on their soil now or in the future.
My supplementary relates to the issue which was raised earlier of possible profits to Olson from the sale of a book on his murders. Will the Minister, in recognition of the outrage which is felt by all Canadians at the prospect of Olson again profiting from his murders, at least undertake to refer this important issue to the Justice Committee where we may carefully examine all aspects of the matter and make recommendations to ensure that this kind of profiteering will not be allowed to take place?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, I have indicated the objective of the Government, which is to try to formulate a policy to assure that profits from a book by a criminal will not be retained by him. There are difficulties, and I have explained what they are. I would be very interested in hearing from any Members of the House of any approaches they can suggest to overcome some of those difficulties, including the Hon. Member for Burnaby who has expressed some
November 29, 1982

reservations about my proposed methods, but who has not come up with any workable alternatives.



MACDONALD ROYAL COMMISSION


John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. May I ask the Prime Minister why a member from the Canadian agricultural community was not appointed to the Macdonald Royal Commission on the Economy?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I know the Minister of Agriculture has recommended some possible additions to the Commission. The matter stands there. As I told the House last week there are, I believe, three more members to be added to the Commission list.



REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE OF AGRICULTURAL REPRESENTATION

John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, will the Prime Minister give his unequivocal assurance that a member from the Canadian agricultural community, which is such an important part of our economy, will be appointed to this Commission?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, before answering that question prudently, I would have to wait for more suggestions from the Opposition. Only today I had the suggestion to add a representative of the youth sector of our community. Now I have the suggestion to add a member for agriculture. How many more will speak before we have a 20-man Commission?



AIRPORTS


Lorne Everett Greenaway: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. It concerns the tie-down fees for private aircraft at the Williams Lake airport in British Columbia. This October, private aircraft operators were told that their tie-down fees were going to be increased by 66 per cent. This has caused a lot of problems because not only does it not square with the six and five program, but it has caused a lot of the aircraft owners to move their aircraft off the Government airport onto private dirt strips, thus causing hardship on the industry which serves private aircraft secondarily, mechanics, and so on. Can the Minister tell me how he can square this with the six and five program, and is he prepared to roll this increase back to 6 per cent?
Oral Questions


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, we have done that on a number of occasions. My Department has been as strict on this matter as one can possibly be, that is, that everything which was to take place after the announcement of the six and five program has been reduced to six and five. I have written to a great number of people on the other side to inform them of these realities, and 1 will do so for my hon. friend. I cannot give a 100 per cent guarantee that the case he brings forward now is one of those cases I referred to but the chances are great that it is, and I will confirm it.



CRITERIA FOR FEE INCREASE

Lorne Everett Greenaway: That is somewhat comforting, Madam Speaker, but I would like to ask the Minister, as a supplementary, how his Department figures this out in the first place. What do officials use for criteria? How would they get a 66 per cent increase in the first place? Last year there was a large increase in these tie-down fees, and it is driving small aircraft off the Government airports.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, the usual criteria we use are the increases in cost of operating these facilities, be it at airports or elsewhere; the second is common sense. In most cases, and I have a number of them in mind, these fees or rates have not been increased for a number of years. It is sad to look at some of those cases occasionally, but in the case the Hon. Member mentioned it may be it was increased simply to correspond with the cost of operations increases.



HUMAN RIGHTS


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle).


Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Thank you, Madam Speaker-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frank Oberle: This is great physiotherapy, Madam Speaker. Thank you for letting me take part. My question is for the Minister of Justice who, I understand, has some jurisdiction or responsibility for deciding on the importation of vido display discs or tapes. One in particular is called "Custer's Revenge". This matter has been raised in the House and it is generally agreed that the display on this particular disk is repugnant by even the most relaxed standards of decency. But is the Minister also looking at the other side of the coin, the discrimination? I do not want to elaborate on what the display is, but a lot of native groups and individuals have asked me to consult with the Minister to see if he would be prepared to look at it in that sense, apart from the pornographic nature of this disk.

November 29, 1982
Oral Questions


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Minister of Justice):: Madam
Speaker, this is obviously a matter of considerable concern to myself and to a great many people in the House. I might say that, to the best of my information, the Department of Justice has not yet been consulted on this matter, but immediately before Question Period I had a meeting with the Minister of National Revenue and we agreed that we could consult very fully on the problem.
The decisions up to this point, I understand, have been taken at lower levels in his Department, and the Hon. Member may have questions to address to the Hon. Minister, but the matter is now under consideration at higher levels and we will certainly have an input as to the result.



REQUEST THAT REVENUE MINISTER CONSULT HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

Frank Oberle: Madam Speaker, I will direct my question to the Minister of National Revenue. The disk, despite its preview, has been imported and has already been distributed in Montreal and, I understand, in other areas of Canada. Can the Minister give us the assurance that he will, in his examination of this matter, consult with the Human Rights Commission concerning the discriminatory aspect with respect to native peoples associated with this particular display? Can he give me his assurance that this matter will be dealt with immediately and that he will report to the House as soon as possible?


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of National Revenue):: Madam Speaker, as I pointed out to the House on Friday, I had an opportunity to meet the Deputy Minister at National Revenue who has very specific powers under the Customs Act, and we discussed the importation of certain goods that are defined in Schedule C, if I remember correctly, to the Customs Tariff. I asked the Deputy Minister to investigate this video game in accordance with departmental guidelines for investigating goods prohibited under Schedule C to the Customs Act, and second, to do so in the light of legal precedent in this respect. That is why we shall have close consultations with the Department of Justice to ensure that our decision is well-founded in law and in fact.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by asterisk.)
Mr. David Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 4,250 and 4,499.


Mr. Crosby: 1.	Does the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources have written rules or regulations governing the conduct or standards of behavior for employees of the Department and, if so, are they embodied in a Code of Conduct or other specific document and is the Code or document available to the public?
2.	In the five years preceding April 1, 1982, were any employees of the Department disciplined by way of suspension, dismissal or otherwise for violations of any rules or regulations governing the conduct or standards of behaviour for departmental employees and, if so, in each case, what was the name of the employee and the date of the disciplinary action?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources reports as follows:
1.	Yes. EM&R issues to employees written guidelines governing conduct in respect of conflicts of interest. These guidelines are embodied in a specific document, Conflict of Interest Guidelines, which is available to the public.
2.	In accordance with departmental discipline procedures and subject to collective agreements, records of disciplinary action are destroyed after three years have elapsed since the disciplinary action was taken, provided that no further disciplinary action was recorded during this period. Most collective agreements provide that such records will be destroyed after two years have elapsed if no further disciplinary action has been recorded during this period.
In view of the above-mentioned requirements, departmental records reflect 26 disciplinary sanctions imposed in the five years preceding April 1, 1982.
Written
	Reprimands Suspensions	Discharges
1977/78	3 1	None1978/79	2 1	None1979/80	2 2	None1980/81	4 2	None1981/82	6 3	NoneTo be consistent with the provisions of the Canadian Human Rights Act, we are not providing names.


Mr. Siddon: 1.	What amount did Statistics Canada spend in 1981 on regular publications and all other printed matter that has subsequently been deemed to be in excess of that required for sale or normal distribution?
2.	What percentage of the total surplus material referred to in Part I was simply disposed of as waste without any cost recovery?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: 1. In
1981, only one publication was found to be in excess of anticipated distribution (a small booklet 33/4' x 5!/2'-Refer-
November 29, 1982

ence Canada). The surplus of 9,200 copies represented $450, an excess of 9 per cent.
2.	None.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, if question No. 4,229 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. Is it the pleasure of the House to have Question No. 4,229 deemed to have been made an order for return?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth): 1.	Were information kiosks established by the Metric Commission across Canada and, if so (a) how many (b) in which cities and towns may consumers expect to see them or have consumers already been exposed to them?
2.	What is the cost of operating the kiosks per unit and what is the total operating budget?
3.	How many persons were hired by the Commission to dispense metric information to consumers and how were they selected for the positions?
4.	Were the positions advertised by the Public Service Commission and, if not, for what reason?
5.	What were the qualifications required for the positions?
6.	What is the salary or wage scale paid to each employee?
Return tabled.


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


Madam Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Parliamentary Reform



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council) moved:: That, commencing at 5.59 o'clock p.m., on Wednesday, December 22, 1982, or, as the case may be, at the time that the House concludes its consideration of Government Business on that day, the temporary changes to the Standing Orders set forward as Appendix C of the Third Report of the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure, tabled Friday, November 5, 1982, shall take effect;
That the proposed changes in the Standing Orders shall be applied in the spirit expressed in Part II (entitled "Recommended Experimental Changes") of the Third Report of the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure;
That, subject to future Order of the House, the said temporary changes to the Standing Orders shall cease to have effect at 5.59 o'clock p.m., on Wednesday, December 21, 1983, or, as the case may be, at the time that the House concludes its consideration of Government Business on that day;
That, subject to the provisions of this Order, the dates and times of the commencement and cessation of the effect of the said temporary Standing Orders shall be valid whether or not the House is sitting; and
That the Clerk of the House be authorized and instructed to print revised and re-numbered Standing Orders of the House incorporating the temporary Standing Orders and any technical or consequential amendments necessary.
He said: Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure and even greater satisfaction that I may present a motion in the House today which paves the way for parliamentary reform, a concept I have always cherished and a goal I have always wanted to achieve. Hon. members will remember and I am particularly reminded of this today the disappointment I felt in 1974 and 1975, during the first two years when I was sitting on the far southwest side of this House, and every time I wanted to take the floor, I sent a note to the Hon. James Jerome, the Speaker at the time, in order to be recognized. On occasion, I took part in debates which were equally disappointing to the vast majority of my colleagues on both sides of the House. The result was that from the very outset, I showed an interest in making a modest contribution by participating in the search for solutions that would help this institution to evolve and to be more in tune with reality. I also remember that in 1976, in our caucus on the government side, I was given responsibility for preparing a draft proposal on parliamentary reform. After consulting with a multitude of sub-committees specialized in various fields, we succeeded in drafting a proposal which, I may point out, is in many ways similar to the suggestions that were made today by the Special Committee on Parliamentary Reform and are embodied in the motion I have the honour of presenting.
Again, in 1976, in addition to taking part in the search for ways to make Parliament evolve, within the party caucus of Government members, I also remember spending several weeks during the summer, with a number of colleagues on both sides of the House, on the Committee on Procedure and Organization, a committee that managed to produce three reports which, unfortunately, were never presented to the

November 29, 1982
Parliamentary Reform
House, but, I am sure, were used just the same and which have most certainly influenced members who not long ago were working on the report that is before the House today. Subsequently, after my initial disenchantment and after my involvement in a reform proposal at the caucus level and as member of a standing committee of the House, I wanted to remain involved in the workings of Parliament. In fact, fate was on my side, because the responsibilities I have been given since 1977 have always kept me very close to parliamentary procedure, either as Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the House in 1977 and in 1978, or as Deputy Leader of the Official Opposition in the House in 1979, and, for two and a half years now, since March 1980, as Leader of the Government in the House and President of the Privy Council. Once again, this opportunity to present a motion that will mean a giant step towards parliamentary change is not only a great pleasure for me it also as I said at the beginning of my speech has a very special meaning for me.
I am also very pleased that this fundamental proposal should come at a time when this session has already seen such major historic measures as constitutional reform and our National Energy Policy. A session, which, as Hon. Members are aware, has broken all previous records by being the longest session ever and also because of the number and significance of the measures that have been adopted. Mr. Speaker, we first had to adopt a motion that would enable the Government to patriate the Constitution and adopt a Charter of Rights, we had to approve the many bills constituting the National Energy Program, we had to approve three budgets, the Estimates for four fiscal years and some 140 pieces of legislation and we had to debate many motions on subjects selected both by the Opposition and by individual Members. In other words, this House has had to wait since April 1980, the beginning of the current session, until finally agreement was reached on a reform proposal that is certainly beneficial, considering the manner in which Parliament achieved this result.
Before I go any further, I would first like to pay special tribute to someone whose receptiveness to all aspects of parliamentary change, has, since 1968, made it possible for this institution and its Members to evolve, and I am, of course, referring to the Right Hon. Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau). The House will recall that it was under the present Prime Minister that in 1968, Parliament unanimously adopted, and it was unanimous, contrary to popular belief, since there was agreement between Members on both sides of the House, unanimously adopted on December 20, 1968, a major reform in the area of supply proceedings. Still under the present Prime Minister of Canada, television made its entrance in the House of Commons, thus bringing Parliament closer to the Canadian people, and again, under the present Prime Minister of Canada, first in 1975 and latterly in 1981, salaries and pensions of parliamentarians were adjusted to decent levels, and still under the present Prime Minister of Canada, we now have
the culmination of the developments of the past fourteen years, namely, this major step towards parliamentary reform, and it is the present Prime Minister who made this reform possible.
It was also under the Prime Minister that, besides all the reforms and changes I have talked about, funds have been provided for the caucus research bureaux, for the offices of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) and the Leader of the NDP (Mr. Broadbent), and for such funds not only to be increased but in some circumstances even to be created. That is most important when we talk in terms of re-evaluating the role of the Member of Parliament in whichever side of the House he or she sits.
The House will recall that in 1968 no funds were provided for caucus research bureaux. It was in the fall of 1968 that the Government announced its intention to provide such funds, beginning in the 1969-70 fiscal year. In 1969-70 the amount provided for the Official Opposition was $125,000, and for each of the smaller Opposition Parties-because there was more than one at that time-$35,000. These amounts were originally paid through the Leader's office.
Starting in 1970 the caucus research bureaux were created as separate entities and a Liberal caucus research bureau was added. For 1982-83 the caucus research bureaux received the following amounts-and this is where we see the changes: Liberals, $601,000; Progressive Conservatives, $541,000; and NDP, $285,000.
The Office of the Leader of the Opposition did not have a separate budget until 1980, under the Prime Minister. In 1968-69 the figure for the Office of the Leader of the Opposition was about $87,500; in 1969-70 the Leader of the Opposition received $129,500 and the Leader of the New Democratic Party received $36,000. In 1982-83, under the Prime Minister, the Office of the Leader of the Opposition had a budget of $1,081,400 and the Office of the Leader of the NDP $569,700, both amounts separate from the funds of the research bureaux of the caucuses.
That is a reality that we do not talk about very often, but it is a reality that makes it possible for Members on both sides to come here and deliver better speeches and do a better job as Members of Parliament; or, at least, it should allow them to do a better job as representatives of their constituents.
The point I want to make in saying "thank you" to the Prime Minister is that since 1968 many changes have been made in this place, some of which are more obvious than others, but all of which were most important. They start with the reform by unanimous consent in 1968 of the Business of Supply, going through to this very substantial increase in research bureau funds of each caucus, to the funds allocated for the offices of the Leaders of both Opposition Parties, to broadcasting the debates of this House in 1978, to the increases in our salaries and pensions and to the reform we are discussing today.
November 29, 1982

[ Translation]
I would also like, Mr. Speaker, to pay a special tribute to the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure, especially its Chairman, the Hon. Member for Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle (Mr. Lefebvre), and each of the members of the Committee for having come to a unanimous agreement on changes which, as I noted earlier, match almost exactly those I have always advocated and through which Parliament will better reflect the reality of the eighties. Finally, I want to pay homage to all those, men and women, who have contributed directly or indirectly to this result.

The process of reform of parliamentary procedure is, by the very nature of the institution, an ongoing one. In Canada the first major reforms came only at the turn of the century. It was almost 50 years later that the next major revisions took place. Then in the 1960s a series of committees and experiments, of which our present efforts are a part, began. Since the major revisions of 1968-69 we have had many committee investigations on the matter. We have tried several experiments and have even adopted some permanent changes. Once again, we have before us some proposed experiments and it is interesting to note that one of the proposals is for an automatically continuing committee review of our rules.
The Special Committee, of course, benefited from superprofessional assistance from the committee's branch and the table research office and was particularly assisted by the former Clerk of the House, Mr. Alistair Fraser, whose wisdom, experience and subtlety of mind permeates the report.
My predecessor as Government House Leader, Leaders on both sides of the House, and our staffs, some of whom are still with us, some of whom have gone to greener pastures, all contributed in one way or another to this report. Although he was unable to participate in this committee, the report most certainly reflects years of work by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).
Finally, although I never had the privilege of meeting the reputed grand master of parliamentary procedure as former Clerk Assistant of the House, one who knew him well told me: "If Gordon Dubroy was alive today, this is exactly what he would have produced".

The proposed experiment, Mr. Speaker, is interesting and relevant for three reasons. First, it will help to upgrade the role played by Members of Parliament. It will make Parliament more alive and more effective, without eroding the right of the opposition to a full debate. Finally, the third reason why this experiment will be interesting is that it will update Parliament and give it more respectability in the eyes of the Canadian people. To summarize, the role of Members of Parliament will be upgraded, Parliament will become more alive and more effective without infringing upon the rights of the opposition to
Parliamentary Reform
a full debate. Parliament will be a more modern institution, more respectable, and more respected by the people, at least I hope so. If we go through the nine proposed changes, we can see that they will have these three results. I believe that every one of the proposed changes will have this effect. Of course, this is more obvious in the case of some changes, but even with the others, we shall have partly achieved these results.
The first proposed change concerns the parliamentary calendar which we wanted to implement for a long time and which our predecessors had already considered when looking at possible reforms. This calendar will finally allow Members of Parliament to plan ahead realistically and will make it possible for the Government to announce in good faith and on a regular basis,-at least three times during a session or at the beginning of each semester,-to Parliament and the opposition its legislative program the weeks and months to come. Of course, this program will not be restrictive and the Government will always be able to add to it, but if we want to benefit from the experience there must be no abuse of changes and 1 believe the Government is quite willing to make public regularly at the beginning of each semester its proposed legislative program to the Canadian Parliament. At the same time, the opposition will be in a better position to coordinate its strategy against whatever legislation it finds more controversial.
We can see immediately that a parliamentary calendar with three semesters and adjournments at set dates will promote efficient planning both for the Government and the Members of the opposition, and I am convinced that it will make Parliament even more productive, not because the opposition will be more prepared not to debate Government legislation, but rather because it will be able to make a preliminary choice of the subjects it finds most interesting and to use the time allocated to discuss Government proposals and allow passage of less controversial bills, which unfortunately was not always the case under the present system. As concerns this first change, I would also emphasize that the parliamentary calendar will not decrease the workload of Members of Parliament. It will not reduce their hours of work. On the contrary as a result of the changes implemented today we shall sit an average of 175 days a year, while the previous average was 165 days. We shall therefore have a heavier workload and ten more sitting days, and the proposed changes do not limit in any way the daily sitting hours of Parliament from Monday to Friday inclusively.
It is clear, therefore, that this parliamentary calendar will contribute significantly to upgrade the role of Members of Parliament. It should be conducive to better planning, greatly reduce or eliminate many of the frustrations many of us feel- I think that, in that area, the benefits will be obvious-and make Parliament more effective and, therefore, more streamlined and better perceived by the Canadian people.
As to the day sittings, the committee recommended that instead of sitting for two hours in the evening on Monday,

November 29, 1982
Parliamentary Reform
Tuesday and Thursday, the Elouse should sit between 11 a.m. and 1 p.m. Again, this is an extremely positive change, which I have always supported, not only because it will make life easier for Members of the House, although there is nothing wrong in trying to improve the life style of parliamentarians, many of whom are men and women with family responsibilities, but also because it will make it possible for them to work harder in the afternoon than they can now in the evening when they are tired and, consequently, the tone of the debate suffers. Hon. Members will be more available in the evening for committee sittings, which will be more interesting. The smaller committees will sit more often because they will be busier, for reasons I will indicate in a little while. The parties on both sides of the House will also be able to hold special caucuses in the evening without any risk of coming into conflict with House sittings. And finally, Hon. Members on both sides of the House will be able to work quietly in the evening without fear of being interrupted by bells ringing in every hallway of Parliament, of having to cancel public engagements they might have both in Ottawa or in communities located within a reasonable distance from the capital, where they would be addressing the Canadian people, as they are duty bound to do.
The fact that Members of Parliament would not have to sit in the evening will upgrade their role in the sense that they would not have to answer slavishly to the call of the bell until 10:30 p.m. three nights a week, but that after 6:00 p.m., they would be free to come and go as they please, to look after the interests of their constituents, to sit on the standing committees of the House, to participate actively in the special caucuses of their respecting parties, to go and address the Canadian people in many communities located within a reasonable distance from Ottawa. This is an aspect which I feel is extremely positive and which will have a major impact on the way Hon. Members will perform in the House and assume their responsibilities in a more humane and, consequently, more involved, interesting and effective fashion.
The suggestion to limit speeches to 20 minutes, followed by a debate lasting some ten minutes, 1 find most original. I do not know how the debate will progress. This is a chance which I feel we are taking, and that we are all a little curious and worried about the way this experience will unfold, but as we are people of good will, we all want this experience to succeed, and I am sure that this type of original suggestion will achieve its purpose. Firstly, if speeches are shortened, they will be more interesting and to the point, and secondly, our debates will be livelier. As I was reading part of my remarks a moment ago, some of my colleagues opposite could not help commenting on it, and I realized that I was becoming boring; I quickly moved on to the subject matter of my speech, but as my notes were in English, I wanted to be sure to congratulate all those who deserved it.
But I think that after mid-January the 20-minute speeches will preclude long quotations, make the debates more lively
and certainly more relevant since any Member rising to speak may have to answer questions and prove in no uncertain terms that he knows what he is talking about. And then, of course, speeches at the report stage will be cut down to ten minutes; that will speed up the debate and do away with tedious repetitions. The report stage of a bill will be more constructive and we will be able to proceed with third reading much more rapidly.
Another change which will enhance the role of Hon. Members, and make Parliament more interesting and definitely more modern is the fact that votes to be taken on Fridays will be deferred. Considered on its own, such a change is not particularly challenging, but taken in conjunction with others like shorter speeches, the new parliamentary schedule and the proposed over-all reform, I suggest that Hon. Members will be less in a partisan mood on Fridays because, any vote on a substantive matter being deferred, they will probably be more inclined to dispose quickly of the so-called non-controversial bills. It will be possible to clear the Order Paper of the many bills which are often absolutely essential, of a technical nature, or urgent for other reasons. We will be able to pass such bills without the fear of having to call Hon. Members for a vote since any recorded division will be automatically deferred until the following Monday. As a result, Hon. Members will be happier and healthier as well in the planning of their weekend activities in their riding or elsewhere in Canada. They will be having a few extra hours to travel and meet with their constituents in their respective ridings, feeling a lot more alert and less tired by last minute travelling crowded within two days as is the case now.
We are doing away with that parliamentary oddity, Standing Order 43, a move which practically all Hon. Members fully endorse. It is a proceeding which no longer serves any useful purpose, although there still will be a way to move an urgent motion in an institution such as ours. I would suggest however that if a motion is indeed really urgent and important, as Hon. Members are now required to explain in their preliminary remarks under Standing Order 43, I should think that if something very important and very urgent does come up, unanimous consent will be forthcoming without any recourse to a special rule. We will have the usual discussions between House leaders and/or the interested parties with a view to adopting any really important and urgent motion without debate and undue haste. Doing away with motions under Standing Order 43 is in itself a very positive step. Instead, Hon. Members will each have 90 seconds to make a point rather than raise objections.
I think we should try it on an experimental basis because I am convinced that those who want that experiment to succeed will draw maximum benefits from those 15-odd minutes before the Question Period and not make ill use of the time of the
November 29, 1982

