1983-02-11

STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

Mrs. Celine Hervieux-Payette (Montreal-Mercier):: Madam Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to make a few comments on the metric system which is now being used in 150 countries. In Canada, it was adopted unanimously by Parliament in 1971, after which the system was introduced gradually across Canada.
Madam Speaker, the metric system has definite advantages. Today, as a result of an agreement with the provinces, our children are learning the metric system in schools across Canada. I may also point out that the Common Market countries and also the United States are using the metric system. Furthermore, from October 1981 to September 1982, Canada had a surplus trade balance of $11 billion, and one wonders what effect converting back from the metric system to the old imperial system would have on our balance of trade.
Madam Speaker, I am very concerned about the protests we have been seeing for a number of months, which are being led by our Opposition colleagues who after thirteen years are trying to undo legislation that was passed by Parliament. When I went out West not long ago, Madam Speaker, I was also concerned about the fact that people were saying that the metric system was being used by French Canadians to take over the economy of the West. Madam Speaker, I think nothing is further from the truth-

And I urge my fellow colleagues on the other side of Parliament to respect this institution-


Madam Speaker:: Order.


FARM CREDIT CORPORATION
Mr. Bud Bradley (Haldimand-Norfolk):: Madam Speaker, the plight faced by agriculture in Canada has been brought to the attention of the House many times. We have pointed out
the high cost of energy, labour, seed and equipment, among other things. We have also pointed out the high cost of money. We have requested more money and lower rates for the Farm Credit Corporation, and more money for small business development bonds. We have called on the Government to allow farmers to invest in the Farm Credit Corporation and be allowed to write off their interest returns. The Ontario Federation of Agriculture, as well as many other farm organizations, are now calling on the Government to consider agri-bonds. Why not allow farmers to help farmers? They are capable and willing.
We are in a period of accelerating farm bankruptcies and sales. We have more and more farmers, of all ages, finding themselves in the interest rate squeeze. Agri-bonds would allow farmers with funds to invest in the Farm Credit Corporation. Because interest paid on the bonds would be tax deductible, the Farm Credit Corporation could pay a lower interest return on this money. This would then allow the Farm Credit Corporation to loan funds back to needy farmers at a lower rate. If present Government assistance to the Farm Credit Corporation prevailed, rates could be reduced even further. I call on the Government to consider this method of farm financing now, not next year when it will be too late for too many.


CANADA-UNITED STATES TEST AND EVALUATION PROGRAM PROPOSED TESTING OF CRUISE MISSILE
Mr. Paul E. McRae (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Madam Speaker, the Government's communique on Cruise testing states the air launched Cruise missile will help modernize the U.S. Strategic Air Command, part of the United States deterrent force on which North American security depends. In other words, we are testing a strategic weapon system in terrain and conditions entirely different from the conditions which brought about the decision to deploy ground launched Cruise missiles in Europe to counter the Soviets' SS-20. I cannot conceive of any terrain or weather conditions in eastern Germany, Poland, or European Russia, that in any way resemble Canada's far north. How can testing the common

February 11, 1983
guidance system under completely different conditions contribute to NATO defence in Europe?
The weapon we are testing is not a theatre weapon, but a strategic weapon carried by a B-52 bomber. The guidance system needs of the ground launched Cruise to be deployed in Europe do not require the kind of flight testing we are proposing. The Government should not use, as its basis for testing, the NATO agreement of 1979, but rather make it quite clear that we are testing a strategic weapon to be used over the polar regions. If our NATO commitment is our concern, better we should expend our energies improving our conventional forces, and especially our marine command.
- .