House. I hope that the Chair, mindful of the intent of the committee report, will recognize Hon. Members without any regard for party affiliation and that the time available will be equally distributed between both sides of the House.
With respect to Wednesday afternoon being devoted to Private Members' Business, as in many other instances we would have favoured other alternatives such as Monday morning from 11 a.m. to 2 p.m., or Friday, but we on the Government side have agreed to that change as we did to others so that the experiment could be carried out. Since Private Members' Business will be dealt with on the same day,
I hope that Hon. Members who want to introduce bills or move motions will find it easier to better organize their work and plan those measures for a specific day of the week. This might deprive the Government of the choice of one day in allotting opposition days. However, I am convinced that on a special occasion, as more experience is gained, if either the Government or the Opposition wish to earmark a particular Wednesday as an allotted day, this could be done by unanimous consent by agreeing to have Private Members' Business postponed to another day.
Another positive change is the one respecting quorum. Too often, the image of Members of Parliament has been tarnished by someone trying to make political gains out of an unfortunate circumstance whereby some Members happened not to be in their seats, thus preventing quorum. I believe that every time a count was called for lack of quorum, this was a disservice to this institution, to the parties in this House and certainly to Members of Parliament in general. Nobody is to be blamed really, because very often this happened during fierce debate when it was too tempting to avail oneself of the Rules. Those who objected seized this opportunity to express their disapproval and call the public's attention by having Parliament adjourn, because Hon. Members were meeting in committee or phoning in the Government anteroom, or attending to their business and functions. I believe that this temptation will disappear when the suggested change is implemented because whenever fewer than 20 Members are present in this House and an Hon. member calls attention to this and the Speaker is aware of this fact, the House will not be called for a count until the bells have rung for 15 minutes. And in such cases Hon. Members meeting in committees or attending to other Parliament Business will certainly hurry back to their seats in order that the House and committees may work simultaneously.
The other changes also are very important. They deal with the structure of our Standing Committees. Suggestions are made as to Special Committees and the reduction of committee membership in my view will have a most important impact. I, for one, have always supported that change, because it is my belief that a small group can much better and more easily concentrate on an important matter, as evidenced by the Special Committees that were established last year and made reports on matters of current interest. My parliamentary
Parliamentary Reform
secretary had the privilege to chair one of those on the handicapped. They did tremendous work. They were seven. They drew their report within a reasonable time frame. The same may be said for the Chairman of the Committee on Parliamentary Reform, the Hon. Member for Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle (Mr. Lefebvre). Experience has shown that smaller and more flexible committees, when entrusted with interesting matters, can have a very positive impact on the development of our parliamentary system, upgrade the role of Members of Parliament, sharpen their interest and ultimately enable this institution to produce much more enlightened measures that better meet the wishes of the Canadian people.
Therefore smaller committees, with 10 to 15 members, would be busier because all reports tabled before Parliament under a statute would automatically be referred to those committees. They would always have bills before them and estimates, as well as those reports tabled before Parliament that do not require special reference. In each of these committees, therefore, about ten members will be able to examine topics they are most interested in and submit reports to this House, to which the Government will have to respond intelligently in a limited time frame and which could afterwards be made public in due time. Finally, this ongoing review of regulations by the Committee on Procedure and Organization also seems to me like a constructive suggestion. 1 believe that this experience should be evaluated as it proceeds so that we may make adjustments if need be, not to undermine the experiment or long-term parliamentary reform, but rather to make this experimental process easier with a view to bringing about a more efficient, human and modern Parliament.
I would have liked to mention an area which those who deal with parliamentary reform will have to examine during the next few months, namely supply procedure, budget confidentiality, budgetary bills, financial bills and the delays involved as a result of our outmoded procedure which forces us years after a budget has been brought down, to still have to debate bills ensuing from past budgets. I believe this kind of reform now deserves special consideration and a consensus will not be easily reached when it comes to firm conclusions. Not only will such a reform be a challenge, but 1 believe that is most relevant and that if Parliament is to be in a better position to deal with today's problems, our procedure dealing with supply, the budget and supply bills will have to be updated so that the House of Commons can deal with these matters within a reasonable time. I believe that one of the ways to dispose of bills more quickly and to avoid many delays would be to allow preliminary consultation of all the people concerned before a budget is made public and related bills are tabled.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to invite all Members of Parliament to make this experiment a success and not to look for anomalies or weaknesses in this proposal, since it is

November 29, 1982
Parliamentary Reform
not perfect as we recognize ourselves and as I think our friends opposite and the members of the Committee also recognize. The rules proposed to this House have weaknesses and unclear elements, and I believe that for a destructive mind, it would be very easy although childlish to prevent this experiment from being positive and successful. I therefore call on the intellectual honesty of all Members and I want to assure them of the sincerity of the Government in implementing the proposed changes so that this experiment can be a success and result in fact in permanent changes to which adjustments may be made. Therefore parliamentarians on both sides of the House will feel more useful in society, will feel truly upgraded and, convinced that it is to their advantage to work in committees and that they can make a difference on legislation introduced in this House. As I said, it would be easy enough to botch the exercise, but to me it would be totally unacceptable and irresponsible. I think that it is merely a matter of credibility, not for the Government, not for the Official Opposition, not for Hon. Members collectively, not for the independent Member, it is a matter of credibility for each and everyone of us. It is a matter of credibility for this institution itself and it is essential as we are experiencing special problems confronting our community and while our economic and social development requires major changes during the years to come. It is essential for a democratic institution such as our Parliament to be in a position to respond to reality and adjust to our modern times, to the eighties. I think that the proposed reform is not the only solution but it is a step in the right direction. At long last, this institution will be operating within the framework of a series of Standing Orders which given the good faith and the practical sense of its Members will ensure a performance that will be more readily accepted by Canadians and will meet their aspirations.
Finally, 1 hope that this experience and the permanent changes to be implemented at a later date will pave the way to a regular and continued development. I regret that we should introduce by fits and starts such revolutionary reforms which contrast too strongly with the bad habits acquired by Parliament. I think that the suggestion that we let the Committee on Procedure and Organization constantly monitor the implementation of our Standing Orders will from now on allow parliamentary reform to proceed on a daily basis, and develop at a more regular pace without suddenly having every 12 , 14 or 15 years to make recommendations which following some experimentation become a step in the right direction. In conclusion I wish we will all show good faith, goodwill, and a practical mind so that parliamentary reform will become a continued procedure in the process of a normal and regular development to allow once again elected representatives to work proudly in the best interests of their constituents so that our democratic institution may play its true role and increasingly gain the respect of all Canadians.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, before the House Leader (Mr. Pinard) resumes his seat, I wonder if he would simply address himself to the minor matter which I raised last Thursday, when we were discussing the day to be set aside for debate of his motion, concerning the implementation of his motion and the experimental Standing Orders. He will recall that we had a House Leaders' meeting later that same day, last Thursday, and I suggested that there be included in the last line but one of his motion, after the word "and", the words "with the approval of the House Leaders". That was to avoid placing the potentially embarrassing discretion with the Clerk of the House to make decisions on his own with respect to technical and consequential changes.
By adding the words I have suggested and to which I understood all three House Leaders had agreed, it would make any additional technical or consequential amendments subject to consultation with the House Leaders before that discretion was exercised. Perhaps the House Leader could address himself to that point.


Yvon Pinard: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I can confirm that the House leaders met last week, and we decided that it was unnecessary to amend the motion to make the discretion of the Clerk of the House in drafting the Standing Orders subject to consultation with the House Leaders, but it is, of course, understood that this is desirable, and that if any technical changes are necessary in Appendix C as proposed in the motion in my name, the House leaders, would appreciate being consulted before such technical changes are made, in order to ascertain that the changes are indeed of a technical nature and that the intent of the report remains intact. One example comes to mind, and I may bring it to the attention of the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). It is a case of incorrect numbering. It is suggested that Standing Order 6.(4)(a) be amended, while this should be 6.(5)(a).


Erik Nielsen: 6.(5)(b)l


Yvon Pinard: 6.(5)(b), I beg your pardon. So there is some confusion here. Any changes, must be purely technical, and we want to make sure that we are consulted in any case, before the changes are made, to prevent any change in the spirit and intent of the report. I can therefore confirm to the House Leader that we do have an agreement in that respect. It is unnecessary to amend the motion, and it is understood that the House Leaders would like to be consulted before any technical changes are made.
Finally, I can also confirm that in the last paragraph of my motion, the mandate given to the Clerk of the House to update the Standing Orders of the House of Commons is a restrictive one, since it applies only to Standing Orders incorporating the changes referred to in my motion and covered by Appendix C of the report tabled in the House by the Special Committee on
November 29, 1982

Parliamentary Reform. I understand that sooner or later, it will be necessary to revise or make technical changes in other Standing Orders which are not covered by the present experiment, but I submit, with due respect, that this is not the time to do so and that such changes are not covered by the present motion.


Erik Nielsen: I thank the House leader for that clarification and for his commitment with respect to that understanding.
My first words must be of a congratulatory nature to the chairman of the committee and the co-chairman-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: -who have done an outstanding job in considering this very complex problem, together with Members of Parliament from all three parties who served on the committee. They approached their job with the determination to bring about this initial change and they are still sitting with that same determination to see that meaningful reform is brought about in our processes and practices in the House. No doubt their future reports will accomplish the objective which we all seek and certainly which we in this Party have been seeking for a good many years, as evidenced by the immediate attention the matter was given by our Government during the short period we were in office. It was the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) who tabled a discussion paper, on behalf of our Government, setting forth meaningful changes in the process, and who put down a motion to refer that discussion paper to the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: We are all happy to see that many of his suggestions contained in that discussion paper have now seen the light of day in the changes which have been proposed by the Special Committee.
The House Leader has described the third report as a giant step forward. Reform, as a whole, would certainly constitute a giant step forward. Without detracting one iota from the excellent work of the committee and from our expectations of its future work, I would prefer to describe the third report as a first tentative step. We all look forward with great anticipation to the future reports of the Special Committee, particularly when we get into the heart of reform of this place in the discharging of its central responsibility, namely, the control of the public purse and the accountability of Government to the taxpayers who foot the bill.
The references of the House Leader to the moneys which have been made available to the Opposition Parties and to the Office of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) bear one brief reflection. First, it is my understanding, and I believe I am correct, that the budget for the Office of the Leader of the Opposition, at $1.8 million, is a global budget, all-inclusive. I see the Government House Leader shaking his head in the
Parliamentary Reform
negative, but I believe if he checks he will find that to be accurate. That must also be compared with the budget of the Prime Minister's Office, which, as he well knows, has split away from his own office, the PCO. Our latest estimates in the Blue Book concerning the functioning of the PMO show that it receives $4,196,000, almost three times as much. I might say that that amount is up by $818,000 over the last budgetary period, the last fiscal year, an increase of some 24.2 per cent.
I am attracted by the last paragraph of the introduction to the third report, which is to be found on page seven of Votes and Proceedings for Friday, November 5 last. All of my references hereafter will be to the pages of that issue of Votes and Proceedings, which I have studied, rather than to the committee report itself. That last sentence states:
Your Committee unanimously recommends that its proposals be considered together as a whole.
I could not endorse any proposition more strongly. Changes to our Standing Orders and to our practices have a habit of being unable to foresee situations arising in the future, the effect of which is never anticipated by ourselves in a debate such as this or by committee members who bring forward the recommendations.
I might also say that, as I develop my remarks in this discussion, it is my intention to set forth certain understandings upon which we are accepting this third report on an experimental basis and to say, quite frankly, that within that one-year period we expect those understandings to be fulfilled in good faith and in the good spirit intended by the committee in the report. For it is only if the Government and the Opposition act in good faith in the implementation of these changes that they stand even a ghost of a chance of succeeding, as the Government House Leader has said. If that good faith fails on any side, the experiment would be terminated on the specific date set forth in the motion of the House Leader.
I wanted to include in my congratulations to the committee co-chairman and the committee members, and to express my congratulations and the thanks of all Members of the House to the several witnesses who appeared before the committee, some of whom have lived and worked with our practices and our Standing Orders and have been very concerned about the change that is necessary not only to make this place a more human institution, as the Government House Leader describes it so often, but to make it a more meaningful place for Members of Parliament, to make it a place where Members of Parliament as individuals feel that they are making a positive contribution in the discharge of the expectations which were the basis upon which they were sent here by their electors in the first place.
With respect to the former Clerk of the House, he was specifically singled out by the Government House Leader in his remarks. I, too, would like to endorse the fund of knowledge that was made available by the former Clerk to the committee, and to tell the Government House Leader that in a

November 29, 1982
Parliamentary Reform
sense it was the former Clerk of this Elouse who contributed to my presence here today, and that, he made that contribution in 1957 during the first election in which I ran. You might ask him, in a private moment, to explain that to you, Mr. Speaker.
I want to deal with the report generally. It is our feeling that Parliament maintains its power, integrity and prestige by remaining at arm's length from the bureaucracy and the Government. Parliament cannot allow itself to become a pensioner of the Government no matter how benevolent or how well-intentioned. Parliament cannot afford to become the private personal property of whatever Government might find itself in office from time to time.
Parliament is the highest resort of freedom, where free men and women are able to voice opinions and to criticize the excesses of powerful Governments without fear of retaliation. Parliament's independence, if that is to be the case, must be the primary concern of every citizen.
If Parliament is to carry out its mandate of controlling expenditures and overseeing the activities of Government so that the resources of the taxpayers do not become simply an instrument for retaining Governments in power, then Parliament must be free of coercion, intimidation or restraint. Parliament no longer needs to fear the pressure from an allpowerful royal court. Just as inimical to free deliberation is the pressure from a Government which would like to become allpowerful. I say these things without any intention whatsoever of being partisan.
Proposals for parliamentary reform usually aim at gaining more time for Government business and reducing the time available to an Opposition. From my personal viewpoint, the proposals of this committee fall into that latter category because there is no doubt in my mind that the changes contained in this third report are overwhelmingly in favour of the Government.
We, nonetheless, are prepared, on an experimental basis, to adopt the third report in the hope-and we have this sincere hope-that the Government will act bona fide and in good faith in the manner in which it used the excess advantages which they will gain as a result of these changes, and in the singular anticipation that we are going to see further changes in subsequent reports that will result in that kind of fiscal and over-all parliamentary control of Government and the purse strings. Those reports have yet to come.
Let me point out at once that what diminishes the Opposition diminishes Parliament and Parliament's ability to act. It is very clear that if there is to be effective criticism on a continuing basis it will come from the Opposition. Parliament is not strengthened, nor is the public interest served, by Members of Parliament who speak with emotion outside the House of Commons about the iniquity of certain legislation and yet who rise in the House of Commons and vote with the Government simply because they feel that that is their obligation, or that unless they do their careers will be deleteriously affected.
Parliament cannot afford-this is in keeping with those who hold the view that there are certain functions of this place for which there should be freedom to vote as a Member pleases- to have what have often been referred to as trained seals on either side of the House. That is why it is essential that the rights of the Opposition be preserved and that we maintain the capacity of the Opposition to make its position known in the most effective manner possible.
A simple numerical majority does not give a Government the right to ride like a juggernaut over the Opposition. Responsible Government also means taking minority views into account and paying attention to the position taken by the Opposition. Failing that, if we do not accept that principle as lying at the heart of our parliamentary system, we may as well accept, from my personal point of view, a one-party system such as that which now prevails in Poland under General Jaruzelski.
The last major reform undertaken in 1968 had the effect of removing much of the detail of both legislation and expenditure from the control of the House, relegating it to Government-dominated committees about which I will have more to say shortly. Obviously, this does not improve Parliament's capacity to deal with expenditure control.
In recent years we have had repeated warnings from successive Auditors General that Government expenditures are now completely removed from the control of Parliament. A vital brake on the excesses of Government since the days of Charles II has been control of expenditures by Parliament. To all intents and purposes, what those successive Auditors General are saying is that that brake no longer exists.
This is more than a mere question of procedure. It is a question of fundamental democracy, a question of the people's right to know how their money is being spent and to call the Government to account. That right has been lost. It has been lost totally, and that is not an exaggeration. It is one of the most important functions of this Special Committee, and that is one of the principal reasons that we accept on an experimental basis this report.
One of the most important functions of this committee is to regain that right and to regain, consequently, democracy in this country. Because unless this Special Committee comes up with a solution to the problem which has been pointed out by those successive Auditors General, and unless it can come up with that kind of solution which strikes at the heart of the reason for being of this place, then not only it but we will have failed.
I see some distinct encouragement that the committee is grappling with that problem from a very excellent paper which I have studied and which is now before the committee, I believe, under the combined authorship of the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington) and the Hon. Member for Rosemont (Mr. Lachance), who I see listening intently to this debate. It is a good thing to see a member on the Government
November 29, 1982

side and a member of the Opposition sponsoring, in a common cause, a proposed solution to the very important problem of which I speak. The first thing which must be restored in the procedures of this House is a mechanism whereby Parliament regains control over expenditures.
Coming now to the proposals themselves in the third report,
I re-emphasize my agreement with the words expressed by the subcommittee in the presentation of this report, that we should be looking at the proposals as a whole and not piecemeal. I reemphasize the importance of that and say that is precisely what we will be doing in the coming year. Because within that year I am sure, Mr. Speaker, we are going to see further reports dealing with very important problems, such as parliamentary control over expenditures. We will move cautiously in the meantime. We wait for the total reformation package before making these changes permanent, which should happen well within one year from today, and we may then consider the package as a whole. The dangers inherent in doing otherwise, 1 think, are so obvious they need not be set forth by me here today.
We are adopting this report now on the basis of an expectation of those reports yet to come which will deal meaningfully with the changes that are necessary. The Opposition, by this interim report, this third report, are being asked to give up a great many protections while the Government is giving up virtually nothing. As an example, the Opposition generally loses its power to delay or even block unacceptable legislation. In the meantime, the Government gains very substantially in terms of parliamentary time which the Opposition must surrender.
The adoption of the parliamentary calendar, while perhaps justifiable on a strictly experimental basis, and certainly justifiable for the convenience particularly of those Members who have families and long distances to travel, certainly adds something in the order of ten days, as stated by the Government House Leader; but I think it is more in the nature of in excess of three weeks' time which will be available to the Government. This would be tolerable if the Government showed some inclination to bring Bills forward in a proper and efficient manner, but we have seen nothing of that in the over 400 days we have been sitting in this session. After more than 400 days in the present session, we are faced with Ways and Means proposals arising out of three different budgets, some at cross-purposes with each other in a kind of confusion and chaos that no amount of rules changes or goodwill on the part of the Opposition can cure. Sitting on the Order Paper today are something like 46 or 47 Ways and Means motions, the product of three different budgets. This is simply bad management on the part of a Government which really does not know where it is at or where it is going in terms of its fiscal policies. The point I raise is that no procedural reform can make up for incoherence, lack of planning and lack of direction on the part of the Government.
Since this is the first opportunity I have had since last April to do so, I would like to refer to the episode of the energy omnibus Bill which was dumped into the lap of Parliament with the expectation by the Government that the House was
Parliamentary Reform
prepared to deal with a package which wrapped up something like 12 separate legislative enactments in one hydra-headed Bill. That is not the way I understand Parliament, and I believe that is a view shared by all in my Party.
I know that the Special Committee is grappling with this problem, and, indeed, it is a problem lo try to spell out criteria upon which omnibus Bills are designed or criteria which will prevent abuse of the device of omnibus Bills. We expect great things from the Special Committee when dealing with that subject matter, as we do when it deals with the subject of parliamentary control over expenditures. But no Government, no matter what pressures might be upon it to get their legislative programs through, is entitled to abuse Parliament to the extent where they confine us to divide once on a plethora of measures involving several principles upon which divisions could very well be different on all.
We are prepared to provide the Government with extra time through a parliamentary calendar if there can be some assurance that the Government will make use of that time in an appropriate way. We expect the Government to bring down a legislative program in keeping with the needs of Canadians, having regard to the very pressing economic, personal and human problems which are confronting Canadians in our country today. We expect to have the broad lines of that program in plenty of time to be able to deal effectively with it and for the opposition to make a positive contribution. So far we see no evidence that that is going to be done and, presumably, that also is going to be the subject of future reports of the committee.
There is a proposal to restrict votes on Friday. There are some concerns which 1 feel should be expressed with respect to that proposal. Nothing benefits a Government more and an Opposition less, given our existing practices and procedures, than predictability. One of the few weapons which an Opposition commands to prevent Government abuse of power is the lack of that predictability. One of the abuses which is open to them-and we are willing to run the risk to see if the good faith the Government House Leader speaks about will be displayed-is that the Government could schedule termination of controversial debates on a Friday knowing full well there would be no vote on a Friday and knowing also full well that that vote would be set over to a Monday. Therefore, if the good faith of which the Government House Leader spoke is not present in the experimental period, it could ensure that Fridays will become some kind of repository for ending controversial legislation, enabling the Government to put over votes on such legislation until the following Monday.
Another thought that occurred to me over the weekend is this. Supposing the summer session ended on a Friday and we were dealing with legislation requiring a vote. Given no unanimous consent, would that mean that all those votes would be put over until the fall when we came back? The possibility is there in the rules. I do not mention that for the purpose of nitpicking, but just to confirm what the Government House

November 29, 1982
Parliamentary Reform
Leader has said, that the proposals are far from perfect even as they stand now.


Yvon Pinard: That is the problem.


Erik Nielsen: He acknowledges the problem. This is the kind of procedure which has inherent dangers which require a very careful look.
I do not know whether I heard the translation correctly when the Government House leader was winding up his remarks, but he referred to an experimental period for the adoption of the changes proposed in the third report, which would become permanent at the end of the year. I am sure I must have heard wrongly or that it came across wrongly. That happens to me often.
[ Translation]


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Why does my hon. colleague not speak French?


Erik Nielsen: Well, I do not speak French all that well. I certainly know what the Minister is saying about me in the elevator, though!
In any event, we have to look at these changes very carefully. I really see no requirement for increasing to three hours the time required for giving notice under Standing Order 26. It is there and we are going to support it on an experimental basis, but I think its flaws will show themselves very quickly.
As for Standing Order 43, from my personal point of view there is no doubt of its usefulness in getting special attention drawn to special issues. I was rather surprised when I looked up the record a week ago to find that since the beginning of this session some 170 motions made under Standing Order 43 have been adopted. I could not believe that. I thought I had either miscounted or misconstrued, but looking through the Order Paper it is just fantastic the number that have gotten through. In any event, I agree that the procedure is rather useless and I do not think that the statements of a minute and a half are going to much lessen the farce. I would far rather like to see that 15-minute period used for extending Question Period. However, it is worth a try and we will see how it works. If it does not work I would suggest the committee go back to the drawing board and consider including that period as part of the Oral Question Period, making it a total of an hour.
Now, Mr. Speaker, in agreeing to shorter time limits on speeches the Opposition is giving up a considerable amount of time. Again, this could perhaps be more palatable or tolerable if we could expect the Government to bring forward a legislative program in some sort of planned way, but we see no evidence of this. By my calculations, and dealing only with the combined Opposition, the limitation on speech times has resulted in reducing the total available time in any debate from 4,080 minutes to 1,053 minutes, or a reduction at second reading stage of some 74.20 per cent. That is a considerable amount of available time to give up. At report stage we are giving up 50 per cent of the time and at third reading stage
some 25 per cent of the time. The Government gains all that time and in return there is precious little except for perhaps the most significant proposal by the Special Committee when it deals with the work of our standing committee system. But there is no significant giving up of anything to achieve that balance between Government and Opposition which is so essential.
So on average, sir, this one device of limiting speaking time results in transferring some 49 per cent of the Opposition's over-all time to the Government, and I do not believe that this can be described as an improvement in procedure. I can describe it as something with which we are prepared to go along because the issue parliamentary control over expenditures is so fundamental and important that we are prepared to go along initially with this report to see whether that is going to happen. If it does not happen, then that understanding upon which we are accepting this report will have failed and the experiment will, with great reluctance, have come to an end. So I am putting great store in that Huntington-Lachance paper on expenditure control, as we all are on this side of the House.
On the question of committees, I do not believe that our problem in the past has been too many members, although that always is subject to improvement. Perhaps we have too many committees, some 26 standing committees of the House of Commons now, and I think that once we solve the problem of Members, we will solve the problem of substitutions. Right now there are standing committees of the House which overlap, which cover the same territory, and there are committees which meet so infrequently that they constitute scarcely more than a nullity in our process. So this implies a need for tightening up the number of committees required to conduct the business of the House of Commons, and perhaps that is one of the matters the Special Committee will be looking at as well.
The proposal which the Government House Leader had so much praise for a moment ago, the automatic referral of annual reports, is one significant change which is beneficial. It is not just the annual reports which have automatic referral, but to use the words of the changes in the Standing Order, it includes all annual reports of Government Departments, Crown corporations, including their subsidiaries, and other agencies, which are to be referred to the appropriate standing committee. It also includes returns or other papers that are laid before the House in accordance with an Act of Parliament.
I see two very serious difficulties with that. Perhaps the most serious, and I think this may well have been overlooked by committee members, is that even given the very desirable change in the Standing Order, there is no mandatory provision for the committee to meet. If the Government does not wish the committee to meet, it will not meet. So that addresses itself again to the good faith that we are expecting the Government to exercise in causing these committees to meet immediately. As soon as the session opens, those standing committees should be struck and should be meeting. In the interim the Special
November 29, 1982

Committee should be considering, in one of its forthcoming reports, proposing an amendment to our Standing Orders which will make it obligatory for these committees to meet and not leave it to the whim of the Government. I do not suggest that such a thing would happen, but a Government could abuse that change. It might be embarrassing to let the standing committee, which might have, for instance, responsibility for looking into contracts in Banff National Park, meet at this particular time. That obligation should be there, but it is not there now.
The second omission that I see in the automatic referral is that time and time again, notwithstanding the existence of statutory law requiring annual reports to be tabled within a specific calendar time, those reports and papers have not been tabled and the returns have not been made. I have seen annual reports of Crown agencies that were supposed to be tabled within a fiscal year not tabled for two years. So much for automatic referral of annual reports if the law is disregarded in the first place. In that case, the committee has nothing to review.
The third weakness I see is that the requirement that the Government must respond to the report of the committee is only triggered if the Government majority on the committee requires the response. If you look carefully, Mr. Speaker, you will see that the response is at the request of the committee. The committee is going to continue to have a Government majority, and unless that majority agrees to require a response by the Government, that is not going to be forthcoming. I do not suggest for a moment that this would happen, but in the past I have known of committee chairmen from the Government side going to a Minister and saying that the committee has in mind to recommend such and such a thing, and would he find that embarrassing or would he accept it? I can see a Minister saying that the action would embarrass him considerably and asking the committee not to make him respond. That requirement is rather toothless, therefore.
I hope the Special Committee will address those concerns. If it is serious about improving the committee system, it will make meetings of committees obligatory.
I do not know how you can improve a law which requires annual reports to be tabled by a specific date. I hope the committee will address itself to that problem and to the question of the Government majority emasculating the requirement of Government response to committee reports.
With respect to special committees, I am quite puzzled by the proposal which would authorize a member of the committee or authorize the committee to make public interim and final reports, even though the House is not sitting. I find that rather surprising. What the House is authorizing, if the proposal is adopted, is that a special committee of the House could report to the media instead of to the House. If that is what the majority of Members want to try for a year, we will see how it works.
Parliamentary Reform
I want to return for a moment an aspect of to this automatic referral of annual reports that I did not pick up in my first remarks on the subject. On page 19 of the report, after the reference to Standing Order 41, there appears the following:
"(4) Reports, returns or other papers laid before the House in accordance with an Act of Parliament shall thereupon be deemed to have been permanently referred to the committee designated by the Member tabling the report, return
or paper."
We know that only Government members can table reports, returns or papers; Members of the Opposition cannot table anything. This is a substantive change which I am not sure committee members wanted to make. At present such reports, returns and papers may be tabled only by Ministers or their Parliamentary Secretaries. What we are doing here is authorizing any Government Member to table a report and refer it to any committee he or she pleases. Perhaps that was not the intention. Perhaps the reasoning was that a Minister or a Parliamentary Secretary is also a Member. I want to point out the procedural difficulty, however, if a Member who is not a Minister or a Parliamentary Secretary were to discharge that function, which he or she would be perfectly entitled to do as a result of that change.
I want to make sure that Members appreciate what they are doing, on the adoption of this report, with respect to Private Members' Business. Because this session has lasted as long as it has-the longest in our history at well over 400 days- Private Members' Bills have not been discussed since March 24, 1981. When it comes to dealing with Private Members' Business in the House, this is one area where I believe the Government or the Opposition has no right to interfere. Private Members have precious few legislative privileges. Private Members' hour has traditionally been the time in the whole process which is peculiarly the property of Private Members.
Since March 24, 1981 Private Members have been denied the right to debate Bills. All they have had is Thursdays and Fridays; in effect, what they have been denied is two hours per week. In the first Supply period of the three semester periods, 40 hours of Private Members' time has been denied since March 24, 1981. By the change proposed in the committee report, which we are prepared to try for an experimental year, Private Members lose one hour per week. Three hours on Wednesday is all they will get. There will be no more Private Members' time at any other time in the week. Ordinarily, in the Supply period they would get four hours per week; this ensures them three hours per week, or 40 hours in the first supply period. But since March 24, 1981 we have lost that time.
I want Members to be very clear about what they are giving up and to suggest that they give up that time for a year, to try it out and see if it improves things. I suspect our Special Committee might want to take another very hard look at that. Speaking as a Private Member, I feel I would give up that right most reluctantly when it comes to the confirmation or otherwise of this experiment a year from now.
I want to deal with the quorum for a moment. There have been some misguided souls who fancy themselves as experts on

November 29, 1982
Adjournment Motion
the procedures and practices of this place. They have published articles and/or editorials which conclude that the changes proposed with respect to the quorum would prevent forever more a repeat of the tactics that were employed to stop the energy omnibus Bill. Nothing could be further from the truth. As I understand it-and I am sure that it was the intention of the committee-it is a 15-minute bell so that the House sitting is not terminated simply because some over-zealous Member calls for a quorum when someone may be out having a coffee. It is meant to call a quorum together when our numbers fall below a quorum and we are considering some order of business. That is as far as the change goes, and I am happy to see the chairman of the committee nodding his head in agreement.
I think it is a great amendment in favour of the Government, but I would caution the Government that it should not become too lax as a result of having this luxury of a 15-minute bell and not have its Members in here to meet it. We have all seen in the last couple of weeks what can happen if the Government does not fulfil its responsibility to have a quorum here; the Speaker simply adjourns the House until the next day.
While I think of it, I also caution the Government, in its sincere effort at encouraging this kind of good faith of which all Parties speak in trying to make this experiment work, that it should also think twice before doing things without a quorum in the House.
Let me simply conclude by saying that we are accepting the third report with caution and on the understanding that the expectations inherent in the spirit of the report and spelled out in what the committee intends to address itself to in the future will be achieved. Unless there is substantial and meaningful reform which will restore to this place fiscal accountability, there can be no question of making these changes permanent. If we have the kind of meaningful reform which will restore to the people of Canada and their elected representatives through this institution the parliamentary control which must exist if democracy itself is to continue, then the changes in the third report have a chance of becoming permanent.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: 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 Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. KcKenzie)-Garrison Diversion-Reported	approval of
project by United States, (b) Inquiry whether steps taken to deter action in U.S. Congress; the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson)-Customs and Excise-Evasion of duties by Amway Corporation, (b) Request for details of possible settlement; the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier)-Convention Centres-Financial contributions to development of Rideau Centre.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Pinard:
That, commencing at 5.59 o'clock p.m., on Wednesday, December 22, 1982, or, as the case may be, at the time that the House concludes its consideration of Government Business on that day, the temporary changes to the Standing Orders set forward as Appendix C of the Third Report of the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure, tabled Friday, November 5, 1982, shall take effect;
That the proposed changes in the Standing Orders shall be applied in the spirit expressed in Part 11 (entitled "Recommended Experimental Changes") of the Third Report of the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure;
That, subject to future Order of the House, the said temporary changes to the Standing Orders shall cease to have effect at 5.59 o'clock p.m., on Wednesday December 21, 1983, or, as the case may be, at the time that the House concludes its consideration of Government Business on that day;
That, subject to the provisions of this Order, the dates and times of the commencement and cessation of the effect of the said temporary Standing Orders shall be valid whether or not the House is sitting; and
That the Clerk of the House be authorized and instructed to print revised and re-numbered Standing Orders of the House incorporating the temporary Standing Orders and any technical or consequential amendments necessary.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: The Hon. Member for Rosemont (Mr. Lachance), on a point of order.


Mr. Lachance:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Hon. House leader of the Official Opposition would agree to my asking him a question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Would the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) accept a question?


Erik Nielsen: Certainly.


Claude-André Lachance: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) has dwelt at great length on the question of automatic referral of annual reports of departments and Crown corporations to the various standing committees to explain that he saw a problem if these reports were late.
November 29, 1982

Would he not agree with the members of the Committee that referral of annual reports would enable standing committees to initiate their own enquiries, and that in any case, the annual report remains before a standing committee until the next annual report is submitted, and that any technical delay in producing the report does not change the fact that the committee continues to have the right to initiate its own enquiries?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I hope the Hon. Member for Rosemont (Mr. Lachance) does not get me wrong. I think it is an admirable change. One of its weaknesses is that we do not get current annual reports when they should be tabled. If that problem could be met, it would almost be a perfect change, were it not for the more serious one of the committee not being able to meet on its own initiative but relying on the Government to allow it to meet.
Let me just leave the Member with one example of the more serious problem. Under Standing Order 65(1 )(t) we now have a Standing Committee on Northern Pipelines which specifically has referred to it documents and papers under four specific sections of the Northern Pipeline Act. Despite repeated requests from the Opposition for that Standing Committee to meet since the beginning of this session, over two and a half years, it has not met because the Government has not allowed it to meet. Yet it is empowered specifically to look into specific papers that are required to be produced under a specific Act of Parliament. Without the ability to meet on its own initiative, the change is pretty meaningless.


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to be able to speak on behalf of my Party this afternoon and also as a member of the Committee on Parliamentary Reform to the motion of the Government House Leader that the parliamentary reform package recommended by the third report of the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure be adopted for the year 1983. I will try to do my best to match and transcend the enthusiasm which the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) demonstrated for the package. I look forward to hearing from other Members of his Party who will hopefully be more enthusiastic about what potential there is within this package for parliamentary reform, not just those reforms which are contained within the package but also those made possible down the road by the actions we are taking today. I will have more to say about that later.
I think we ought to stress, not in as tentative a way as the Opposition House Leader but in a positive way, that this is an experiment, that this is an interim report, and that these are the things the committee when it met thought it could come to an early consensus on and get before the House for its consideration. I am very pleased that we were able to do it, that we were able to put something before the House this fall, and that the three Party caucuses have had the wisdom to allow this to happen so quickly.
The adoption of this report by the House will break the ice on parliamentary reform. I am reminded of the ice that was
Parliamentary Reform
caked around my car when I arrived at the airport today. The experiment will break the ice on parliamentary reform and make other things more possible down the road.
Members of the committee know that the report is imperfect and that indeed there may be things we will find out as we go along which were overlooked. There will be unforeseen consequences of the reforms and other things which need to be straightened out as we go along. It might even be somewhat chaotic, but it will be a creative kind of chaos rather than the paralysing chaos to which we are so often treated in the House of Commons as it now operates. Whether or not the chaos is creative will depend upon whether the goodwill continues, the goodwill which made the unanimous report of the committee possible, which existed in the committee and exists in the House to the extent that we were able to come to an agreement to deal with it today and implement the experiment as of January, 1983.
There will have to be the will to make parliamentary reform actually work. This is why I hope there will be more enthusiasm on the part of the Official Opposition as a whole than I felt the Opposition House Leader demonstrated for the proposals. I do not think we ought to go into them on quite the tone he demonstrated, because I think it is very important for the life of Parliament and the life of the House of Commons, about which I know the Hon. Opposition House Leader cares, that we go into this area on as positive a note as possible.
If the goodwill breaks down and the Government decides not to call committees into existence to exercise their new powers, it will be a breach of faith for which the Government will be responsible. The Government will hear about it if it acts in such a way as to make these reforms unworkable. Many of the possibilities which are contained in this package will not actually come to fruition if the Government stands in the way, but I do not think the Government will do that. I certainly hope it will not. I do not think the Government would have agreed to these reforms if it were the Government's intention to stand in the way of allowing them to be given a real try. But only time will tell.
Adopting this report today is crucial in terms of looking down the road, in that it makes the rest of the committee's work more meaningful. In my view, it would have been very difficult for the committee to have carried on looking at very difficult issues; for instance, the speakership, the supply process and the whole question of accountability of the Government to Parliament for its expenditures. We could not have moved into this area as a committee had we not had the feeling that there was enough concern in the House for parliamentary reform to at least experiment with the package on which we are agreeing today.
I quite agree with those who have said that this is no radical reform. This is not something about which we should be beating our breasts all that loudly. But it is an important first step. It is not just a tentative step; it is a step about which we can feel a great deal of satisfacton. Nevertheless, we have to

November 29, 1982
Parliamentary Reform
see it for what it is. It is something that will break the psychology of despair about parliamentary reform which I have noticed, even being here only three and one-half years, has existed for some time, and particularly since the failure of the 1976 parliamentary reform committee. Thus, this is something from which we should take some satisfaction as a House of Commons today. This kind of opportunity presents itself so rarely, and 1 hope this is the beginning of something even more significant than the specific reforms that are contained within the package.
If we have difficulties down the line with recommendations that are in the package, committee members will be around to interpret the spirit of what the committee had in mind when it made its recommendations.
I hope the House Leaders and others who have to deal with the reality of these reforms will feel free to consult with members of the committee from time to time as to what we intended by this parliamentary reform, or to find out what was in our minds if we have not described it perfectly in the recommended Standing Orders.
This is one occasion for me, and I am sure for others on the committee, when I felt that Members of Parliament acting together could make a difference. In other words, Members of Parliament acting together made recommendations in such a way that the Government took steps to bring them into being.
One of the objects of parliamentary reform is that Members of Parliament can feel that they can make a difference when it comes to policy. We do, however, have a long way to go on that road. But 20 Members of Parliament got together, made recommendations and had them accepted, which means that a difference has been made. Therefore, we have given an example of what I would call parliamentary reform.
I think those who are concerned about things to come, as far as parliamentary reform is concerned, ought to take a look at the document that was mentioned, the so-called Huntington-Lachance position paper on accountability. It is called "Closing the Loop". This document is available to Members of Parliament and also to the public through the minutes of the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure.
It seems to me that where the real problem lies is in making the Government more accountable to Members of Parliament for its actions. This is something which unites all Members of Parliament, regardless of the ideological differences that exist between Parties and individuals. We may want to make the Government accountable for different things. We do have different interests in what we want to pursue in terms of accountability, but it is in the interests of all Members of Parliament that the Government be made more accountable. That is certainly one of the most important areas with which the committee will deal. Adopting this report at this time will,
I hope, create the kind of momentum which will result in subsequent reports of the Special Committee being taken more seriously, instead of finding their way on to shelves to collect dust.
I do not intend to speak much longer but instead make myself available as a member of the committee for any questions that Hon. Members might have about what was intended by particular reforms. I must say I am somewhat disappointed that there are so few Hon. Members present for this discussion; it is a discussion since we do not expect a division on this matter. It is disappointing that there are so few Members around even to mark the occasion. When I subtract members of the committee who are present here in the House from the total number of Hon. Members present in the Chamber, it seems that not very many Members hunger and thirst for more knowledge of what the committee had in mind with its recommendations.
The first few sections of the recommendations in the report have to do with the parliamentary calendar and timetable. To a great extent, that has been gone over. The parliamentary timetable is important in lending a degree of predictability to the planning of Members of Parliament. However, this does not only apply to Members of Parliament; it lends predictability in terms of timing to the political process and to the lives of everyone connected with the political process and with the life of Parliament. I think this particular reform will be beneficial and I am looking forward to seeing how it works out. The parliamentary timetable, however, is not particularly contentious.
I do want to speak about the length of speeches and the proposal within the report to curtail speeches to 20 minutes. Speeches previously were given a time limit of 40 minutes. If I use 40 minutes, Mr. Speaker, it is because I am taking advantage of my last opportunity to do so. Speeches which were formerly 40 minutes in length will now be reduced to 20 minutes, to be followed by a ten-minute question period.
The object of this change is to restore to Parliament, in a structured way, actual debate. There was a feeling among witnesses who came before the committee that the Commons was being treated to a constant string of set speeches and there was not enough cut and thrust back and forth between Members. By adding on this ten-minute exchange period Members might deliver the kinds of speeches which they could defend in a subsequent ten-minute question and answer session. We would also have the opportunity for more genuine debate.
This is another example of reform that will depend on two factors. One is the way Members use the debate and the custom which develops from this debate. The other factor concerns the discretion of the Chair. I, or I believe anyone else on the committee, do not foresee a Member rising to speak for nine out of the ten minutes in a rebuttal while the Member who originally spoke would only have a minute to reply. The purpose is for a Member to make a brief comment or ask a brief question, which could happen perhaps as many as four times within that ten-minute period in response to comments or questions which may have been raised during another Member's speech. I believe that that was what the committee
November 29, 1982

was considering. It was not simply to replace 40-minute speeches with 20-minute speeches that were interspersed with 10-minute speeches. The purpose was to alow time for real debate.
I also want to comment on Standing Order 43. This was a difficult subject for the committee to deal with. We probably spent more time on this than we did on the other questions. We felt that the difficulty with motions under Standing Order 43 was public perception of them, especially since the proceedings of the House of Commons are now televised. These motions are incomprehensible to many people watching. Some of the motions which are moved during that 15-minute period before Question Period debase the language of "urgent and pressing necessity". As well, the requests for unanimous consent and the denial of that unanimous consent, particularly when motions were worded in such a way as to be obviously acceptable, gave the impression that Parliament was being negative toward quite otherwise positive statements made by Members. Therefore, we felt that the entire concept of Standing Order 43 needed to be reformed.
We considered what the actual purpose of motions under Standing Order 43 was. We felt that Members needed an opportunity to bring their concerns about particular issues of the day before the House on a regular daily basis. What eventually happened on motions under Standing Order 43 was that this Standing Order became the vehicle by which these concerns were expressed. The kernel, the importance of these motions is that they allow Members the opportunity to put themselves on record on a regular basis and bring to the attention of other Members, the House, their constituents and the country their opinions on particular issues or on the Government's performance.
We hope that this period of Members' statements will accomplish this better. It will be interesting to see how it works. There will be fewer statements than motions under Standing Order 43, but I hope that these statements will be more substantial. I am looking forward to that.
Real reform will continue to occur only if this mood for reform which presently exists continues and the work of the committee continues, and the House remains receptive to its subsequent reports.
I do not think this is an experiment which is overwhelmingly in favour of the Government. I disagree with the Opposition House Leader in that respect. 1 believe it is a balanced report. We discussed many of the matters which were raised by the Opposition House Leader. We reviewed all of those arguments as an all-Party committee. We came up with these recommendations and agreed that it was a fair package. 1 hope we can approach it in that light. Since the Government bears a great deal of responsibility, we hope that it will continue in good faith and that we will be able sometime to look back at this change and see this day as the beginning of more significant reforms in the Canadian House of Commons.
In keeping with what I said previously, if there are Members who wish to ask me questions about the committee's report, I
Parliamentary Reform
will not yield my time until it is clear that there are no Members who wish to ask questions. In that case, I will assume that I have overwhelmed them with my remarks and that no more needs to be said. I also look forward to hearing from the chairman of the committee since I understand he is next to speak.