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mrs. Jennifer Cossitt (Leeds-Grenville):: Madam Speaker, I rise to protest the horrendous decision by the Department of the Attorney General of Nova Scotia to appeal a verdict of not guilty of first-degree murder handed down to Jane Stafford, who shot her wife-beating husband. Strong evidence from 16 witnesses brought to light the torturous mental and physical abuse this lady suffered from her husband for five excruciatingly long years, abuse and suffering that go beyond comprehension, at the hands of a man whose home local RCMP were instructed not to go near unless armed and ready to shoot, a man whom witnesses testified as having beaten and abused two previous wives, and children, and beat Jane Stafford to the point of unconsciousness on a number of occasions, a man who threatened and attempted to kill his wife, her parents, and her sister.
Jane Stafford, fighting for survival, has already received enough punishment-five long years of painful mental and physical punishment-and it appears the Department of the Attorney General of Nova Scotia wants her punished further. I believe, and I am sure everyone in this Chamber would agree, this lady was more than justified in her actions to protect herself and her son from the terrifying onslaught of repeated assault. I would therefore call upon the Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan) to take a giant step for battered wives all across Canada and give them the courage to take legal action, by intervening on behalf of Mrs. Stafford and assuring that her acquittal stands.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CHINESE NEW YEAR
Mrs. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Madam Speaker, gung hai fat choy-Happy Chinese New Year.
One hundred and twenty-five years ago the first Chinese community was established in Canada. Men laboured in northern mines hoping to find a better life in the Golden Mountain. Many labourers gave their lives to build our railways which united British Columbia to Canada.
Life was hard and lonely for those men who struggled to support their families in China. Their widows, many of whom lived in Toronto and Vancouver, also suffered great hardships so their children could progress.
Early laws such as the discriminatory Exclusion Act prevented family reunification. It was not until 1949 that Asian people gained the right to vote in Canada. CCF-NDP elected representatives were in the vanguard fighting for these rights.
Canadians of Chinese origin have contributed much to Canada through business, the professions, and higher education. Their strong family life has been a model for Canadian society for four generations. Thriving communities have been rebuilt in our inner cities with new cultural centres to honour and share a rich Chinese heritage. Many organizations provide mutual and community services. Communities across Canada have joined together to protect minority rights.
On behalf of all Members of Parliament we extend best wishes across Canada for a Happy Chinese New Year.
Gung hai fat choy for the Year of the Pig.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


TOURISM
Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Madam Speaker, some 42 million visitors from outside the Province spent more than $2 billion in Ontario in 1982, and the tourism industry last year provided 500,000 people in Ontario with either direct or indirect employment.
This week federal contributions of up to $23 million were announced toward the building of the Toronto Convention Centre, which will not only create 2,500 needed construction jobs in Toronto but is also estimated to have the potential to create up to 10,000 jobs in the service industry in southern Ontario.
Representing, as I do, a constituency where many people are employed in the hospitality industry and in construction, I am particularly pleased to see this development which is the result of considerable co-operation and hard work on the part of federal, provincial, and municipal politicians, and industry and labour representatives.
February 11, 1983