David P. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Now that we have completed the first round of speakers, one speaker per Party, I believe there is an agreement between all sides of the House that we have a 15-minute time limit. This is to provide a number of Members an opportunity to participate in this debate. There was an agreement to exempt the chairman and the vice-chairman from that time limit, but they have volunteered to accept the 15-minute time limit to demonstrate their great desire for shorter speeches. I believe the House will agree.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I looked over to see whether the chairman of the committee, the Hon. Member for Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle (Mr. Lefebvre), was agreeable to be bound. He is. Therefore, I and my Party are agreeable.


Mr. Deans:: Mr. Speaker, we are also quite prepared to stay within a 15-minute time limit. It is good to see such cooperation in the House of Commons.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Subsequent speeches in this debate will be limited to 15 minutes. Agreed and so ordered.


Mr. Thomas H. Lefebvre (Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, I am very proud, today, to have this opportunity of taking part in the debate on the third report of the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure. I greatly appreciated the kind words spoken on my behalf by the Government House Leader and the House Leader of the Official Opposition. Instead of elaborating on the report's recommendations, I would prefer to take this opportunity to explain the Committee's approach to its mandate, to point out the general direction of the reforms and to outline the Committee's agenda for the coming months.
The Committee started its work rather tentatively, with a first meeting in July. Although all Committee members favoured reform, it was clear that Hon. Members did not have the same views on what the Committee's agenda should be. Some wondered which questions should become the focus of immediate reform, and how much time should be spent on this by the Committee. Committee members also wondered whether they should be informing the general public about the role of Canada's Parliament. Subsequently, the Committee tried to project its ideas on reform. During our initial proceedings, we held internal discussions, without witnesses, about our own perceptions of the need for reform and how we perceived the various roles that all Hon. Members and Parliament play in the daily lives of Canadians. Later, we listened with interest to a number of expert witnesses, all of whom made invaluable

November 29, 1982
Parliamentary Reform
contributions, although I would like to mention a few whose participation was particulary appreciated, especially in the production of the report before the House today.
Representatives of the Canadian Bar Association were the first witnesses to appear before the Committee, and they helped us to clarify our concepts of parliamentary reform. Dr. John Stewart of St. Francis Xavier University gave us the benefit of his knowledge, not only as an academic but also as a former member of this House. Justice James Jerome, former Speaker of the House, helped us to put our ideas in their proper perspective. However, we owe a special debt of gratitude to a former Clerk of the House, Mr. Alistair Fraser. Mr. Fraser appeared before the Committee and gave us such excellent ideas that we asked him if he would give us the benefit of his services by becoming Special Adviser to the Committee. The changes in the Standing Orders that will become effective as of December 22 of this year, as recommended by the Committee, reflect the quality of his advice and the appreciation of his suggestions.
I should also like to mention our Senior Clerk, Mr. Robert Marleau, who helped a great deal in planning the Committee's work and organizing the support staff, which did a tremendous job. Mr. Philip Laundy and all the Library of Parliament staff provided invaluable and very substantial assistance. Mr. Speaker, when the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) announced in June that this Committee would be formed, he was keeping his word, because I remember clearly that as soon as he was appointed Government House Leader, he came out in favour of parliamentary reform and announced that he intended to start the process during his first term. The fact that we have now approved the Committee's recommendations demonstrates that he was sincere. That is entirely to his credit, and I am pleased to offer him my sincere congratulations.
Mr. Speaker, when my colleagues on the Government side asked me to chair the Committee's proceedings, I knew I was taking on an extraordinary challenge. I admit that I thought about it for some time before I accepted, not because I was intimidated by the challenge, but because I wanted to be sure that all parties were taking seriously the need to change our Standing Orders and procedures. As we all know, Parliament is going through a very difficult period and our credibility is at stake. It was therefore not unreasonable to wonder whether it was possible to find twenty members representing the three parties in the House, a team that would be able to reach a consensus so that the Committee could table a unanimous, serious report with realistic recommendations, with the hope of gaining the approval of all parties so that the recommendations could be implemented in the near future.
Mr. Speaker, I soon realized that all three parties were serious and sincere when I saw the list of Hon. Members sitting on the Committee. My nineteen colleagues on the Committee reflect, 1 believe, the aspirations of Canadians from all parts of this country and include a number of former ministers, experienced members of Parliament and also newly elected members. This is a splendid team. I am very grateful to them, first of all for having elected me as Chairman of the
Committee and second, I am grateful for their sincerity, their dedication and their commitment. The fact that the Committee's report has met with the approval of all parties in this House proves that Committee members have done an extraordinary job, and they deserve the congratulations of all their colleagues. I also wish to mention the invaluable assistance I received from the Committee's two Vice-Chairmen, the first being my colleague, the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker), former minister in the Progressive Conservative Government.
This Hon. Member showed on many occasions that he could rise above political partisanship and demonstrate his love and respect for this institution in helping us arrive at these recommendations. It was personally rewarding to me to have the opportunity of working with him.
I would also like to mention the great help brought to the committee by the knowledge of the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans). It was important that our recommendations reflect the concerns of the third Party and his interventions assured this to the committee. Both of the Hon. Members helped to make my task much easier. This report reflects their commitment as well as that of all the other Members.
I would like to make special mention of the constant presence and participation of the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand), who was not a member but attended every meeting and participated. After hearing witnesses, we spent some time allowing members of the committee to restate their concerns with regard to reform. During this process, it became evident to me that we were beginning to function, not as a committee made up of partisan MPs, but rather as Parliamentarians concerned about the health of this institution. We all had a common goal of effecting meaningful and constructive changes in an atmosphere of collegiality and based on consensus. The attendance of the members of this committee was well above the norm in all my years of experience here, and their interventions in debate always had a very high standard. Again, I wish to stress the fact that the House has benefited because the people on the committee acted as Members of Parliament and not as representatives of political parties. I am amazed at the great quantity and high quality of work which can be done when this is the case.
The first series of meetings allowed us to identify the issues of reform. We then realized in subsequent meetings that there were certain reforms which could be implemented immediately while others would require further study and perhaps the summoning of further witnesses. We determined that it was important to have a beginning to the reform process and, for that reason, submitted the report and committed ourselves to subsequent reports to follow.
November 29, 1982

The changes suggested in the report, while allowing the Government to govern, addressed the balance which must be maintained to enable a Member of Parliament effectively to represent the electorate. These reforms will enhance the role of the Member in the House of Commons debates and in the committee system as well.
I would like to mention briefly some of the recommendations. The first is with reference to the fixed dates for sittings or the parliamentary calendar. Finally we will know and, more importantly, Canadians will know when their Parliament is in session. After 115 or 116 years, the Canadian people will know. The parliamentary calendar will enable all of us, whether in Government or in Opposition, to plan our activities more rationally and effectively.
Concerning the item on the length of speeches, the committee feels that the implementation of the recommendation of shorter speeches with a short debate following will greatly help in making this forum more lively and, especially, more relevant.
With regard to the subject of committee reform, it has long been felt by most of us that the committee system needed revamping, and quickly. Our proposals point the way in helping to make the role of the PM more meaningful and important through committee work.
I would like to draw attention to the fact that, with regard to the future, we in the committee view this report as only a beginning, yet a very important and meaningful beginning. I would like to assure Hon. Members that we are still working and have committed ourselves to at least two or three further reports.
The section of the report dealing with the future does list a number of matters with which the committee will be dealing as its meetings continue. The future report of the committee will deal with the issue of accountability. Two of our Members have tabled a report on that matter and we are studying what has been referred to as the Huntington/Lachance report, which shows the quality of the work that can be accomplished within this type of committee. This will focus on the relevant aspects of ministerial, administrative and financial responsibility.
The structure of the committee system will also be studied. This will involve items such as the introduction of a panel of chairmen, administrative budgets for committees and the possibility of minority reports. While the position of the Private Member has been considerably enhanced by the present recommendations, the committee will continue to deal with this subject.
The institution of the Speakership will form the subject of a special report. Attention will be directed to the planning of the legislative agenda and non-controversial legislation.
Once again, I wish to thank all members of the committee for their excellent work, the three Party House Leaders and all Hon. Members of this House, for without their support, no matter how excellent our work, the House would not have given its unanimous approval, which it did. Unanimous
Parliamentary Reform
acceptance was crucial in having its recommendations implemented. I recognize, as well, the importance of the support given by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Clark) and the Leader of the NDP (Mr. Broadbent), and this is also to their credit.
In conclusion and in keeping with the recommendation in the report, if any of my colleagues wish to question me-and I notice that the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) made the same offer-I will be pleased to answer those questions that I am able to answer, with Your Honour's permission.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I want first of all to thank the Hon. Member for Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle (Mr. Lefebvre) for his kind wishes and extremely kind sentiments expressed towards me and, of course, towards the other members of the committee, but I speak personally now and want to thank him very much. I want to reciprocate by saying that, under his chairmanship, this committee has for me been one of the happiest experiences of my parliamentary life which extends, as does that of many other Members, over some ten years.
I think it is fair to say that the committee was successful in many ways because its presiding officer, the chairman of the committee, was not wont to stand on Members, was able to give Members sufficient time to express themselves, did not come to his work in the chair with preconceived notions, but, more than that, brought years of experience and understanding of how this place works to bear on the work that we were given by the terms of reference.
I want to say that if we have been successful-certainly there has been co-operation among the members of the committee-it is because there has been great leadership by the chairman of the committee, and I am sure that my colleagues on all sides of the House of Commons would want to share in that sentiment.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: I am pleased that he mentioned the support that has been given to parliamentary reform by the Leaders of the Parties, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark), and the Hon. Member for Oshawa, the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent). I think it is fair to say that the Party Leaders have given their support to parliamentary reform.
I think it is appropriate that at the beginning of my speech I pay tribute to the Leader of the Opposition. The House Leader of the Government (Mr. Pinard) paid tribute to his Leader. It was the Leader of the Opposition who, in the campaign in 1979 and in his first term as Prime Minister of Canada, indicated two commitments: the reform of the Parliament of Canada, hopefully; secondly, the question of openness in Government.

November 29, 1982
Parliamentary Reform
I was honoured with the responsibility of leading in the preparation of the position paper on parliamentary reform in 1979, with the backing of the then Prime Minister; and I also had the privilege of introducing in this House the first freedom of information legislation in the Parliament of Canada introduced by a Government, which I also remember with great affection. I see my friend across the aisle smiling, but I do remember it with great affection and long to return to the opportunity of introducing legislation. In any event, it was a commitment by my Party Leader to those issues that allowed that to be done very early, and I think that is important and hope the House will understand if 1 say that our Party has been known as the Party of reform in terms of this institution.
The next thing 1 would like to mention is the work of Mr. Alistair Fraser, the officers of the Table, the people from the Library of Parliament and all of the staff of this Parliament who have been so helpful to us. They have really been a strong rod and staff.
I would like to say to my own House Leader, the Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), that many of the reservations that he has expressed, as House Leaders of Oppositions are wont to do-I can say that now because I am no longer the House Leader of the Opposition-are reservations that were expressed in the committee which were dealt with and put aside.
We recognized in the committee that just as the committee itself would fail if the members of that committee did not act in good faith, so the whole process of reform would fail if the Government, Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition and the third Party in the House of Commons did not act in good faith. Men can devise rules from now until the Second Coming and there will never be a set of rules that will encompass the concerns of all people on all sides of the House of Commons. 1 am not commenting on the validity of those concerns because those are always concerns; they are legitimate reservations that one has. But one can take a look at the rules of this House, of the British House, of the American Congress and the Australian House of Representatives and one can find gaping loopholes in those rules. They run there on good faith. If the place is to run at all, it will run on good faith. If this experiment is to be successful-because that is what it is-it will have to be carried out in good faith, and the burden of the failure will lie on the heads of those who do not act in good faith.
The committee understood that they were embarking on a bit of a new voyage in terms of this report. I want to say to the House that there was an understanding among all the members of that committee that Governments have certain responsibilities, Governments must get a legislative program through-or should get a legislative program through. The public will judge whether that legislative program is good or bad. But Members of Parliament, the Opposition certainly but Members of Parliament on all sides of the House who do not form the executive, who are not members of the Cabinet, have to have the tools by which they can examine what Governments are doing.
1 believe there is more to this House of Commons than merely saying yes or no to what Government proposes. I think there is much more to this place than what is contained in those epithets that one hears-the "trained seals", the "sheep" and so on. I believe there is much more to it than that. Not only should we, in a modern democracy, be able to vote yes or no to sustain a Government or not; surely we have to have the tools to ask the questions why and why not?
If the purpose of Parliament is anything, it is to allow Members of Parliament who are not in the Government to do much more than just dispose of what Government brings to Parliament. It is much more than that. Surely it is to ask those questions, to inquire, to let Government propose on the one hand, but to be able to inquire without hindrance into the merit of what it proposes on the other. It is this sense of balance that I have tried to put to the House that occupied the work of the committee.
I want to say that we as a committee have not regarded this report as the last word in parliamentary reform. It is the first word in parliamentary reform. It is the first word that has been adopted out of the unanimous report without any changes whatsoever. That is historical, I believe at least in your time, Mr. Speaker, and your time extends back for some period. I will not say how long. 1 think that is something for all of us to remember. It puts a tremendous burden on all of us.
The Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill said that the purpose of this first work is to break the ice. 1 say it is a log jam. It is hopefully to bring an end to what has been written about in learned journals as a crisis in confidence in the Parliament of Canada. The people are looking at our political institutions, and they are looking at them with a sense of cynicism. They say they are not representative. They say Governments can do what they want without hindrance. They say that the Member is bound by the Party line; he can never speak as he would like to speak, he must always vote the Party line. Our committee has indicated that the very fundamental matter of confidence is something that is going to be looked at in the future section of the report. We look, as a committee, at the independent references to committees, using the techniques which have been described by the Hon. Member for Rosemont (Mr. Lachance), as the way in which Parliament can get out from under the thumb of government. It seems to me that whether the government is Conservative, Liberal, or New Democratic, if the latter should ever happen, it does not make much difference in the parliamentary system. Members of Parliament have been heretofore under the thumb of government in terms of what they can do and what they cannot do, what they can investigate and what they cannot investigate.
I believe it is in keeping with the parliamentary system that further power be granted to the House. If Governments act improperly in granting this power, if they do not call committees, then there is going to be one devil of a political price to pay. On the other hand, in the use of that power, if Members of Parliament, in the Opposition, perhaps, or anywhere else,
November 29, 1982

act irresponsibly, then there is going to be a political price to pay. Obstruction heretofore has been the only real weapon that an Opposition has, and that is what has happened to the system. I put it to you that as we develop these rules, the Opposition will still have the legitimate use of obstruction. It is still there. But what we as a committee hope is that there will be provided some other weapons as well, the weapons of legitimate inquiry, of independence, and we hope that as our work goes forward we will have further resources.
The work of this Committee, Mr. Speaker, has just begun. Every one of us, Liberal, Conservative, New Democrat, Independent, if we believe in this Parliament we have to give this experiment an honest try. We will be worried about how it proceeds, naturally. It is an experiment, but it is the first time when we can perhaps begin to turn this crisis around.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I want to commend to every Member of this House that they read very carefully the future section of this Report, and I want to say to the Government House Leader that I believe it is important that this Committee stay together for the length of this experiment. This Committee that has worked so well together, should stay together and continue to work. I believe that is important to the success of the experiment, in order to bring about the whole change which the House Leader for the Opposition spoke about. I want to thank my hon. friends for the privilege of serving on that Committee. I hope the Government will allow it to continue so that we will be able to begin the second step of bringing this institution out of some of the chaos and crisis.


Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil):: Mr. Speaker, I must admit it is a great pleasure for me to participate in this discussion this afternoon, particularly to follow the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker). I say that in all sincerity because there have been two very pleasant experiences in my ten years in Ottawa; one was the time we spent on the Fiscal Transfer Payments Committee, and the other one was the time we spent on the committee discussing the change to the House regulations.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: That is because I was on both of them.


Harold Thomas Herbert: And I must admit that the hon. gentleman for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie), who participated on both committees, made it particularly enjoyable. In all sincerity, one of the reasons I enjoyed those two committees was that the attitude of the Members was non-partisan. It was an attempt to accomplish as much as possible in a non-partisan fashion. As a result of that, the work of those two committees has born fruit. In the case of the committee studying the changes to the regulations, of course, all we have brought in at the moment is an interim report. I believe that the major work of the committee has yet to be accomplished. I say this because, and I see across the floor of the House, the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington), I believe that the tough stuff, the difficult work, the discussions of how we are going to change the rules as they relate to accountability, are still to come. I know this is
Parliamentary Reform
not likely to result in the same consensus as we have had up to date. However, my purpose is not to speak of what is to come, but to speak of what we have done so far.
I must admit that, as do all Members of the Committee, I have certain reservations on some of the items on which we have reached a consensus. I did say, for example, in a somewhat lighter vein, that I was concerned about what we were going to be doing with our evenings in the future when we were not working in the House or on Committees, although I have been assured the Government is going to find something to keep us out of mischief. Nevertheless, there were certain other aspects on which individual Members were not necessarily in agreement. I wondered if we were wise to devote Wednesday afternoon entirely to Private Members' Business. However, it is on this particular subject that I want to address my remarks this afternoon.
We have not yet come to the stage of discussing how best to use the amount of time that is allocated to the individual Members of this House of Commons, and I do want to express my opinion that this is one of the decisions which the Committee is going to have to reach at a fairly early stage, a recommendation on the basis on which the Members will be able to bring their representations to the floor of the House for decision of the Members. I say this in all sincerity. It is not the decision of the Government, it is the decision of the Members. We have to be able to bring our representations forth in a fashion in which we can have what I would term a "free" vote. Thus I proposed to the Committee, through my own brief, as most Members submitted their individual briefs, that we find some means by which we can make Private Members' Hour more meaningful. As many Members will be aware, I have a habit of standing up here at five o'clock on a Thursday afternoon and attempting to use up one hour or part of one hour of Private Members' time. I do not do this with any great pleasure. I must admit I do it because I have some representation to make, but I also do it because we do not have a mechanism at the present time by which we can come to a decision on an issue without putting the Government in a difficult position. In other words, the Government has to suggest to its Members that they have to vote against a particular motion when the public might assume that it would make a lot more sense to vote in favour of the subject matter.
My suggestion, for what it is worth, is that we should find some mechanism by which representations of individual Members can go to a special committee for study. The committee would then report back to the House, not necessarily in the same form as the Hon. Member's original representation, but would report back to the House in a fashion that has been well considered, possibly after the calling of witnesses, and at that stage, the report would be subject to debate. The report itself would then probably lead to a vote. Since the vote would not be binding on the Government, I see this as probably one of the easiest ways to get a free expression of opinion amongst the Members of this House.
21086

November 29, 1982
Parliamentary Reform
Now, I have talked on this particular point to illustrate, as my good friend, the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) said, that the work of the committee has only just started. We have a long way to go, and this is one of the items discussed briefly and put aside because it will mean lengthy discussions before we arrive at a consensus. But it must be abundantly clear to everyone who looks at the new rules that putting together three Private Members' Hours on a Wednesday afternoon does not resolve the present difficulty of private Members' representations being generally of little value except for putting in a mailer to illustrate to the Member's constituents his own point of view on a particular subject. At some point we must face the need to bring the issue to the floor of the House for decision by all Members.
The same applies in many other areas. I spoke of accountability, but everyone knows we have also discussed amongst ourselves the personal issues, personal to Members of Parliament, as to how we should govern our own affairs. In other words, we have discussed the manner in which the choice of the speaker should be decided. These are things on which we have to reach a decision and on which, I hope, the consensus of Members of the committee will be sought in future reports.
As is generally known, it is our intention to look at the operation of other legislative bodies, particularly Westminster, which is essentially the pattern on which we operate here. We hope to gain from them some additional wisdom from which to make further recommendations to the House. It is not my intention to delve in depth into the problems facing our committee, but only to say that I was so delighted with the attitude of the Members in the deliberations so far that I am encouraged, probably for the first time in my nine years here-maybe I should say for the second time because I was also encouraged by the non-partisan attitude on the committee concerned with transfer payments-because I saw 20 individual Members who were able to pursue a consensus through freely expressing their point of view in a non-partisan fashion. We had an objective. We all recognized that the House as it is presently operating is not functioning satisfactorily. We recognized that the public had an image of the House which made us less than proud of the part we were playing in its operation. With that objective in mind, we decided that we had to bring forth some meaningful changes which would encourage the public to have a little more confidence in their legislative body.
I will conclude, Mr. Speaker, by saying how pleased I was to participate in the discussions, and how happy I am that we were able to come to a consensus on so many wide and different subjects, and present to the House a unanimous report. I think that in itself was a tremendous achievement. I hope and pray that in future deliberations of this committee which, as the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton says, must continue- and I hope this point has been well made to Government; no matter what happens when this session ends, no matter what time this session ends, we honestly believe that committee must continue in the same spirit in order to ensure our legislative body is able to convey to the public that, apart from the
normal partisanship which must exist between the Government and Opposition, there is a spirit on the part of all Members of this House to ensure that it makes some sense and that it is something of which we can all be proud. We want the public to feel that this is a good body of people they have sent to Ottawa to do their job, and in that regard they are satisfied with the way in which we operate.
As I have set out to convey, Mr. Speaker, we have a lot of work to do. I feel a lot has been accomplished. I would like publicly to express my appreciation to my colleagues on the committee for the enjoyable meetings we had, and the fact that we were able to reach a consensus. It is also my hope that the same spirit will continue in our future deliberations.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I am very honoured to participate in this debate, in particular because I am not a member of the committee concerned, yet I have read the third report of the committee and its nine recommendations for fundamental change. While I quite approve of the concerns expressed by my House Leader on some of the implications of these changes, as only time will tell, I certainly do agree with my friend, the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker), the Vice-Chairman of the committee, that this is certainly an historic day when the report of a committee on procedure is to be unanimously adopted by this House. My House Leader is here and can well reflect on the last committee concerned with the change of rules, which is referred to briefly in the report. It was a tremendously different mood then compared to what it is today, because the last changes were forced on the House by closure brought on by the now resurrected Mr. Macdonald, Chairman of the Royal Commission on the Economy. I well remember the prolonged debate, and in fact closure was invoked in a hot July. I agree with all Members who have spoken today about the tremendous difference in attitude today when this experimentation in effect is agreed on by all Members with the full knowledge that there may be some imperfections or dilemmas not fully seen by the committee, but at least it is a first step.
I agree completely, Mr. Speaker, with something said by the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton. It certainly has been my experience around here, that is, that you can pervert and prostitute any rule or procedure you want if you do not have good faith and a little understanding of each other's point of view. I think that is one of the things which affected, adversely, the work of the last committee on procedure, of which I was happy to be a member and which was chaired by Mr. Sharp, the then Government House Leader. We travelled to England, we did everything that all committees do, and we came up with many interim reports, and of course nothing was ever adopted because we got bogged down in a real partisan atmosphere where the work of that committee went for naught. I think we had some type of report in 1976 and nothing ever came of it.
In this case, Mr. Speaker, I am bemused and frankly amazed that this committee, with its 20 members, could come up with an objective report and get agreement on recommending to their respective caucuses agreement on the report so that
November 29, 1982

it could come before this House as a unanimous recommendation of the three Parties. I do not know really what the reason for that is, whether we are prepared to agree on an experiment because we know we are more than half way through this session and change for a year will not affect too much as long as it is provisional and experimental; or whether it is the reading of the polls, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps it is the more willingly receptive nature of Government Members to experiment with rule changes. The idea could be that after another election the positions could be reversed. They could be sitting to the left of the Speaker, wanting certain changes. Frankly, no matter on which side of the House one sits, there is agreement that the rules do constipate Members in the discharge of their duties.
Regardless of the reasons for this, Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to participate in the debate in the 15 minutes allocated to me, recognizing the admonition of my House Leader that in the next session the good faith exhibited by members of the committee be continued. It has to be continued, Mr. Speaker, and I think it can be, because of the calibre of members of that committee. I think they can influence their House Leaders.
As has been indicated in the speeches we have heard today, I firmly believe that the changes to the rules of the House of Commons are not changes to the rules of a House Leader or the rules of a Party, but to the rules of the Members.
I was disappointed that I was not a member of that committee but unfortunately, all the Members from this Party were very diligent in their attendance and their contribution, so I could not sneak in the back door. I will remedy that on another day. Because of their diligence I hope that we succeed with this experiment. It is a first step, a break in the logjam. We all know that although one can break a logjam, that still does not get the logs to market; there can be many back eddies or rocks and obstructions before the logs get to market.
I hope against hope that the good work of the committee and all the interesting experiments that will take place in the next year, will end in the adoption of these changes.
Even more fundamental than the good work that has been done on the issue of accountability, is the matter of votes of confidence in this House. This was touched upon by the Hon. Member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) and the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton. We can tinker around with the rules with all the goodwill in the world, but we must meet the issue of accountability, which is the reason the House of Commons was created all those years ago. Indeed, the reason for this Chamber being green is to represent the meadow in which the barons met behind the bullrushes, so that the King could not see them meeting and planning to resist his authority. All that is history, but accountability is fundamental today when even the Auditor General says that spending is out of control.
Speaking as a private Member, something that I think is even more fundamental than accountability, is a change in the rules as they relate to votes of confidence. There are many reasons why this change is forced upon us. It is overdue. One element has not been touched upon today, although it was
Parliamentary Reform
perhaps part of the deliberations of the committee, and that is that before another election there could be 28 new Members in this House. I will not get into the pros and cons of that issue, but I believe that the larger this institution becomes, the more fundamental is its reform. It is important that through Private Members' Hour, or through Members acting collectively or acting privately but without Party Whips, it should be possible to influence the legislative process.
It is as clear as it is that the sky is blue over Nova Scotia all the time, and as it is that it is sometimes foggy in Vancouver, that as the base of the legislature is expanded-be that in England with 485 Members, be it Russia with the Soviet Socialist Republics and Members coming off the steppes, the Urals or Siberia-the larger the institution the more powerful the executive becomes, regardless of its political stripe.
It is for that reason that I am glad we are discussing some of the nine changes. I will not go into detail on all of them as we will have a chance to experiment with them and get into the details in the next session.
I could talk about the paradoxes of this place, Mr. Speaker. As I said in the brief that I sent to the Committee, never have there been more people coming to the House, never have more people been able to see the House through the means of television, but also never has the House or its Members been more out of the touch with the public.
Another paradox should force change, and if it does not, then this place is terminally ill. I think Members of the Committee recognized that because they came up with some changes, but not the one with which I want to deal now. The other paradox which forces change is that it is now a full-time job to be a Member of Parliament. I come from the East, other Members come from distant places in the West and from Central Canada, but regardless of where we come from, this is a full-time job. I am very happy to consider some type of parliamentary timetable. Jesus Christ taught in parables but 1 like to teach in paradoxes.
This institution is supposed to organize the business of Government and the business of the country but until a parliamentary timetable was suggested, we could not even organize our own time. That was an ironic paradox, I think. We are paid on the basis of a full-time occupation. Even though we may be pseudo-celebrities because of television and may have some status in our ridings, because of the different lifestyle necessitated by travelling back and forth to Ottawa, there are difficulties.
No matter how many improvements have been introduced since 1 became a Member-and I give full credit to the Government for the improvement in research facilities, constituency offices, technological change and travel privileges- there is no substitute for the physical presence of the Member in the House. That is a fundamental lesson that I have learned since becoming a Member. Members must be able to have a focus in their ridings so that their constituents can feel they have an opportunity to contribute to the legislative process and are not just taking part in a charade.

November 29, 1982
Parliamentary Reform
In many ways we are nobodies, Mr. Speaker. I believe that is a philosophical question which could be debated. I certainly believe that Members of the British Parliament are nobodies, unless they sit in Cabinet or in the shadow cabinet of the Opposition front bench. That is England.
My time has almost expired, Mr. Speaker. I am very glad that everyone complied with the 15-minute rule, after the opening round. The most fundamental question that Members who speak later could touch upon is the matter of votes of confidence. Ironically, the issues of the day have already caused us to experiment with that. There are some issues that carry no Party label-capital punishment, marijuana, abortion-and are social issues, matters of conscience. When Mr. Pearson was Prime Minister he experimented with a vote of confidence in theory and it was basically carried out in practice-a free vote.
This question should not be put off, Mr. Speaker. The Committee brought in a third report, but it will fail this House and the public if in its next mandate it does not address the question of a two-tier system of votes of confidence. I submit that if a Government loses a vote on the Throne Speech, a Budget or on tax Bills, it should then definitely fall. The Prime Minister should tell his Members they must support the Government or else take to the hustings. No Member likes to go out on the hustings; there is a possibility of being stricken by a terminal disease. On the other hand, on Bills such as those affecting unemployment insurance, medicare, Canada Day, Dominion Day, the railways or air transport, if the Government loses the vote, the next statement made by the Chair should be to the effect that "Bill so-and-so has been defeated. Has the Government lost the confidence of the House?" In 999 cases out of 1,000 the Government would not have lost the confidence of the House, but there would have been a clear direction from all Members for the Bill to be amended and then brought back to the House where it would get the support from all Members. That is as it should be.


Mr. Prud'homme:: Agreed!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Why should we continue to vote as was done in the days of John A. Macdonald? We are being paid a good salary and are given benefits, yet the vote is conducted as it was 100-odd years ago.
There is much more that I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, but I will conclude by saying that I believe this first step for procedural reform could become the proverbial procedural leap for the Canadian Parliament.


Mr. Collenette:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I was wondering whether the Hon. Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan) would clarify a point that he made in the first part of his speech. He said that the last major rule changes in the House of Commons came about as a result of the implication of Standing Order 33. I was under the
impression that it was only one part of those changes which applied to Standing Order 33, and that the rules changes report was accepted unanimously, with the exception of the change proposed to set up the time allocations proposals under Standing Order 75.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to respond to the Hon. Member who I know at that time was a very valuable member of the committee. He will also know from his work in the committee that he is quite correct. I was here during the whole debate and I believe, if the Hon. Member really wants the history, that it was the first speech of the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) wherein he invoked closure to get some closure under Standing Order 75A, 75B or 75C, but I can tell him that the temper in the halls and the temper in the House of Commons was nothing like the temper here today.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being after six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock.
At 6.02 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

At 8 p.m. the House resumed.
Mr.   Biaker@Acting Speaker: The last Hon. Member speaking before eight o'clock was the Hon. Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan). I understand he has completed his remarks. Seeing that we have a quorum in the House, I am delighted to recognize next the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Smith).


David P. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in this debate. I consider it an honour to have served on this Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure. I wish to outline a few brief points and make some observations about the report we have before us today. However, before doing that 1 would like to pay tribute to the good leadership that we have had on this committee. In particular, I would like to mention the Chairman, the Vice-Chairmen, Mr. Alistair Fraser and also those connected with the Table who helped us in many ways.
I think this report is a good one. It is an objective and a balanced report. I think it will help to make this place function better and work more efficiently. I have a few points that I would like to make but I will try to follow the example we hope to set in the next little while and give a short speech.
First, it is important to bear in mind that Members on this committee approached their task as parliamentarians. They did not come with the mind-set of an Opposition Member or of a Government Member. Perhaps at our first three meetings there was an inclination on the part of some people to do that. I may have succumbed to the temptation to do that myself, but any attitude that Members had along that line evaporated fairly quickly.
November 29, 1982

The committee made a wise choice in deciding to go out of town on two occasions. We went away for three days on one occasion, and on another occasion for two days. We worked together, we ate together, we set Party differences aside, and I think we developed some camaraderie. I believe the report that we have before us here is proof and evidence of the fact that parliamentarians, regardless of Party, can in fact work together to help make the House function better. The first point to bear in mind is that this report is the work of parliamentarians who worked together as parliamentarians.
Second, what we have here is a balanced package. I suppose the temptation is always there to go through a report like this and say that 1 like this and I do not like that. We will support this but not that because this will help us and that does not. That sort of thing leads to people picking and choosing. I have to commend the House Leaders and the Leaders of all Parties in the House because they did not succumb to that temptation. They accepted to advice of the members of this Committee that this was a balanced package.
Let us take an example. I suppose some people could argue that when the time limit for speeches is reduced, considerably in some instances, that will in the long run perhaps help the Government in that it will speed up the pace with which legislation is dealt. I suppose to some extent that is true. But, on the other hand, by having the Government agree to a fixed annual schedule it loses what has traditionally been a very important tool, one which governments of both Parties have used in the past. For example, when it is near Christmas or early summer the Government can say to the Opposition, "We will not give you a specific date, but here is a list of a certain number of Bills." The Government can say to the Opposition that when those Bills have been disposed of in a reasonable way, the House will adjourn. That is an important and powerful tool for the Government. The Government has given up that tool, and I am pleased it has. In return, however, we will have shorter speeches. That is an example of the way in which this report is balanced.
Third, I think this report will go a long way to making the role of a Member of Parliament more meaningful. Smaller committees will mean that a Member will serve on fewer committees, but the individual will be expected to become more familiar with the subject matter with which the committee deals. By having annual reports automatically going to standing committees, Members of Parliament will be able to get their teeth into the whole question of policy development in a way which they really have not been able to do in their review of the Estimates. Perhaps a lenient chairman might allow that under the current system, but 1 suggest that does not happen too often. We will find this is something that can and will happen, and it is a good thing.
To some extent we are going in the American direction, but not in a way that will allow fishing expeditions. We are going in the American direction in a way that will help bring the Government and the bureaucracy under greater scrutiny by elected officials. In my opinion, that is good.
Parliamentary Reform
Fourth, the adoption of this report will make Parliament more practical and more readily understandable to the public. Let me give a few personal examples, of which a quorum is one. I suppose that I will not be able to close down an Opposition emergency debate any more, as I once did on that famous night you will recall, Mr. Speaker. But that is fine. I am happy to see that surrendered. I do not think that it was-


Erik Nielsen: Sneaky.


David P. Smith: It was not sneaky. I was just using the Standing Orders.
I believe that these recommendations are practical and desirable. Another personal example involves motions under Standing Order 43. I will not be called "Dr. No" any more.


Walter David Baker: You will not be called "Dr. Yes" either.


David P. Smith: 1 think that the motions under Standing Order 43 have really become a charade. The whole rule of urgent and pressing necessity was rarely adhered to. The question of unanimous consent which is necessary to allow a motion to be put but not carried was something that I think many Members did not really understand. That was frequently displayed by the fact that when Members wished to speak on a motion under Standing Order 43 that had been allowed to be put, had received the unanimous consent, they would regularly stand up at the wrong time. This tells us that Members did not understand the process. If Hon. Members do not understand the process you can rest assured that the public does not understand it either. I believe it is a positive step to abandon that practice and proceed with this new system where we have a daily period of 15 minutes which, in my view, acts as a safety valve to allow Members to stand up and sound off on matters of concern. Since we do not have to get into the business of consent for putting motions, I think it will help make this place more understandable.
There is, as well, the question of parliamentary Journals. There are some recommendations which suggest that the Order Papers should have an index. That is desirable. Mr. Speaker, have you ever tried to find something in Monday's Order Paper? It can be pretty difficult sometimes.


Erik Nielsen: You have to understand it.


David P. Smith: That is right. I have worked hard at it. I have a pretty good grasp of it. I suggest that if we can improve those Journals to the point where they become readily comprehensible and understandable it will be of great help. Those are three examples from the recommendations of the report which will make this place more understandable and practical.
Finally, I believe the members of this committee have a positive attitude which is spilling over into the entire House. That is a good effect. This positive attitude means that this experiment will quite likely work.

November 29, 1982
Parliamentary Reform
I suggest that this is a balanced report. It is interesting to note the eagerness with which members of the committee are looking to the remainder of their work. They are anxious to get their teeth into questions such as a review of the Estimates and into major Constitutional issues, such as what constitutes a motion of confidence. Hon. Members are enthusiastic about these subjects and they have built a head of steam in a positive way because they are approaching it from the viewpoint of parliamentarians instead of Opposition or Government Members.
I think that the mood of Hon. Members is healthy. Ironically, this mood is probably in direct contrast to what the public perceives the mood to be. I suggest that the public believes that we fight like cats and dogs in Parliament constantly. If they understood what has been happening on this committee I think they would applaud, welcome it and ask for more of this kind of co-operation. This co-operation has been brought about by many Members making a genuine attempt to make this place better. I think that we will succeed because Members want to make the House work better and they are approaching this change with that parliamentary attitude.
I believe that we will accomplish a great deal next year by proving that notwithstanding the fact that we may have very fierce partisan differences and notwithstanding that the struggle to form the Government will continue, that struggle will continue in a form that is more efficient and one in which the public interests are better served. As a result, I think this country will be better served in the long run.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I feel somewhat out of my depth in speaking on this matter. It is the first time that I have ever spoken about the rules of this place. I do not apologize for that because the first thing I learned when I became involved in activities, which were admittedly somewhat more physical than politics, was what my coach told me: "Never mind the rules. If you do not know them, the referee will always give you a break." I have worked on that assumption and have functioned quite well here.
I realize that the motion which is before us today involves taking a step toward what I think are necessary changes, even for those of us who make no pretense of knowing the rules and thereby rely on the smarter Members to direct us. I do believe, however, like the Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan) and the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), that there are certain things which we should keep in mind.
What we are witnessing today, in my crude analogy, is a group of undertakers preparing the body for burial. Everyone is praising everyone else. I see the jacket put on the deceased. I see the tie being tied. I see the rose put in the lapel and the cheeks being rouged. Everything is being done so nicely that all I can say is, heaven help us all if we do not get down and grapple with some of the real issues about the rules of this Parliament.
With respect to rule changes, everyone of those suggestions made during the experimental period, should be considered as
a small step forward. However, these changes are only cosmetic, unless, as several Members have indicated, the feeling of trust which seems to be surrounding this committee is maintained and supported by those who actually carry out the rules.
For instance, it means nothing whether speeches are 40 minutes or 20 minutes in length. If we want a more effective way to have shorter speeches, I suggest that we will not achieve it by artificially controlling the time. We only have to follow the rules that exist now, and simply insist that the speaker apply what the rules say, that a Member of the House shall not read his speeches. It is as simple as that. We would cut out 90 per cent of the oleaginous type of remark that politicians are wont to make. I am not suggesting that it will work, but perhaps it is a rule we might return to. We can simply return to the old-fashioned principle that if someone has something to say they do not have to read it. A Member may have two or three words written on a piece of paper, but if he speaks his mind, even if poorly expressed, we will understand him. When we allow many Members to read their speeches, it only deadens the whole debate. We cannot have a true debate when we hear a series of prepared speeches.
I am interested in the cosmetic techniques, as I call them, which were advanced that would allow Members to speak for only 20 minutes, with 10 minutes left for questions and answers at the end of their speeches. It will be interesting to see if those Members who have read their speeches can answer the questions. It may be a very wise experiment to see what happens to those Members who think they can appear knowledgeable by reading a written speech. They will be on their own when they are questioned on their remarks.
I am suggesting that the committee, which has assured us in the House today that it has achieved a consensus, a complete unanimity of trust amongst its members, will seriously consider the paper prepared by Hon. Members from eachside of the House, the Hon. Member for Rosemont (Mr. Lachance) and the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington). I have read that paper and I wholeheartedly agree that the heart and depth of what we must do is to give back to Parliament what it once had before 1968. We must do more, as well.
Whether we like it or not, there are many Hon. Members in the House, and there will be many more in a few years. I would like to think that one of the quickest ways to facilitate the functioning of the House is to give Hon. Members every opportunity to speak. The committee should give very serious consideration to what I call the Manitoba system, and I had nothing to do with developing it. At one time there was an NDP Government in Manitoba and a Conservative Opposition, and there was continual fighting in the Legislature. One Member from each side, a fairly senior Member and one who had been a federal Minister, got together and said, "Let us make this thing work and give the Government the chance to legislate and govern, but let us give the Opposition the chance to speak as well". They set up a system where the Legislature was meeting and, simultaneously, in another room, like in our
November 29, 1982

Railway Committee Room, another meeting was being held. If we had such a system, we could wander back and forth between two meetings so we could be in attendance at both places and have more opportunities to speak. There would be a little more freedom concerning the rules in speaking in the other place, which would usually be a committee of a very important sort.
This system introduced in Manitoba ten years ago has brought relative peace and harmony, and there has been very constructive work in that Legislature. 1 think we should call these two men as witnesses to our committee. They are both practical politicians, and I do not believe either of them is a lawyer. They could present their practical experience to our committee, and perhaps we could keep quite a few of our Members busy here and in another place at the same time, yet they would be free to come back and take part in votes and various functions. I put that proposition forth without saying anything more about it.
The second proposal is a longstanding one. To take care of the worry of the Conservative House Leader, the Hon. Member for Yukon, and it is legitimate, we must adopt the principle, on certain important matters, of setting up standing committees as statutory committees as opposed to the procedure carried out now whereby the Government decides to set up a committee and decides when the meetings are to be held, and so on. It should be put into statute. It would be preferable if the head of the committee were always a member of the Opposition and, second, if it had its own staff and were paid any sum of money to get the very best results. Such committees could do the job they are supposed to do but cannot do under our present system no matter how the amount of available time or number of speeches are juggled.
I do not know what the final choices will be concerning statutory committees, but I would suggest, first, that Public Accounts look at the expenditure of moneys. Second, before we spend the money Estimates should be prepared, which would put an end to the farce that we have been living under for the last 14 years in Estimates. Third, transportation should be considered. Two or three years ago a motion was presented by the Hon. Member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger) concerning transportation safety and related matters. These matters should be dealt with by a statutory committee which is always sitting, which is free to call witnesses, and which has sufficient staff to handle this very difficult situation. For instance, I do not think there is a single person in Canada who can cope with railway accounting. We are always seeing ridiculous episodes where the railway says it is losing money and it is always disobeying the laws of Parliament, but we do nothing about that.
The situation became so bad some years ago that all Parties in Parliament agreed that the Department of Transport was not competent to handle railways, airlines or any transportation-related matters. We set up a giant Canadian Transport Commission and gave it all the powers of Parliament, putting it into statutory form. What was the result? The CTC was just ignored by the Government. Under the laws of this land, only Parliament could change the rates on the railways, yet it was
Parliamentary Reform
turned over to a man who wandered up and down, getting agreement from certain groups that the rates should be changed without the participation of Parliament. I refer to VIA Rail. Only the Canadian Transport Commission, under statute, has power to deal with something like VIA Rail, yet we had a Minister who simply ignored the CTC.
Parliament sits here, helpless. Until we can get these matters before a statutory committee which has power, not only to decide the facts, but also to take action on them, then all that we are discussing, designed to give us a chance to work together, is nothing but a sham or cosmetics.
From the temper of the speech of the Hon. Member for Yukon, I get the feeling that God help us all in the House if this committee does not come through with something substantive this year. All sorts of controversial matters have been listed, and we are told that this is what will be done in this year of grace. Many people will be interested to hear what will happen to several of the institutions here. We must trust that this committee will seize these matters and come to some conclusion, even though they are very sensitive matters.
I will refer back to the five statutory committees, and there may be others. There cannot be too many. It might not be possible to put others into special statutory form for several years, but I would suggest that those five would be a good start. I have listed Public Accounts, Estimates and Transportation, and the fourth and fifth are Statutory Instruments and Crown Corporations.
I want to end the second part of my conclusions. The Statutory Instruments Committee simply considers all our regulations. In many cases, not in the hundreds but rather in the thousands, evidence has come forward that the Civil Service has made regulations which have never been passed by Parliament. This is done through a certain little technique, and not a thing is done about it in this Parliament even though we have known about such occurrences for years. To everyone's disgrace in this Chamber, hardly anything has been done by us, with the exception of two or three of us, to protest this action. Let me give a couple of examples.
With reference to the power given to National Revenue, Parliament says that there will be no more succession duties, but regulations come through. A person dies and all of that person's property is deemed to have been sold at the date of death, and succession duties are collected without any approval of Parliament. For eight years I have tried to help orphans. The Minister has admitted, and Parliament says, that all orphans should receive family allowance, but the regulations state that orphans are not to receive it. The same applies to teenaged girls who become pregnant. These things make me annoyed.
I am staying here and I intend to win this battle, this war. Sooner or later, Parliament must back me up. There is no use in any of us coming down here, believing in certain things, if we know our rights, but not being able to do anything about them because of procedures. To the Minister's embarrassment, she stood up and said, "I cannot do anything about it, even