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Madam Speaker, on November 24, 1980, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro) promised he would bring forward a northern energy policy by March, 1981. Would you believe that now, almost two years after the deadline, nothing has been done and no comprehensive policy exists?
Ad hoc programs such as the Remote Community Demonstration Program, announced with great fanfare last April, have withered on the vine, and the Home Heating Oil Assistance Program, the Federal Power Support Program and the Commercial Power Rate Relief Program, which together provide minimal relief to small far northern communities, are scheduled to expire on March 31 this year.
The unanimous recommendations of the House of Commons Subcommittee on the Northern Canada Power Commission gather dust on the shelves of the Department while the Minister twiddles his thumbs. The last of a series of promises concerning the northern energy policy was made on November 8, 1982, when the Minister promised a Cabinet decision by Christmas which, needless to say, was not forthcoming. Northerners are getting tired of worn out promises, and demand to know where the Government stands on northern energy issues.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Madam Speaker, in 1982 farm bankruptcies were up by 60 per cent over 1981. That is really only the tip of the iceberg when you consider how many farmers were forced into early foreclosure and, of course, the machinery seizures that became commonplace across Canada.
The Canadian family farm is under a good deal of pressure these days, yet day after day the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) stands in his place saying that the Government has little room to move on the issue. I should like to remind the Minister and Members of the Government that Bill C-653 was introduced for first reading on April 22, 1982. This is a Bill which would provide a simple and inexpensive procedure for farmers to rearrange their affairs when cash flow becomes insufficient to meet current obligations as they become due. A similar Act was introduced in the 1930s which enabled farmers to protect themselves from the banks.
We have seen recent actions by the Canadian Farmers' Survival Association using very unorthodox tactics in an effort to save their own farms and their neighbours' farms. Today the Canadian Bankers' Association threatened farmers across the
Oral Questions
country by saying that banks would start pulling loans and being more hesitant in giving loans to farmers if this unorthodox tactic continues. It is a desperate situation. The Canadian family farm is being threatened. The Government has an opportunity to move now-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Many Canadians have told me that the only job creation programs of the Government are the alphabet soup programs which are very short-term in nature and do not provide any permanent jobs. They are primarily there for political effect. As an example, the NEED Program provides 12-week to 16-week jobs just to requalify people for the unemployment insurance rolls, but no permanent jobs.
Could the Minister today make a specific statement in the House to give some hope to people who have simply given up looking for jobs, a number which has increased about three times in the last two years, that there will be some permanent job creation programs in the forthcoming budget?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, before I reply to that specific question I think it would be very helpful if the Hon. Member got better information. To begin with, the NEED Program does not provide jobs for 12 to 16 weeks. In fact the average length of jobs which we are approving at the present time is upwards of 32 weeks. They are providing work which ranges all the way from the restoration of housing on Indian reserves, to the development of fish facilities in the Maritimes, and to the provision of sewer and water facilities in other Provinces. We just signed an agreement in British Columbia, for the information of the noise makers over there on that side, which provides for major reforestation projects at Terrace Bay.
The kinds of projects which are being provided across the country are designed to make major contributions to the productive capacity of the communities, to provide for new municipal infrastructure services, to provide major services in the social service area, such as language training, and the ability to provide women with care centres for children.
It would be very helpful for the Hon. Member, before he rises and makes blanket condemnations, to spend a little more time making a careful assessment of the kind of work which is in fact being done. It is providing a real clear option to people to return to work as opposed to having to go on social assistance or social welfare. That is what Canadians want. They

February 11, 1983
Oral Questions
want to work as opposed to being idle, and that is what we are providing them with.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, the Minister did not answer the question. The question was: will the Government propose permanent job creation programs as opposed to short-term alphabet-soup programs, which the Minister just admitted that is what it has been doing.


CONSTRUCTION ASSOCIATION PROPOSAL ON CAPITAL COST ALLOWANCES
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, recently the Canadian Construction Association, in its prebudget submission, indicated that it was anticipating a further decline of some 60,000 jobs in 1983 over and above a huge drop in jobs in 1982.
Does the Minister agree with the proposals of the Construction Association, which have also been made by the Conservative Party of Canada, to reinstate the capital cost allowance, to reverse the change in the tax regime for the small business community, and to introduce incentives to encourage construction exports, all of which will increase jobs?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, while we are on the subject of developing long-term jobs in the construction area, I would suggest to the Hon. Member for Etobicoke Centre that he speak to many Members of his own caucus. The Minister of Transport put forward a proposal some two weeks ago which would provide some 350,000 new person-years of jobs in the country in this decade. It would start close to $800 million worth of construction in this year alone, provided that we are able to obtain full support for the legislation to modernize the railway system. Yet all we hear from Members on his side is delay, conflict and opposition. If the Hon. Member is really interested in getting work going, I suggest that he tell his caucus Members to come on board, support that legislation, and get those jobs going.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The Minister is pulling things out of the air. We are looking for specific proposals from the Government to address the problem of job loss. The 60,000 job-loss figure that the Construction Association has pointed to, takes these things into account, and they still need more. That is what we are requesting.


DROP IN EMPLOYMENT
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, for the past two or three years the Government has continually blamed the problems of high unemployment on the international recession. However, employment in the United States has dropped by some 1.9 per cent while it has dropped by three times that amount in Canada on a proportionate basis; 5.3 per cent in the last year. How does the Minister explain this substantially worse performance to the 1.6 million people who
are out of a job and have seen their lives devastated by this abysmal performance?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, again I am afraid that the Hon. Member has been somewhat loose and easy with his reporting to the House on what in fact has taken place. I think it would be foolish for anyone in the House to try to suggest that Canada is not part of a world-wide recession.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I never did. I said, why worse?