November 29, 1982
Parliamentary Reform
though 1 have admitted it". My request is, please, God, ensure that these people do their job and consider some items of substance under these rule changes next year.
There are many ideas in the Eluntington-Lachance report and many more ideas will be coming forward, I am sure. This trust that has developed in the committee, which is what the success of this report is based on, will it be maintained during this year and will it stand up to the serious changes that have to be made, the simple but serious changes to our rules? If they come through, they will have made their mark and served this country well.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, would like to extend my congratulations to the members of the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure. They worked for long hours all during the summer; they also worked wisely and productively, which is perhaps more important.
1 think they were very wise in recommending to us a package. I was here in the thirtieth Parliament when previous attempts to modernize our rules failed and they failed for a number of reasons, among them the fact that Members tried to improve on a little here and a little there, and the result was that there was no agreement.
The committee members clearly profited from this experience. They recommended a package, and they have asked all Parties to deal with the package as a whole.
The committee should also be congratulated on having brought in an unanimous report. Some of the best moments in this House and in committees happen when Members put aside partisan differences to work constructively on a project together. Putting aside differences does not mean failing to respect them or failing to take into account the realities of our democratic process, but it means working for compromise and consensus in a way that is as fair and as effective as possible. Those are some of the best moments, but they are rare moments.
The system seems to have put a premium on fireworks and on aggressive behaviour rather than on thoughtful, careful examination of issues. As a result, Members with more taste and talent for negotiation and compromise than for confrontation find the House a less satisfactory place to work than caucus or committees or other fields of endeavour.
Because I had a committee meeting this afternoon I was not able to hear all of the speech by the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker). If I understood him correctly in the brief excerpts that I did hear, he was saying that perhaps it is frustration with the system that leads Members to be less than constructive and that if offered a better and more satisfactory way of operating, Members would be glad to take it. I think he is right; and I think we have here a very useful beginning.
The committee members reminded us in their report that the purpose of parliamentary procedure is to enable a democratic assembly to operate effectively and fairly. The recommendations should lead to a much more effective use of time and more opportunity for knowledgeable, conscientious Members to participate publicly.
Members of Parliament on the Government side sometimes find that they may have influenced the development of a policy, but may not even speak in the debate in the House either because of the conflicting demands of committees or because they are very conscious of the need to get the legislation through. They feel that if there are going to be many long speeches from the Opposition they should keep their interventions to the absolute essential, so as not to delay the vote. But our constituents should not have to take it on trust that we are working for them. They should be able to see in the House some public evidence of what they hope and trust we are doing privately.
Some of the proposed recommendations that I think will be particularly helpful to all of us, on all sides of the House, include the recommendation that committees would be free to meet in the evening but that the House would rise at 6.30. This removes one source of time conflict, that is a committee sitting while there is a debate in the House that one would like to hear or participate in.
The second is the question of the parliamentary calendar. The proposal of fixed sittings, and particularly the committee's suggestion that the Government prepare a legislative program before each semester, certainly allows Members an opportunity for orderly planning and preparation. I hope that is an opportunity that will be well used.
Shorter speeches are clearly an advantage, but, as the Hon. Member who has just spoken has pointed out, a shorter speech in itself is not the answer. What is particularly useful, I think, is the proposal for a ten minute question and answer period at the end of each speech. That will certainly put an end to the practice indulged in by only a minority of Members of reading speeches prepared by their researchers but, more important, it will encourage us to listen to each other's speeches and it will provide an opportunity for questions that do advance the argument. Hopefully, knowing that there is that ten minute opportunity we will see fewer of the spurious points of order that are sometimes interjected now by people wanting to get in on the debate, but who are prevented from doing so. The suggestion that is also in this report that the interventions in that ten minute period be relevant and add a constructive element is perhaps an interesting suggestion for the speakers, and one that we hope will be acted on.
1 think we will all be glad to see the end of Standing Order 43 which has ceased to serve any useful purpose and is certainly not understood by the public. The proposal instead to allow Members to make statements for one and one half minutes on matters that they do wish to draw to the attention of the House seems a much better replacement for it.
The report gives a lot of attention to the role of standing committees, and all of these recommendations can only help,
November 29, 1982

that is, the smaller numbers and fewer substitutions, which should add very much to the quality of committee work, and the fact that committees will have the power to initiate inquiries. I am also pleased that the committee is recommending the continuance of special committees and task forces. These short, sharp task-oriented committees have proved their value in the last two years.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, the committee recommended that examination of this procedure be ongoing. I think we can all agree that it is important to keep it contemporary and relevant. We have been given a very useful package here and I think it is important to give it full and fair trial for a year, as proposed.


Robert Joseph Ogle: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy tonight to be able to speak for a few moments on what I believe to be a historic movement taking place in the House of Commons. I am happy also from the historic point of view to be in a discussion following almost immediately after the Hon. Member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton), who spoke quite eloquently a few moments ago. He happened to be the first person I met who was a politician. Actually, he was a candidate. That was at the end of the Second World War when I was a high school student in Rosetown, Saskatchewan, and he had been brought back from Burma where he had been a pilot in the Air Force. I remember his campaign was quite different from those of today. I think he actually campaigned from an old J-3 Piper Cub and long-range on the rural telephone line. It is an interesting factor that the Hon. Member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain has been in this House for many years since and he is also speaking tonight on the question of renewal of the House. I believe what is really taking place is the first solid, concrete step in a renewal which I hope will be for the good, not only of this House of Commons, but for all of Canada. I would also like to join with the other Hon. Members from all Parties in congratulating the members of that committee which prepared the study which we are going to use as a trial effort in the House of Commons next year. The NDP House Leader, the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans), is going around today with a very happy smile on his face. Probably the Hon. Members on both sides believe the smile indicates that he is only happy with this legislation before the House, but I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, the House Leader for the New Democrats has become a grandfather today for the first time, so he is taking on a sort of other aura of zeal, or whatever happens when you become a grandfather for the first time, and I would like to pay tribute to him and to his daughter, and particularly to his granddaughter, Melissa Folino, on her first day of life in Hamilton. I hope she lives to see this House of Commons become a much more effective place to operate.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Joseph Ogle: The particular reason why I believe the legislation is so important tonight, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that I believe the House of Commons may find, through this new legislation, this new practice, a higher level and degree of credibility,
Parliamentary Reform
because I think the Members of this House have experienced with Canadians a frustration. Because they are Members of the House they are challenged over and over again by people who ask them what they are doing here. "Why do you act like that? Why are you not serious?" Again, as 1 have said in other speeches in this House, I have not met a single Member of Parliament who I feel is not serious. People do not come here unless they are serious, unless they really have the good of Canada at heart. I hope that through these steps that are being taken today under this motion everyone will benefit, and 1 thank those who have done the hard work over the past summer in bringing it about. I do hope the final result will be that there will be a new image of credibility arising from ail of us who are Members of this House of Commons.
Basically, the problem is that it is very difficult to have a large group of people do anything properly. My experience has been that if you put enough people together to do something, they will always do it poorly. That is not to say they are not trying. It is just simply difficult to have any large group of people do anything at the same time and do it well. Because we are all human beings, we do not do things perfectly.
This reform which we are working at now will not be the last reform. It is only a step. We will find it is imperfect, and something else will be needed down the road. However, the step is the important part, and that is why I rejoice with other Members in the House today who are so willing to accept this new effort. I am sure this motion will bring about progress and through it we will find a way in which the wisdom, knowledge and experience of the members who are here now, the future Members of the House of Commons and future Canadians, will be refined and directed in such a way that it can truly be a directive for the good of our country and for the good of the world, because we are part and parcel of the family of nations.
What I would like to speak on particularly is the length of the speeches. I feel that the short speech will be a much more effective speech. Anyone who has ever preached a sermon will know it is very easy to preach a long sermon and very difficult to preach a short one. The simple fact is that if we are going to say something concisely, it is necessary to work much harder preparing it. For that reason, 1 believe that speeches limited now to 20 minutes in the House, with the debate period afterwards in which the speaker can be challenged on his facts or presentation, will make for better speeches. I do not have any doubt about that at all and I am looking forward to it.
In the same light I would like to think that perhaps other modes of debate could be found which the committee can study. For instance, in the Congress of Brazil, which I am partly familiar with, the speaker speaks from the front. He speaks down toward the people in the House of Commons, which is a much easier way to speak. But at the same time there is another person from the Opposition who stands there also with a microphone, and the Speaker of the House can interrupt the debate at anytime to let the other person make his point. It turns into a real debate in which a point is made, which can be challenged by the other side. This is something

November 29, 1982
Parliamentary Reform
that could be looked at by the committee because there just has to be a better way to engage in debate than the way we do now.
I would also like to speak about the size of the committees. I really believe that bringing these committees down to a smaller size will be for the betterment of all. One of the best experiences I have had in the House of Commons was working on the North-South Task Force. I think the members of that task force, and other task forces that worked last year, will all relate a similar kind of experience. Working with a small group on a specific project, there was a kind of a friendship that grew between all three Parties. There was respect. The task force members were not changed, the attitude was, you were responsible, you were there and you did it. Therefore, I am happy to see we are going to try seriously to work with smaller committees, which I feel will do a lot more good down the road.
Something else I would like to speak about is the system of voting, and I hope the committee, as it continues its studies, will look at that problem. I call it a problem because so much time, to my mind, is wasted in the House waiting for the vote. As all Members of Parliament know, when the bell rings there is a kind of great vacuum which starts in the life of a Member of Parliament while he waits for the vote. That can be 15 minutes or 16 days. You just do not know when the vote is coming. Last week we had a vote here which was called at about six o'clock. The vote was finally taken at 7.15 in the evening. For that hour and 15 minutes I felt really frustrated, along with everyone else in this House. I really believe that has to change. I would suggest that the Committee look at modern voting techniques like that which is used at the United Nations. It is an electronic voting device, with buttons on the desk with which the Member can indicate his vote. There are buttons for yes, no, abstain and absent. That is all you can do with this kind of a voting system. It should be possible to have an electronic voting system. We could keep the traditional vote for six or seven times a year to make sure that Hon. Members could stand up and be counted. That has some reason to it. But not for all the votes. If some of the votes could be, let us say, on a 30-minute bell, or the vote would be scheduled for eight o'clock, I say that it should be possible for a Members of Parliament to vote anytime prior to that, and it should be done electronically. It could be done in any part of the House of Commons, Confederation Building, West Block, wherever. If we each were issued a card which had an electronic code on it, we could put in a slot some place and our vote would be recorded. At 7.30 or eight o'clock the Speaker could indicate the vote was counted and the results would be listed on a board. The count would be there and the press or anyone else could print it in the newspaper the next morning. I think people might be more interested if they had a vote count everyday.


An Hon. Member:: They'd think they were at a hockey game.


Robert Joseph Ogle: No, they would not. They would have a feeling they knew what was going on. I do not know how many people in Canada know when we vote or what the votes are, but I think that kind of system would make it much easier for all the people of Canada to know how their Member voted. They would know whether he or she were there, yes, no, or whatever, it could be reported and printed in the paper every day after a vote.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that what is happening today is a good thing but it is just the beginning. We have not done many of the things that could be done. I think the life of an MP, having talked to some of the older Members, is more difficult today because of the speed of a lot of things, transport being one. Members go home to their ridings every Friday night, like myself, spending six or seven hours on the plane each way. In the old days Members came down in September on the train, a nice slow ride down, stayed in Ottawa till Christmas, when they might go back. It was very different then. Interestingly enough-and all the Members can speak to this-everyone finds one or two or three constituents on the plane every trip we make. It is a great place to get information, but the work keeps on because the constituent finally has his or her Member belted down. You cannot get up, they will tell you exactly what they want you to hear. It is great.
In any event, Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to have had the chance to say a few words on this motion tonight. I do not see a great light shining yet, but there is a little glimmer down at the end of the tunnel, and I believe with this step and others which will come, the knowledge, experience and wisdom of the people in this House will be directed more clearly and exactly in the direction Canadians want it to be directed.


David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Committee, I welcome the opportunity to take part in this particular debate for a number of reasons. As has been stated by people on all sides who served on this committee, this was without doubt one of the most significant experiences in my parliamentary life. It was a model of parliamentary courtesy and it restored my faith in the ability of Canadians to get together to work something out. Indeed, it restored my faith in the system itself. Credit for that should go of course to our chairman, the Hon. Member for Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle (Mr. Lefebvre), and the two Vice-Chairmen, the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) and the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans). But I would be remiss in not mentioning the work done over the years by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), a man who has served this institution well for nearly 40 years, and for whom many of us have the greatest respect, and in whom many of us see the repository of every procedural wisdom. It is my regret that because of his recovery from his illness he could not take part in that particular committee, but his spirit was very much with us and I know I discussed the proceedings of the Committee with him on an ongoing basis, as I am sure did other Members of the committee.
November 29, 1982

This report is only the beginning, Mr. Speaker. In a sense we have just tinkered with the rules, but in such a way as to mark a beginning in the real reform of this House. Let us focus on three things: the parliamentary calendar, which is going to make it more rational for the Government to get its program through Parliament; the parliamentary timetable, which will have the effect of making the House a more humane environment in which to work; then there is the enhancement of the MPs role. So this report is only the beginning. Some may say it is too modest, but it took a lot of discussion and soul-searching. After the report was tabled it took a lot of soul-searching on the part of the Parties to accept it. In particular I would like to pay tribute to our House Leader, who has just come into the House, for having facilitated the easy passage of this report through the Government. I believe that was no mean feat, because there were reservations on the Government side, as I am sure there were reservations in the other two Parties. But the fact is that the Government and the Opposition have shown their faith in the members of the committee. That in itself is a significant fact. It is significant for those of us who have participated in that committee.
Where do we go from here? The Hon. Member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) made an excellent point. There is some responsibility with the Chair, Mr. Speaker, and 1 am speaking to you and your colleagues in the chair directly. There are some things we cannot do in changing the rules. We can only have faith in you and your colleagues that you will apply the rules in the best spirit. The point made by the Hon. Member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain was indeed a very salient one, that the rules in effect now should be enforced. I am talking about the rules of relevance and the basic courtesies of the House in the Standing Orders, which should be observed and enforced by the Chair. I hope this debate will in a sense make you, Mr. Speaker, feel obligated to deal with this matter very seriously.
The thing I want to dwell upon, Mr. Speaker, is the third point I raised, the enhancement of the role of the backbenchers. In the last 25 years the Government has come to dominate the House. Indeed, it is in the last 100 years, both here and at Westminster. This cannot be helped because society has become more complex, the demands on Government more stringent; but the power of the executive must be checked, not only for the sake of the country and the institution but for the sake of the government itself. A hundred years ago, Mr. Speaker, in Westminster and in this House most of the legislation which came forward was private Members' Bills. Now, most of the time it is government time. Private Members' time is relegated to three hours a week. I would hope in our next round of discussion in the Committee that we will look seriously at bringing private Members' motions and Bills to fruition so that there is division on these questions, so that a private Member can regularly have the opportunity of saying "I brought this piece of legislation to the House and I had it accepted by my colleagues." Let us not be so naive as to think the only repositories of wisdom in Parliament reside on the Treasury benches, with all respect.
Parliamentary Reform


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Michael Collenette: Spending power must be brought under more effective control. My colleagues, the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington) and the Hon. Member for Rose-mont (Mr. Lachance) have brought forward a report which warrants detailed scrutiny and which is being looked at by the Committee right now.
The rule of the Whip should be examined. I see my good friend, the chief Government Whip here, and I would say to him, through you, Mr. Speaker, that this will be the last Parliament where any Government is able to enforce the Whips no matter what. The nature of Canadian society is changing and Parliament is changing, as evidenced by this committee's report, and government must change. 1 am heartened because the Government has accepted this report and it will take the lead from members of the committee.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Michael Collenette: But there are times when a backbencher may wish to break ranks with his side. There must of course be matters of absolute confidence. We must ensure that any move to a Congressional style system is not allowed to go too far- some people want more of a Congressional system here, and we are getting that with the innovations in the committee system which are being accepted-and we have to be very careful that the very notion of responsible government in the parliamentary context, where the government gets it power from the House of Commons, is not diminished. We must make sure that the spending power, the Royal prerogative, rests with the executive. We as backbenchers can demand more power but we cannot usurp the basic responsibility of the government to initiate spending and taxing legislation. If we do, we are undermining the whole system of British parliamentary democracy.
Before closing, Mr. Speaker, I suppose I should say that my concept of the role of a Member of Parliament is that 1 have an obligation to my Party. There is no doubt that I would not be standing here today if it were not for my Party. I have an obligation to my constituents-not only those who voted for me, but all of them. I must serve all of them once I am elected, no matter who voted for me.
I have an obligation to my conscience. Members of this House who sat in the Thirtieth Parliament had to look to their consciences on the subject of capital punishment. There was a lot of pressure, both inside the House and outside. We have to answer to our own consciences. All Members have an obligation to their conscience.
Those obligations mean nothing to the final obligation which, I submit, is that every Member of this House has the obligation to the institution of Parliament. If the institution of Parliament, as it has developed in the last 800 years in Great Britain and in this country, is diminished in any way, then the very foundations of democracy will be weakened.

November 29, 1982
Parliamentary Reform
We are but an island in a sea of tyranny in the latter part of the twentieth century. The reason we are that island of sanity in a sea of tyranny is because of the parliamentary system and because this committee has come forward with a report which will be accepted by the House. To me, that means that the parliamentary system is alive and well. At a moment when people were writing it off as being irrelevant, at a moment when Canadians were questioning the value of their institution, we have shown that Parliament can still work, that there is a way to go, that there is a future for this institution.
With my colleagues, I look forward to the resumption of our work in this session and in the new session. Within the next year we hope to bring a new meaning to the words "parliamentary democracy."


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, I followed with a great deal of interest the comments of the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Collenette) as he made his trip to Damascus. He has seen the light. I cannot help but wonder how it is that the Government came to the point where it was prepared to bring together Members from all sides of the House to examine the position to which the House had been brought by the Government and its method of governing and to come forward with a report, even as helpful as this one is.
The Hon. Member for York East mentioned our obligation to this House. I do not deny that obligation. But we also have an obligation to Canada, Mr. Speaker.
When we decided to put ourselves up for election and seek the support of Canadians it was because we believed there was something fundamentally wrong with the way the country was being governed, and perhaps with the institutions through which it was being governed.
I take full cognizance of the admonition of the Hon. Member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) that we must not just pat one another on the back about this; we must bring to it a critical eye. We should bring to this a fair amount of skepticism, because of the manner in which the Government has handled the country's business.
I ask myself why the Government agreed that the committee should meet. For three or four years there have been opportunities for the Standing Committee on Procedures and Organization to meet, but the Government has not responded to demands for meetings, so I approach the whole issue with a healthy skepticism. Aside from that, Mr. Speaker, my comments this evening will be confined to two or three areas.
One area relates to committees. This is dealt with in Section (5) on page 18 of the report of the Special Committee on Standing Orders on Procedures, Issue No. 7. This deals with Committees in a variety of ways. In certain cases the size of the committee has presented difficulty, but this problem has been settled. I think we should be prepared to accept the figures that are given. There may have to be exceptions in one or two committees, as has been the case with the Standing Committee on Agriculture and the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence. It may be that the latter will have to be divided into two committees. That
possibility has not been mentioned but it should not be excluded from the committee's review.
Substitutions within a committee is another matter that concerns me. I am glad we are not being inflexible about membership of this committee or that. When an issue arises which is of prime concern to a particular Member at a particular time and is coming up in another committee, that Member should have the opportunity to find a place on that committee, on 24 hours' notice. In that way the Member can represent the views of constituents much more easily than can be done in the House or, if the Member has certain expertise, it can be made available to the committee. I think there has been an attempt to remove inflexibility, and the 24 hours' notice required is a good move.
To my way of thinking the provision for automatic referral of annual reports and other reports to committees, will make the committee system work. It has not worked in the past, Mr. Speaker.
There are a couple of other matters dealt with in Subsections (c) and (d) on page 19 of the report which deserve comment and study, which I hope they will receive in the Committee. The automatic referral of the annual reports of Departments, Crown corporations and their subsidiaries and other agencies to the appropriate standing committee immediately after they are tabled in the House, is important. Even more important is that such tabling should initiate sessions of that committee. There is no reference whatsoever to having the committees meet to consider the reports. That is an oversight which I hope will be corrected.
I am certain that this report is going to be accepted, and I am glad to see that there will be a continuing review of the Standing Orders. I hope that all recommendations that cannot be put into the Standing Orders in the years ahead can be reviewed, and if approved in committee can immediately be instituted with the procedures of the committee. One way of achieving that would be that any five Members of the committee could go to the Chairman with a request to meet to discuss the matter in committee and to report within a week. There should be an opportunity for Members to take that action. It could be five members representing two Parties. There are instances today of very, very important issues that do not receive study because the Fisheries Committee cannot meet on two matters. There is a report of the Fisheries Committee on the West Coast and a report of the Fisheries Committee on the East Coast. We have tried to bring a meeting about in the House, we have tried behind the curtains and we have tried with the Minister, but he says it is not his business and he cannot order the committees to meet.
There should be provision in the regulations to permit any committee that has a report in front of it, to meet in order to consider that report, or even to write its own terms of reference. It has to be an agreed reference so that the four or five Members, or however many it needs, can insist that the meeting take place within two days. So much for the automatic referral. This is a shortcoming in Section (5)(c).
November 29, 1982

Turning to the Government response to committee reports, I notice that the Elouse Leader on our side commented about it earlier. He said that it shall be at the request of the committee that the Government table a comprehensive response. Frankly, that is not good enough. I think the Government should be required under the Standing Orders to reply to every recommendation that any committee makes. If the committees are to have any meaning whatever, the Government must respond to their recommendations. If they do not make any recommendations, it is unfortunate and perhaps the committees are falling down on the job. But if they do make recommendations, each one should have a response from the Government, yes or no. There may be questions of policy, money or ideology which would prevent the Government from adopting this or that recommendation, but it should be required to say so within a certain length of time, be it 120 days or six months.
I believe that item by item, recommendation by recommendation, the Government should be required to reply to the reports of committees, whether they be departmental reports, reports on Crown corporations, their subsidiaries or other agencies. I think this is vital, to give those who sit on committees the feeling that they are getting some feedback from the Government for the work they have done.
Another matter on which I think it is worth commenting is Private Members' Business. There is no provision for Private Members' Business to be voted on, except when there is no quorum. Apparently that can be done in the House in those circumstances, for which we should all be ashamed. In the normal course of business there must be some provision in Section (6) so that there is an opportunity for a Private Member's Bill to be brought to a vote, either for the subject matter to be referred to committee or for it to be rejected. Otherwise, it is just a matter of having an hour of debate as provided here and it goes to the bottom of the list, which is 438 or whatever, and there is no vote. I believe we should have a provision in here for a vote. I see that the provision in the Standing Orders has to be rewritten. It indicates that the proceedings on any Bill or motion in the name of a private Member shall be interrupted one hour after being taken up and considered. That is just an airing of an idea. Surely there is a means, even on a Wednesday afternoon, of having a vote on a matter which is in a private Member's Bill.
Section (7) of this particular report deals with a continuing review of the Standing Orders. If I understand correctly, the committee will more or less be in permanent session. I hope to call on a number of Members of the Committee to examine and obtain reports on how various recommendations are working out in the House and to be able to modify them in the course of the year. I hope this is not a document written in stone for 12 months. If, as I suggested, there could be agreement on the requirement to have a vote on a private Member's Bill or to have the Government reply item by item or recommendation by recommendation to reports of committees, and if the committees could agree on those matters, I hope it could be brought back to the House between December 21 this year and
Parliamentary Reform
December 21 next year and instituted in our order of proceedings. I think we could probably manage to live with that sort of thing.
It was never quite clear in my mind, except that we were coming to the end of the calendar year and the requirement to have a debate, why the committee brought its work to an end at this particular stage of the proceedings. I am not sure why other matters were not considered and brought forward. Therefore, I feel that a continuing review of the Standing Orders by the committee should be of a nature to permit it to come to the House with modifications based upon experience.
Another matter which is not clear in my mind is what will happen on December 21, 1983. This has been referred to as a package deal. It is an all or none proposition. What will happen on December 21, 1983? Do we have to buy all that is here, all that has been modified during the year, or will there be a seriatim vote on elements which have improved the House of Commons and a rejection of elements which have proven themselves to be unworthy of the House of Commons? I hope it is a matter the committee will consider, that if we are not committed to this package there will be no package at all. Some of it is experimental, we agree. I hope it will go on for a year, but do we have to buy the whole report as it stands?


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


Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate this evening.

I have been a member of the committee. Although my name does not appear on the list of members in the report, I am still a member of the committee. I recognize that I have not attended all the meetings, but this was because they conflicted with my duties and obligations to the Standing Committee on Transport.
This has been one of the finest debates I have heard in the House since coming here. Until just a few minutes ago, it was a debate which one could term to be all sweetness and light. The Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) seems to have some grave misgivings about the report, and I should like to take a minute to answer a couple of his concerns.
First, he seemed to indicate by the tenor of his remarks that the committee will be a dictator to the House of Commons, which of course is not the case. The new proposed rules will be tried for a year. Surely it follows that at some point during the year the House-not the committee, not the Government, not the Opposition-will make a decision as to whether the rules need to be modified and, if so, in what manner. Also it will decide at the end of the year whether or not they should be adopted as more or less permanent rules of the House, to be modified from time to time by the proposed committee, which the procedural committee recommended be established for the purposes of having a continuing study of the rules and procedures of the House.

November 29, 1982
Parliamentary Reform
I associate myself with all the remarks which have been of a congratulatory nature to the Chairman and the two ViceChairman of the committee. 1 have a great deal more confidence in the ability of the House to act, as a result of having served on the committee and having seen all its members work in close harmony. Very often the most strenuous arguments were among Members of the same Party rather than among Members of different Parties. I think this is very good for the future of this institution.
Because of a reference from the Government a few months ago, I had the privilege of dealing with the domestic air carrier policy in the Standing Committee on Transport. We had the same experience then in the Standing Committee on Transport as we had in this committee on procedure reform. It seems to me that is a time when Members of Parliament are, in fact, serving the interests forwhich our constituents sent us here, when we are being Members, not only for an electoral district but Members for the country as a whole, and when we are proposing policy or passing legislation that deals with the good of all Canadians and not just making representations for a particular area of the country. I want to deal very briefly with three areas.
First, I would like to say that there are four things that give me a great deal of encouragement. We unanimously presented a report that deals with the hours of sitting. Already I have heard some concern expressed about what Members are going to do with their evenings. 1 do not have that concern and I do not believe that it should be the role of a committee on standing orders and procedure to try to devise rules that will protect the morality or ethics of the Members of this House. Surely to God they established their ethical conduct before coming here. If they have not, it is something for their constituents to deal with and not a committee of this House.
The fixed timetable, to which other Members have spoken, is something that I think is of vital importance to all of us so that we can order our lives in such a manner as to be able to spend an appropriate amount of time in the capital of the country and yet have sufficient time to deal with our constituencies and with our families.
Third, I think the reform of the committee system is vitally important to the survival of this institution. I do not have the concerns expressed by the Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich. I am not prepared, at this moment at least, to bring to the committee the idea that every report from a committee must be responded to by the Government. There are some reports from committees to which a response is not appropriate, Mr. Speaker. Surely it is within the wisdom of members of a particular committee to make the decision as to whether or not there should be a response to the Government. I think the wisdom of the committee in making that recommendation is a strength and not a weakness.
What of the future of the committee? There are many areas that have been dealt with today by other speakers, and I do not
want to be too repetitive but I do want to deal with three of those areas. The first is non-confidence votes.
It is very important that we change the manner in which we conduct non-confidence votes. This point was brought up first this afternoon by the Hon. Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan). There is a good deal of wisdom in what he said. We must get away from this idea that every vote is a vote of confidence. Surely by now we can progress enough so that Members of Parliament on both sides of the Chair can make a determination as to whether or not a proposed piece of legislation is worthy of passage by this House without having the whips applied. I think we would have better legislation and more carefully thought out legislation and we would have a much better functioning House if there were not a vote of nonconfidence attached to the vote on every Bill. I believe it is absolutely essential that the regulations formulated under a Bill be brought back either to the House or to an appropriate committee of the House for study because many things can be done by regulation, as the Hon. Member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) pointed out, that were not intended to be done by the House when it passed the legislation. That should come under the scrutiny of Parliament, just as the enabling legislation does. I hope the committee will deal with that point. If we 5566;-1 deal with that, we will provide backbenchers with much more freedom of action and with more adequate representation, not only of their constituents but of the country at large. We will have a much more vibrant and lively institution here. We will have a much greater sense of worth on the part of the individual backbencher that he will have some power and will be able to call the Government to account, that the Government must listen to the elected representative of the people and not just to the advisers of the Government and of the bureaucracy. That, to me, is of vital importance.
I hope from what I have heard here today that the expectations of this House for the work of the committee will not become too exalted. With all of the nice things that have been said about the committee today, it must be remembered that we are 20 members, none of whom are infallible, and we will not solve every problem of this House in the course of our deliberations. Not everything we do will be perfect. We will have to do some of it over. Mistakes will be made on the committee, and I think that should be accepted as a fact. We will not be able to come in with a perfect set of reforms. Reform is an ongoing procedure.
We do, indeed, have an obligation to this House, an Hon. Member said. I forget who it was, unfortunately. In my opinion, parliamentary democracy is probably the noblest institution of Government ever devised by mankind. It will only be noble as long as it is relevant. Those of us who serve in Parliament are finite mortal creatures who will wither and die. While we are here, if we do not work to revitalize this institution it, too, will become finite and mortal. It does not have to be so. It does not have to be a finite institution. It can be an institution with some immortality, with a great, long life, much longer than that of any human. It has already had a life much
November 29, 1982

longer than that of any human. We must make sure with these reforms that the Parliament of Canada remains a vibrant, lively institution that serves the needs of Canadians, not only for today and tomorrow, but for many future generations.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to rise and speak to the third report of the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure. Hon. Members might expect, having served on the committee, that I am a bit biased in favour of the report. 1 must confess that is true.
This was a wise report, and I hope the future will show that to be so. The basis for my conclusion about it being wise is not simply because 1 am a member of the committee. Like other members, I try to reserve the right to say no, the right to say that I do not agree with something that is going on, whether within my own Party or within the Government. I believe other Members have approached the task in that same vein. Therefore, I believe the report does have a balance with which we can live.
I consider myself still to be a new Member in terms of Standing Orders, even though I was elected to this House in 1979. I suppose in many jobs after a few years you feel you have mastered it and it is time to move on. But I am just beginning to realize and to understand how this place works, its inadequacies and how it could be made to work better. I can remember during the first nine months being on the Government side the absolute frustration at what seemed to be pointless opposition from the Liberals then in Opposition. I can remember my anger at realizing in 1978 that the then minister of justice had brought in a budget and our Party in Opposition opposed it. That was its state in the 1979 elections. When we returned to the government side, we put those same budget proposals, as if we were supporting them, and the Liberal Opposition was opposing them. This continued for some time. The further absurdity happened when we were defeated in 1980 and not all of those finance provisions were put through. Here were the Liberals, back in the government, putting those same proposals forward and we opposed them. As a new Member of Parliament, that had to be the crowning irony for me as to how absurd things were here.
And there is no doubt that being elected does not mean one must become a eunuch or someone who becomes immediately dumb and can only stand or sit when the Party says. I certainly do not intend to give up my right to speak out, and I hope other Members do not give up that right either. There is no doubt that Parliament itself will be an adversary process. One of the recommendations of the committee report is to allow that debate, because there is no doubt that we are locked into a battle for the hearts and minds of Canadians. Government is the exercise of power, including the power to take away the lives of its citizens. That is how much power governments have. The Liberal Party on one side, the NDP and our Party
Parliamentary Reform
on the other side are locked into a battle for the hearts and minds of Canadians. We hope to win and they do as well.
The House will always be an adversarial place. Undoubtedly, there is no reason why the committees, the task forces and the special committees from which this report is a product, can become much less adversarial, because the purpose of these bodies is to group people around a problem. If they can address the problem and have experts express their views on it, a solution to the problem can be found, irrespective of the various philosophies in terms of the exercise of executive power and how the country should be run. With a little goodwill in these committees, free of the public television which exists in the House, surely we can come to a wiser result. That is what has happened in task forces, since 1980.
I had the privilege of being a member of the Committee of Fiscal Federalism. That committee got around the problem of how this nation should operate fiscally with the huge wealth and different views of its different regions. A report was issued from that committee which was also unanimous. While the Government did not accept all of the recommendations of the committee, several were adopted. Speaking for my own Province of Alberta with respect to that fiscal federalism report, the people of Alberta who I spoke to were very pleased with the parts of the report that reflected their view. I was thankful to the Members opposite and those in the NDP who agreed to including those views. I was able to return to my region, as a federal Member of Parliament, and say that Parliament is working for them, and I was able to produce the hard, cold facts.
I was pleased to be asked to serve on this Special Committee on the Standing Orders. Once again, the process was good. We argued about some subjects, shared a few drinks and had special meetings until those problems disappeared when we realized that we were facing a common problem.
One of those common problems was that which an elected Member faces with the power of the bureaucracy. There is no doubt that there has been an enormous growth in the bureaucracy federally, provincially and municipally since the Second World War. While individual civil servants are very fine people who work well within their jurisdictions, the Civil Service collectively has taken on a life of its own which is getting out of hand.
I believe that the same argument applies to Crown corporations. There is nothing inherently evil in the operation of a Crown corporation, but at the federal level where there are almost 600 Crown corporations and where there are almost as many at the provincial level across the country, there is no doubt that there is not enough fiscal control of that sub-level of Government.
I hope that we have taken steps to bring this under control as a result of our third report. However, I believe we must go even further in the future. Some Members have been concerned about the report. All that I can say to them is to let us try it. If it does not work we will change it. If that again does not work, we will change it again. If it is totally inadequate by

November 29, 1982
Parliamentary Reform
next December we can revert back to this antiquated procedure where we can have four or five changes of Government which will be proposing and opposing something in the same absurd way.
In the future our committee will deal with Supply. I think this will be a relief to many Members. We will deal with the role of the Speaker and with votes of confidence. As I have come to know Members opposite, and even a couple from the NDP, I have no doubt that we can come to an agreement.
The question of private Bills was a critical issue which we dealt with in the report. As you know, Mr. Speaker, we have so far received over 100 submissions from individuals and groups. Those people feel unquestionably that the role of the private Member of Parliament is important. Yet, when we look at our parliamentary timetable, we do not see much time for private Members' Bills to be handled. 1 believe that switching consideration of private Members' Bills to Wednesday is a very good idea. We have some other ideas which will make that process much more solid.
With no disrespect to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) 1 believe absolutely contrary to what he said about our being nobodies once we get 50 yards away from the Hill and being somebodies only on the Hill, I have found the opposite to be true. I find that I am nobody on the Hill because I am locked into a system where the bureaucracy has much more power. When I return to my riding, my constituents are pleased to see their Member of Parliament and speak with him. Therefore, 1 think that I am somebody when 1 am more than 50 yards away from the Hill, and I am not as important here.
I hope that Members will support the committee report so that we will have their critical analysis to make this a better place when future reports are tabled.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, I am also a member of the committee which has its interim report before the House tonight. I have had ample opportunity to state my views in committee, so I will just take a minimum of time in the House tonight. I understand that one of the two Vice-Chairmen, the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans), intends to speak, and perhaps we can use the remaining 20 minutes.
I would first like to thank the House and the Government House Leader (Mr. Pinard) for the opportunity to be on this committee. It was an exciting undertaking and one of the more pleasant aspects of my parliamentary career which spans some nine years, counting the years spent in the Newfoundland House, which was better. At the outset I would also like to congratulate the Chairman of the Committee, the Hon. Member for Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle (Mr. Lefebvre) and the two Vice-Chairmen, the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) and the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain, as well as the members of the committee, for doing an excellent job to date.
I want to draw particular attention to the speed and dispatch with which the committee members, under the leadership of the Chairman and the two Vice-Chairmen, used in establishing a rather productive working relationship from the very outset.
The fact is that the work of this committee is not an indictment of this institution, of Parliament. This institution has survived over 700 years over some very difficult periods, periods which were so dramatic that, by comparison, the now famous bell-ringing incident just pales into insignificance. The institution has seen some rather dramatic periods and has survived them and been all the better for them. This committee is not in any way an indictment. Therefore, it is incorrect to question the validity of the institution. Rather, it is proof of the strength of this institution which has evolved over the years to the point at which it requires new rules to meet changing times. This is not the first time the rules of this institution have been changed and it will not be the last.
The interim report, as significant as it is in many respects, is really only the tip of the iceberg. As Hon. Members know, an iceberg is eight-ninths, or almost 90 per cent, below the surface, and so it is with the work of the committee. The real impact, the real substance, I suggest, lies ahead. The full impact has not yet surfaced.
There are other issues we want to address. They have already been mentioned by Hon. Members, such as the issue involving the MP and the bureaucracy, which I want to see the committee address, as I believe it will. The issue involving the several aspects of accountability is already receiving the attention of the committee and of a sub-committee, in particular, and the House has already heard about that today. The issue of the Speakership is one which we want to consider. The issue as to how we should vote in the Chamber, as to whether it is the most efficient method or, even more important, whether it is the right method for this particular time, is also one which I should like to see addressed and one which 1 know we will.
A few moments ago the Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) raised a number of important questions about this experiment. He is not in the Chamber at the moment, but I am sure he will have the opportunity to hear my response to his questions so far as I am capable of responding.
I want to say in particular to him, and to the House, in case someone may not be aware, that the committee, of which I am a member and whose report we are considering right now, has no implementation function. Its mandate is to investigate and report. Therefore, one should avoid thinking of the committee as some kind of administrator or implementation structure which would sit in judgment of the actions of the House to decide just how well a rule is being implemented or if it suits or satisfies the intent of the committee. I submit that the committee's work is done once it has reported to the House and once it has made its recommendations, either on an interim or on a final basis, so that the real adjudicators of the experimental package are the Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich and the Hon. Member for every other riding in the country. Only he and the other Hon. Members of the House can answer this question.
I am sure that over the experimental period of one year we will all come to some conclusions as to which items in the
November 29, 1982

package have improved the functioning of the House and which items we could well do without. 1 have no doubt, I say to him, that over the year we will find a consensus emerging about which parts of the package we ought to retain on a more permanent basis and which parts we ought to throw out before they do any further damage.
The same gentleman raised the question as to why the committee brought in an interim report at this particular time.
I want to say to him that there was no magic reason why it was done at this particular time, except to say that the committee found reasonably quickly that there were a number of items on which it was fairly easy to get a ready consensus. We decided that we would recommend them to the House as an experimental package. That is something of an oversimplification, but that is basically the answer to the question raised by the Hon. Member. We have come forward at this time because we have identified some items concerning which we foresaw the possibility of a consensus. We were apparently right, given the rather rapid fashion in which the three caucuses accepted the recommendations in the interim report.
The real spirit of the report was summed up a few minutes ago by the Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker). He is also a member of the committee, and he said, "Let us try it". This is an experiment. None of us are particularly married to it. We naturally feel some favour toward it or we would not have come to the House and recommended it. We feel it has a reasonable chance of success. However, the only way we will know whether what we put on paper will work in practice is to give it a try. So, in the spirit of the Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills and, I believe, of every Hon. Member in the House, let us try to see if it will work. I believe it will. If it needs some honing, refinement, so be it. In the meantime, while we try this package, 1 am rather encouraged that the committee work will continue in depth on some of the other issues I have mentioned. Other Hon. Members of the House and of the committee, in particular, have mentioned some. I would even suggest that there may well be an issue or two we have not really focused on yet, of which we have not seen the significance. Certainly, I have not, and I bow and defer to people On the committee who have been in the House much longer than I and who have been involved in other reform exercises such as this particular one. However, for my part, I have the distinct feeling or impression that we will come across a whole area that we have not addressed in any depth.
Therefore, I say, let us get on with the experiment. I believe that we have unanimity on this point, pretty well. I also say, let us get on with the larger task of the committee because if we are to measure, with any accuracy, the validity of having set up this committee in the first place, I ask Hon. Members not to measure it in terms of tonight's exercise but, rather, to wait and see what comes forward insofar as the larger issues are concerned, the issues to which we referred in our various speeches.


Erik Nielsen: D'accord!
Parliamentary Reform


Roger Simmons: This is really an historic night when my good friend, the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), and I are saying "Aye, aye" to the same point.


Erik Nielsen: Never! You go too far!


Roger Simmons: It gives me reason to ask if we really do not have a good thing here. It is so good that he can accept it and I can accept it with absolute agreement. It is absolutely amazing.
I am glad to be associated with the report and I look forward as a member of the committee to continuing the work which has been so well begun. This work could not go forward without the very active collaboration and understanding of every Hon. Member of the House, and that is not a buttered up way of saying that people have been in agreement with everything we have done. There have been some volatile arguments on aspects of this report involving items that we are now considering. That is not the point I make. The point I make is that I feel, irrespective of Party lines, a willingness and almost an anxiety to find rules which will serve us and this institution better. It is that spirit which is making tonight's exercise possible. It is that spirit which gives me confidence that we will come up with an over-all report, a final report as a committee, which will serve this institution and the people of Canada very well.


Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to say a few words at the close of this debate on the motion of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) concerning the subject matter of the third report of the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure. I, too, congratulate the movers of the motion and the members of the committee who brought us to this historic point in parliamentary life. As a ten-year Member and a three-year president of standing committees of the House, I welcome these changes and I want to comment on just a few of them.
The idea of planning on a semester basis will be an excellent discipline for both the Government and the Opposition. The Government will be forced to think a little further ahead than they now do, and the Opposition will be able to plan in a much more orderly fashion. They are now only able to learn the business of the House the week before it begins.
As far as the parliamentary calendar is concerned, and rising for the summer recess on the thirtieth of June, I note that the calendar will give us 175 sitting days a year instead of 165 days. I think that is good because, if it is needed, we should have that, knowing the ending date should end the brinksmanship that we see at practically every end of a session in the House now. The Government is always wanting to push through more things before the end, and the Opposition is always threatening to hold things up. Then there is a threat to make us sit longer. The idea of never knowing is very hard on the personal lives of Members, and very hard on the families of Members. Family life should be improved for all Members by the installation of this new calendar.