Lloyd Axworthy: For Members opposite to try to suggest and to continue this foolishness of saying that somehow only Canada is being affected by this recession, simply will not wash. I think that Canadians know better. I believe they understand that the problems we face are being faced by everyone, whether the United States, Great Britain, or France.
What we do point out when we talk realistically to Canadians-not the exaggerated nonsense we hear from that Hon. Member-is that we in fact have put in place in this country, contrary to what the Americans have done, a major program of unemployment insurance that extends for a full 52 weeks, and a number of specific job creation programs for which we will spend over a billion dollars this year to provide well over
150,000	jobs for Canadians. There are a number of other initiatives as well. I can tell you, Madam Speaker, there are many Americans who would be very happy if their Government were bringing in the kind of initiatives that this Government is introducing.


SKILLS GROWTH FUNDS-PURCHASE OF AMERICAN MANUFACTURED EQUIPMENT
Mr. John Bosley (Don Valley West):: Madam Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. It is with regard to the enforcement of the "Buy Canadian" provisions of his Skills Growth Fund. It is supplementary to a question asked by the Hon. Member for St. Catharines on Monday. Why has he allowed Niagara College to place purchase orders for American-made welding equipment for training purposes when suitable Canadian equipment that fully met his "Buy Canadian" provisions was tendered to the College by the Lincoln Electric Company of Canada?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to answer that particular question and to clear up the confusion in the Hon. Member's mind. As he should know, the jurisdiction over community colleges is very much a provincial Government authority. Our Skills Growth Fund is established as a direct grant to enable community colleges, non-profit groups or business groups to modernize their training facilities. The decisions made by those organizations must be authorized by their provincial authorities.
In the particular case in question, it was drawn to my attention that, while we established the basic standard that the sourcing of new training equipment should be of Canadian
February 11, 1983

origin, the College was authorized in this particular case by provincial authorities, who are much more closely affiliated to the Hon. Member than they are to me, to go ahead and buy this particular piece of equipment.
In order to correct that situation I have sent letters off to all of the provincial Ministers of Education, reminding them of the standards of our Skills Growth Fund, and that we want them to buy Canadian. I hope they will respond.


ENFORCEMENT OF BUY-CANADIAN PROVISIONS
John William Bosley: Madam Speaker, the Minister's rules in his own booklets say that the community colleges are to "Buy Canadian" unless the Minister of Education of a Province has said that the equipment is not suitable. In these cases of Niagara College, Mohawk College and Conestoga College, the Ministry has not said that. In fact the equipment is 100 per cent in use at Algonquin and other colleges. Will the Minister tell this House whether he is going to enforce the buy Canadian provisions of his own fund so that the jobs that are involved in manufacturing the equipment will stay in Canada, or is his "Buy Canadian" program just more Liberal rhetoric?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I simply point out to the Hon. Member that enforcement action has already been taken. I have written to the provincial Ministers reminding them of their responsibility under the agreement. At the same time, because of the importance of the Skills Growth Fund in the creation of new jobs and new training for the young people of the country, I am not going to endanger the good relations we have with the Provinces simply because of the nonsense put forward by the Member.


CANADA-UNITED STATES TEST AND EVALUATION PROGRAM CRUISE MISSILE TESTING
Miss Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister I would like to direct my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Two of the Prime Minister's top advisers stated, as reported in The Globe and Mail of last Saturday, that even if the arms control negotiations going on in Europe succeed, as we all hope they will, "the Americans will still want to test their air launched Cruise missile in Canada" since it is of course part of the U.S. Air Force's inter-continental strategic weaponry not directly related to the European theatre.
Will the Minister therefore confirm or deny to the House that the Prime Minister has in fact, through secret correspondence and discussions, reached an understanding with the
Oral Questions
United States President that we will in fact test their Cruise missile over Canadian soil?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member has asked me to confirm or deny that the Prime Minister has entered into arrangements with the President of the United States to test the Cruise missile, through correspondence. I deny that.


UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN PRIME MINISTER AND UNITED STATES PRESIDENT
Pauline Jewett: Madam Speaker, will the Secretary of State for External Affairs however not confirm that the Prime Minister has reached an understanding with the President of the United States and that that understanding was reached some time ago, that Canada will be receptive to a proposal from the United States to test their air launched Cruise missile over Canadian territory? Has an understanding in principle been reached between the Prime Minister and the President of the United States?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the understanding reached between the President of the United States and the Prime Minister was that there would be an over-all umbrella agreement that would provide the guidelines for weapons testing in Canada. That understanding was tabled yesterday in detail in the House of Commons.
There is no understanding beyond what was tabled in the House of Commons yesterday, and it is quite untrue to say that a commitment has been made privately by the Prime Minister that goes beyond the agreement which was tabled yesterday.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine):: Madam
Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Since the commencement of the investigation of Canadian Far East prisoners of war for strongyloidiasis by the Division of Laboratories, Ministry of Health in British Columbia, can the Minister inform the House whether or not any positive findings of this disease have been discovered?


Hon. W. Bennett Campbell (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Madam Speaker, I understand that thus far there have been a number of cases, although not a large number that have been identified, and corrective medical action has been taken not only to alleviate but to address any further occurrences which may show up in further investigation.

February 11, 1983
Oral Questions


REQUEST FOR SPECIAL PENSION COMPENSATION
A. Daniel McKenzie: Madam Speaker, will the Minister then be proceeding with the steps necessary to provide those stricken veterans with special pension compensation, and will he introduce a Bill, or amendments to present legislation, to cover compensation for these veterans?


W. Bennett Campbell: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member is working under some misinformation in that the legislation does not have to be changed. The provisions of the Pension Act would apply, and if disabling conditions are as a result of this particular disease then veterans are entitled to make application and have their cases considered.


SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Science and Technology. The Minister knows that the Government is currently contributing $400,000 annually to the International Institute of Applied Systems Analysis. This would cover, among others, the expenses of overseas junkets for such peripatetic experts as Michael Kirby.
Is the Minister aware that, following the lead of the United States, Great Britain decided last July to cease its financial participation in the operation of this Vienna-based institute as-and I quote from The New York Times of January 18 of this year-"The Institute produced vague results that at best repeated much of what was already known"? Would the Minister now review the merits of our country spending resources on this particular venture?


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Minister of State for Economic Development and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Madam Speaker, I would be very happy to review the results. If the results are not positive and if the Institution is not making a contribution, then, clearly, we should very carefully reassess our position. The preliminary reports which I have received have been quite positive. I would be happy to discuss the operations of the Institute and the results achieved, with the Hon. Member. If, in turn, he has some information that he would like to make known to me about the operations, the achievements, and the purpose of the Institution, I would be happy to hear them, as well.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: I appreciate the answer.


REPORTED USE OF DATA BANKS BY SOVIET DELEGATES
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Solicitor General. Has the Solicitor General looked into the report that Soviets and eastern Europeans have used IIASA to obtain access to western scientists, technologies and data banks, without providing anything comparable in return and, specifically, that Soviet officials in the Institute, such as the new chief Soviet delegate to IIASA, Igor Alekseevich Ganin, who is well connected with the KGB, used the Institute's computer to obtain sensitive military information from data banks located in western countries? If so, has the Solicitor General made any recommendations to his Cabinet colleagues concerning further Canadian financial participation in this venture?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General of Canada):: Madam Speaker, I have not done so, but I will take that as a representation and will do so.