November 29, 1982
Parliamentary Reform
Previously, the summer recess coincided roughly with the academic school year. The children got out of school on the thirtieth and the MPs got out of the House on June 30 and they could all go to their ridings and their homes for the summer recess, and that was fine. In the last ten years only once, in 1978, did the House rise on June 30. In other years, excluding two years in which the House did not sit because of summer elections, the House rose in late July. I would just like to read out these dates, Mr. Speaker, July 27, July 30, July 14, July 25, July 23 and July 17, and this year, 1982 set the record when the House adjourned on August 4. I am sure we all remember that long, hot summer.
On the daily timetable aspect, I think that would be good for families as well. As I analyse the changes, I see that they really have only shifted the 8 to 10 p.m. sitting to 11 in the morning on Mondays, Tuesdays and Thursdays, and the Adjournment Debate has been moved from 10 p.m. to 6 p.m. That debate is generally sparsely attended. I suppose the only effect of that is that it will keep a few Parliamentary Secretaries busy through part of the dinner hour. I said that this daily timetable was good for families as well. That is assuming that the Members take advantage of the close of debate at 6 and go home to their families, if they have them here. Other suggested uses of that evening time is other meetings, or travel, or study in your office or office work, et cetera. I think one or two Members may have alluded to it, but it may be the "et cetera" that will prove to be the problem. Long ago, I am told on good authority, night sittings were introduced for the very purpose of keeping Members of Parliament busy at night, and keeping them off the streets and out of the night spots and other dangerous places in the national capital region.


An Hon. Member:: Speak for yourself.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: I say that only half in jest, but on a very serious note I do hope that the evening time from 8 p.m. to 10 p.m. is not taken up immediately by extra committee meetings. My committee, the Public Accounts Committee, traditionally sits at 11 a.m., so if we continue to sit then we will miss the 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. period of the House. Furthermore, the benefits that might accrue to the Members will certainly be lost to the staff who have to service that committee, if they have to come back here and work until ten o'clock.
We have been considering the size of the committee in the Public Accounts Committee for some time. I judge from the report that we will be getting ten Members instead of the current 20. That is not a problem as some of you know who have attended Public Accounts Committee meetings in the last number of years. We have to make a special effort, in the Public Accounts Committee, to get a quorum for conducting votes in the committee because our quorum is 11 and our normal attendance is usually in the seven range. We will be better organized with having only ten. I do not know what the quorum will be, probably six. We will probably have at least six most of the time.
The limitation on substitution will also be good for most committees. As I analyse how it might apply to Public Accounts I can see that it will eliminate the very few occasions that we have had where a lot of Members have come in order to achieve some special end that the Government might have wanted to achieve in one of those meetings. I think it might also prevent substitution of so-called experts, in subjects which the members of Public Accounts Committee are not expert. When these Members come in, although they are expert on their subjects, they are not experts on the proceedings and methods of the Public Accounts Committee. We very often find that their visit, while pleasant, has not been as useful to the committee as we all thought it would be.
One very important aspect of the committee's recommendations, Mr. Speaker, is the response to Committee reports. I suppose the Public Accounts Committee makes more reports to the House of Commons than any other. We get no official response from the House on these reports. The President of the Treasury Board usually replies, at least the last one did-I am not sure as I have not filed a report since the new one was named. He always replied to our reports by letter to let us know whether the Government agreed or did not agree. Again, in my memory, only three times have we had concurrence with the committee report, and then it was without debate.
So having examined all of the changes and made remarks on a few of them I just want to add that I think the acceptance of the proposal will benefit us all. It has shown the spirit of cooperation that can exist in this House, and I hope that during the year of trial it will all work out, and that the pitfalls which will undoubtedly be discovered will not be too great.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I will of necessity be brief. I want to thank the Conservative Party for the generosity which they have shown this evening. It is that spirit of co-operation that I know will keep the House operating on an even keel.
I was going to say that I found the debate this evening in keeping with the deliberations of the committee. I thought that the suggestions that were put forward on all sides were suggestions that, even in some cases critical, were intended to improve the report and improve the operations of the House of Commons and intended to support this new venture that we have all agreed to undertake.
Why did we undertake it? Because it became apparent that the Members of the House of Commons were either unable or unwilling to operate within the existing rules. It was a general opinion that the existing rules did not accommodate the new House of Commons in the sense of the new dynamics of the House of Commons, the new problems that had to be solved, the new methods that had to be found and the new initiatives that had to be taken.
The rules that we have offered can work. The question is, will they work? The rules that we had could have worked. They did not work.
November 29, 1982

This interim report of the committee will work provided that the Members of the House believe that it should work, believe that it is important that the House of Commons not only be able to act appropriately but that it be seen to be acting appropriately, which is equally important. Not only should we understand that what we are doing is correct, within the general structure and rules of the House, but the public should be able to understand how we are operating so they do not think that the House of Commons is in fact a circus. I believe that what we have before us is the first step, and in the course of the next few months we will see a number of reports which will further encourage the development of the Members' participation, and in so doing it will make the House of Commons much more relevant, and as we make it more relevant, the people of Canada will benefit substantially from it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: One of the oddities of our system of Government is that he or she who is designated as Speaker is denied the right to speak in debate. I can only briefly note that it has been a pleasure for me to have served in the chair listening to this debate tonight. I might say that that pleasure has been marred for me personally by the mechanism of my system of arrival, and I would hope that the committee and all Members of the House would give some thought to the mechanisms of the mandate for those who occupy the chair so that we can the better serve you.
Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Erik Nielsen: I rise on a point of order. May I say, off the record, that the Government House Leader was kind enough to inform me last Thursday that the order of business has changed to Bill C-131, I believe, tomorrow, followed by Bill C-132, then Bill C-136; is that correct?


Yvon Pinard: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: May I proceed?
Adjournment Debate



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, in light of the latest statements made in Grand Forks last week by Robert Wefald, the Attorney General for North Dakota, I find it imperative to stand this evening and call upon the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) to make an immediate appeal to Washington to curtail any further construction of the Garrison Diversion Project. Mr. Wefald, it appears, intends to totally disregard the affirmation of the International Joint Commission that the project would result in violation of the 1909 Boundary Waters Treaty between Canada and the United States.
The Attorney General for North Dakota is resolved to have the construction of the Garrison Water Diversion Project completed, despite opposition by the Canadian Government and the International Joint Commission, if the United States Government determines the project is in its best interests. Mr. Wefald is under the impression the potential contaminating effect of pumping water from the Missouri River across the continental divide into the Red River watershed "was blown all out of proportion". Obviously, the threat to the environment, that is, Manitoba's waterways, and particularly the threat to Manitoba's fishing industry, is being treated with indifference. Evidently, Mr. Wefald has not been made aware of, or has not had the opportunity to properly assess the various environmental studies and evaluations which have been done on the effects of water flowing north into Canadian waters.
All the evidence compiled by the scientists involved in the sutdy of this proposed project points to the disastrous effect it would have on Manitoba's agricultural and fishing industries as a result of flooding agricultural areas and disturbing the ecology in Manitoba's waterways. In light of the Attorney General's statements, it is quite apparent that the Manitoba New Democratic Party's office in Washington is having no effect at all in relaying our fears and concerns in regard to the Garrison project.
I call upon the Secretary of State for External Affairs to make clarification of the Attorney General's statements. As the NDP lobbying team seems to be inconsequential in blocking the continuation of the project, I repeat my call upon the federal Government, and the Secretary of State for External Affairs in particular, to launch a new and stronger protest to the Governor of North Dakota and to the appropriate people in Washington concerning the Garrison project.

November 29, 1982
Adjournment Debate
When we read statements such as those of the Attorney General of North Dakota, it is easily discernible that the endeavours of the NDP Office which was specifically set up to defend Manitoba's interests have been to little avail. Only 34 of the 435 members of the House of Representatives support the Canadian stand on the project. What have the lobbyists been doing all this time? The NDP does not appear to be particularly involved with, or have a commitment to establish the Canadian position on the Garrison project. If the NDP concerns were real, it would not allow the ruling of the International Joint Commission to be ignored. Representation should be made without delay to the proper officials in Washington to investigate the present state of affairs on the Garrison project, and to obtain verification of the intent of the United States on this issue.


Mr. Jean Lapierre (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, in response to the Hon. Member I would like to point out that the long-standing Canadian position on the construction of the Garrison Diversion Unit remains that Manitoba waters and fisheries can only be adequately protected from serious damage or degradation resulting from the operation of the project if the Diversion Unit is modified in such a way that it does not result in water transfers from the Missouri River Basin into the waters of the Hudson Bay Basin flowing into Canada.
The U.S. administration is fully cognizant of this position which has been conveyed to them on numerous occasions in recent years. The U.S. Government has assured the Canadian Government that it will honour its obligations to Canada under the Boundary Waters Treaty not to pollute Canadian waters. The U.S. Government has also accepted the International Joint Commission Report on the Garrison Diversion Unit which recommended that the operations of the project which could affect waters flowing into Canada not be built at this time.
As Members may know, the U.S. administration has proposed the appropriation of $4 million for the Garrison project in fiscal year 1983-84. Although this amount is quite small in comparison to the $1.1 billion price tag of the entire project, Canadian authorities believe that the Garrison Diversion Unit should be re-designed before more money is spent on a project that will, as now designed, permit foreign biota to enter Canadian waters. Federal and Manitoba Ministers, as well as senior governmental officials in Ottawa, have stated this view very clearly to the U.S. administration.
In addition, Canadian officials have ensured that Members of the U.S. Congress are fully aware of Canadian views on this appropriation. Indeed, Members of Parliament and Senators have spoken directly to many Members of Congress earlier this year, reminding them of the significant Canadian interest at stake in this appropriation. All of these efforts, including those
by anti-Garrison groups in Manitoba, have ensured that Canadian views on the Project have been heard loud and clear on Capital Hill In Washington.
Regardless of the outcome of the appropriation vote, Canadian authorities will continue to insist that measures be taken by U.S. authorities to ensure that Manitoba waters and fisheries be protected from any injurious effects of the Garrison project. The Canadian side has a solid case on the Garrison issue and the Canadian Government will continue to strongly defend the interests of Canada and Manitoba in this project. We are counting very much on the support of the Hon. Member.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Should the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) come in I will recognize him out of the normal order. For the moment, the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier).


CONVENTION CENTRES-FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO DEVELOPMENT OF RIDEAU CENTRE
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, this evening I would like to explain the circumstances of a recent event in my riding which attracted considerable attention and was widely reported in the press. I am, of course, referring to a decision by Eaton's to change the name of the Rideau Centre to Rideau Eaton Centre. As we all know, this decision was fiercely challenged by a number of local groups and by the population in general. On November 26, last Friday, Viking Rideau and Eaton's announced that they had decided to reverse their decision, and that the project would continue to be called the Rideau Centre or Centre Rideau. This evening, Mr. Speaker, I would like to give a short overview of this question to explain why local reaction to the change was negative. First of all, however, I must publicly congratulate Viking Rideau and the T. Eaton Company who demonstrated that a corporate citizen can be a good listener and a good citizen. Companies and corporations have a social role to play, and one can certainly say that the T. Eaton Company has taken this role seriously. I should therefore like to congratulate them once again for their attitude in this matter. My thanks are also directed to Messrs. David Howard and J. J. Barnicke, who are partners with Eaton's in the company that is developing the Rideau Centre.
Now for a look at the facts. First of all, we should remember that the Rideau Centre project is a joint enterprise which for over ten years has involved the public sector, represented by the Federal Government, the Department of Public Works, the National Capital Commission, the City of Ottawa and the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton, while the Government of Ontario was also involved in the Convention Centre. On the private sector side, there was Viking-Rideau, Westin Hotels, The Bay, Ogilvy's, Caplan and a number of other merchants. Since the project was initiated, co-operation among the various parties has always been excellent.
November 29, 1982

It was therefore a surprise for everyone when we learned in the press last November 10 that the T. Eaton Company wanted to change the name of the Rideau Centre to Eaton Rideau Centre. This unilateral decision made without any consultation was justified according to the company since Eaton holds 40 per cent of the shares in the Viking Rideau Company, which owns the Centre, and this makes it the major shareholder. Eaton believed that its name would add to the business potential of the Rideau Centre. The press was quick in spreading the news. This elicited an immediate reaction. For my part, I telephoned Mr. Eaton, the mayor of Ottawa, Mrs. Dewar, and the Chairman of the National Capital Commission, Mr. Drury. The Minister of Public Works (Mr. LeBlanc) was also involved, as was the MP for Ottawa East, Mr. Albert Roy. On November 16, I also presented a motion under Standing Order 43 in the House about this matter.
There are many reasons to oppose the change in name. First, the Rideau sector project involves much more than the Eaton store. In fact, it concerns the whole centretown area of Ottawa, including Rideau Street, the Byward Market, Sandy Hill, Lower Town, and so on. At the time of its inception, the project had a rather wide-ranging objective, namely to upgrade the centre-town of Ottawa where the activities and infrastructures had been on the decline for many years. The Rideau Centre Project would bring new life to the area. However, the Eaton store alone will not bring about these changes. Other stores and many shops will open in the Rideau Centre, as well as hotels, restaurants and other businesses which will also be involved in the commercial upgrading of this sector. Therefore, while Eaton is a major business partner, it is not alone.
Another important factor is probably our cultural heritage. In the National Capital Region, the name "Rideau" designates part of our history. We have only to think about the Rideau River, the Rideau Canal, Rideau Hall, Rideau Street, and so on. Rideau is synonymous with Ottawa.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I regret interrupting the Hon. Member, particularly as 1 have made several signals to him indicating that 1 would have to do so. 1 should explain that on the adjournment motion the Chair has absolutely no latitude. The time allotted to Hon. Members is three minutes; that time has expired, with perhaps some additional time.
I propose to make a rare exception; perhaps the Hon. Member would like to use ten seconds to finish his remarks. The Chair would accept that.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that I am entitled to seven minutes, not three. I am entitled to speak.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Hon. Member may not understand; it is three minutes for the Member who poses
Adjournment Debate
the question and seven minutes-I apologize to the Hon. Member. I have reversed matters. He has a total of seven minutes and accordingly, has a full four minutes in which to complete his remarks.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I was wondering, Mr. Speaker, why you were gesturing to me. I know we discussed new rules in the House today but I did not think they would be applied so quickly.

If I may come back to my topic, it is of course the change of name of a very important development centre in my constituency, the Rideau Centre. There was a proposal to change its name to Eaton Rideau Centre. As 1 said, Mr. Speaker, it soon became apparent why so many business groups and citizens reacted negatively. For that reason, on November 22, 1982, the management of the T. Eaton Company came to Ottawa to discuss the name change with local authorities. That meeting probably convinced the Eaton management, because they announced on Friday last, November 26, that they had changed their minds because of the representations made to them.
To conclude, Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank everyone who took part in the debate. Thanks should also go to the businessmen, citizens, the electronic and printed media who lended their support. Thanks to collective input, the voice of the people in the area could be heard. As I said in my opening remarks, we should also thank the management of the T. Eaton Company for responding to and understanding our objections and finally accepting that the common take precedence over their own interests.
Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to remind the House that I received a number of letters and telephone calls on that subject. Even if this might look unimportant, for us in Ottawa it is a matter of heritage, of preserving our legacy.
We are going through a development stage, Mr. Speaker. Downtown Ottawa must preserve its Rideau heritage-Rideau is synomous with Ottawa.
That question of the name change for the Centre shows that the people in the National Capital area are interested in that major $200 million project. We are all proud of it, and I would conclude by wishing every success to the promoters of the Rideau Centre on behalf of the people in my constituency and the National Capital area.


Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the question asked by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), I would like in the first place to congratulate him for the excellent work he has performed with respect to that

November 29, 1982
Adjournment Debate
matter as to most others relating to his constituency. I am quite pleased to announce that the project is now being carried out after several years of hard work devoted to planning and negotiations. I would like to point out to the members of this House how this Government, my Department and the National Capital Commission can co-operate with other levels of government and with the private sector in modernizing the core of some of our cities and improving the social and economic climate of our communities. The need for that project was first identified in the early sixties and the Cabinet gave its approval in principle in July 1973. The planning activities were spread out over a number of years because of the extent and complexity of that development project and the need to secure the participation of many interested parties of both the public and private sectors.
Our aim was to revitalize the eastern section of the National Capital, create permanent jobs and opportunities for the construction industry, as well as promote the use of vacant land belonging to the federal Government. I am convinced that the Crown will derive financial returns from its share of the gross revenue of the project.
Mr. Speaker, the project includes a 500-room hotel scheduled for completion next fall, about 650,000 square feet of retail store space, including a major Eaton's department store expected to open for business next summer, and a large convention centre which will be available in the fall of 1983. There will be parking facilities for 1,500 vehicles, a street reserved for buses and pedestrians as well as a pedestrian mall. What matters, Mr. Speaker, is that the project will have created approximately 2,000 jobs in construction operations on Canadian Government land between 1981 and 1983, 1,000 jobs in the general building industry in the National Capital Region, and additional jobs in the service industries. Some 1,500 people have found permanent jobs through the implementation of this project.
Mr. Speaker, the participation of the Federal Government is as follows: Department of Public Works, $19 million, and National Capital Commission, $11 million; the very significant participation of the private sector and the other levels of government is approximately $173 million.


CUSTOMS AND EXCISE-EVASION OF DUTIES BY AMWAY CORPORATION. (B) REQUEST FOR DETAILS OF POSSIBLE SETTLEMENT
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, the corporate personification of the "American Way" is on trial both criminally and civilly today in Canada. On Wednesday, November 17 last, I asked the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Bussieres) for an assurance that one of the largest direct sales companies in the world, namely Amway Corporation with sales last year of over $1.5 billion, would not be allowed to make a quiet deal with the Canadian Government to settle four outstanding civil actions. That same day the Company
was charged by the Ontario Attorney General with defrauding the Canadian Government under the Criminal Code. The trial date was set for tomorrow, Tuesday, November 30, 1982. I understand the Company announced today that it did not intend to put in an appearance. This, of course, shows complete contempt for the Canadian judicial process.
Amway, short for the American Way, was in fact found guilty in 1979 by the American Federal Trade Commission of fixing retail and wholesale prices and misrepresenting the profitability of Amway distributorships. The Company is headed by a Mr. Jay Van Andel and Richard M. DeVos, two of the five largest contributors to Ronald Reagan's campaign and the owners of the Mutual Broadcasting System, which is the largest radio network in the United States. Mr. Van Andel was from 1979 to 1980 the Chairman of the United States Chamber of Commerce and a good friend of Gerry Ford. Mr. DeVos, until he was fired in August, was the National Chairman of the Republican Fund Raising Committee. Amway as well, I might add, is an important supporter of the National Right to Work, Legal Defence and Education Foundation. We have here a classic case of free enterprise getting greedy and going sour in an attempt to maximize its profits by duping Canadian officials.
Revenue Canada has alleged that for 1977 to 1980 alone, Amway dramatically undervalued its goods entering Canada. Apparently this procedure has been going on since 1965. The claim for this three-year period alone is some $148 million covering over 1,700 separate entries. I understand that a Canadian customs broker blew the whistle on Amway.
Some of the internal documents which I have seen constitute a searing indictment of the attempts by Amway Corporation, this American corporate giant and its largest subsidiary, Amway of Canada, to avoid the payment of literally millions and millions of dollars in Canadian customs duties and thereby defraud Canadian taxpayers of millions of dollars. I intend to quote in the short time available to me some of the salient extracts from those documents.
Dummy invoices apparently were prepared, and in one of the documents dated December, 1975, an internal company document, it is stated:
No actual transactions take place between Amway and the contract warehouses.
The invoices are never sent to the contract warehouses and never paid by them. The contract warehouses are not aware of the existence of the invoices.
It continues:
A sharp auditor could request proof that the invoices were actually paid by the contract warehouses. No such proof exists.
In a document from the Vice-president, dated 1978, it is stated that the prices at which Amway of Canada has purchased products from Amway Corporation have been supported for purposes of Canadian customs duties as being proper by means of false representations, both oral and written. Canadian counsel has confirmed that the conduct practised constitutes fraud.
November 29, 1982


Mr. Garnet M. Bloomfield (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to reassure this House that at no time have information exchanges between the Department and Amway taken the form of negotiations. I repeat, there have been no negotiations and no secret deals and there will be none.
However, there have been exchanges of information between the parties to ensure that all facts relevant to the issues are
Adjournment Debate
clear to all. This has taken place within the normal adjudication process of the Department carried out under the Customs Act, Sections 160 to 168.
When goods become subject to seizure or forefeiture, the Department forwards to the interested party a formal notice of seizure pursuant to Section 161 of the Customs Act. This gives the party involved the opportunity to present, within 30 days of the date the notice has been issued, any information pertinent to the case. After the expiration of that period, the Department has the authority to consider and weigh the circumstances of the case and render a decision under Section 163 of the Customs Act.
In 1979, acting upon information that there might be irregularities by Amway regarding its imports to Canada, the Department immediately initiated an investigation. Shortly thereafter the RCMP was brought into the investigation.
In 1980, the Department, you will recall, informed Amway of its conclusions and filed four claims in the Federal Court, totalling $148 million. This represents the duty paid value of the goods imported. That is the value for duty of the goods imported, determined in accordance with the provisions of Canadian customs law, plus duty and taxes on this value.
In the case of Amway, the adjudication process was suspended on the advice of the Department of Justice, pending the decision of the Attorney General of Ontario concerning the question of laying criminal charges against the company, the Department having first protected its position by filing these claims.
Criminal charges were laid by the Attorney General of Ontario on November 12, 1982, and the Department is consulting with its lawyers to determine the appropriate course of action to follow respecting completion of the normal adjudication process.
It has been and is the normal practice of the Department to recognize that where a value for duty, albeit too low a value, has been declared at the time of entry and duty and taxes have been paid on that value, the final decision will take this amount into account by allowing it as a deduction from the gross amount claimed. Thus, Amway was advised that the final decision would probably be in the order of $105 million. Again following normal practice, the Department has continued to maintain its four claims in the Federal Court for the gross amount of $148 million.
The question has been asked whether we would ask for interest on the sum due to the Crown by Amway. Let me remind you that the Customs Act does provide for a penalty significantly greater than the duties and taxes not paid. It has not been the practice to seek interest except in some cases where the Department has agreed to deferred payment arrangements.
As you know the Department does not normally disclose information concerning penalties paid under the Customs Act. However, in this case the Department intends to disclose this

November 29, 1982
Adjournment Debate
information, in the public interest, in a way which will not prejudice the interest of any of the parties involved.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The motion to adjourn the House has now deemed to have been adopted, and accordingly this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m. Have a good evening.
At 10.31 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Tuesday, November 30, 1982