CANADA-UNITED STATES TEST AND EVALUATION PROGRAM REQUEST FOR DEBATE ON CRUISE MISSILE TESTING
Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. An agreement which was signed yesterday for the testing of U.S. defence systems in Canada states that "individual project arrangements shall be negotiated and concluded by the Canadian and American Defence Departments". Could the Acting Prime Minister tell the House whether or not the Canadian Parliament will have an opportunity, accorded by a Government resolution, to debate the arrangements for the Cruise vehicle tests before their final acceptance?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, as the Hon. Member pointed out, no project arrangement for any particular weapons systems, including the Cruise, has yet been negotiated. When that is done, if it is done, and when negotiations are completed, it will then be the occasion to raise the question as to whether debate will be appropriate.


Mr. Epp:: Now is the time.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I will not give any commitment today concerning debate, but I think that it is a matter which can be raised if and when a project arrangement is concluded.


Mr. McDermid:: The answer is no.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: I feel that that is a shocking answer which really forecloses any chance that Parliament will be able to debate the most controversial subject in this country. It seems a shame that the Acting Prime Minister would adopt such an answer.
February 11, 1983


POSSIBLE TESTING OF NON-NUCLEAR WEAPONS
Allan Bruce McKinnon: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask another question concerning the agreement which was signed yesterday. It suggested that tests could include "surveillance and identification systems and advanced non-nuclear munitions". As the Minister well knows, the super powers are heavily involved in developing anti-satellite systems and non-nuclear anti-ballistic systems. Could the Minister tell the House whether or not either or both of those weapons are potential candidates for testing in Canada?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Madam Speaker, I cannot tell the Hon. Member that, because-


Pauline Jewett: The U.S. has not told you what to do yet.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -before we can know what proposals are to be considered, they must be made by the United States, which has requested these possibilities. The United States has not yet made any proposal with respect to weapons testing systems.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: And you did not even talk about it.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I suspect that such proposals will be made, but they have not yet been made.


NEGOTIATION OF CRUISE TESTING-RELATIONSHIP TO GENEVA ARMS REDUCTION TALKS
Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton South):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Could he inform the House when the specific negotiations with regard to the Cruise testing will take place between the two Defence Departments? When will they start under the terms of the framework agreement?
As there are many Canadians who are seeking clarification on this point, I would also ask the Secretary of State what is the relationship between the specific Cruise negotiations and the arms reduction negotiations in Geneva. Is there a relationship and, if so, what is it?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the first question asked when will the negotiations begin. I presume that if the United States makes a request-


Pauline Jewett: It already has.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -to enter into an arrangement, the negotiations will begin shortly after that request has been made, but it is not in hand at the present time.
The Hon. Member asked a second question-what is the relationship between Cruise testing and the negotiation in Geneva? The relationship, of course, is quite close and obvious. As the Hon. Member knows, at the NATO meeting in December, 1979, the Government of Canada agreed with the NATO decision to modernize the weapons system of the Alliance and to place the Cruise missile and the Pershing II in Europe. That
Oral Questions
decision was taken in 1979, calling for the deployment of Cruise missiles land-based in Europe. That, of course, was in response to the considerable deployment of SS-20s placed in Europe by the Soviet Union.
What Canada will probably be asked to do will be to agree to the testing of the guidance system which will be used in the Cruise missile to be located in Europe. The Hon. Member should understand, and I am sure he does, that part of the decision by NATO in 1979 was to pursue negotiations with the Soviet Union with the objective of totally eliminating or substantially reducing all existing land-based missiles in Europe or planned missiles in Europe. Obviously, if these negotiations succeed in 1983, then that success will change considerably, possibly make unnecessary, or reduce the necessity for deployment of Cruise missiles in Europe. Therefore, from our point of view, the most important thing that can happen this year is to put our full weight behind those negotiations so that they will succeed.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST FOR REFERRAL OF CANADA-UNITED STATES AGREEMENT TO COMMITTEE
Hon. Walter Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Madam Speaker, I share the concern expressed by the Hon. Member for Victoria in that the Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs have not agreed to a parliamentary debate with respect to this matter. I think it is a matter that he should reconsider.
Perhaps the Minister is aware of the provisions of the new Standing Orders of the House of Commons, wherein Standing Order 46(4) states:
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.
If there is not a debate in the House, there should at least be an opportunity for the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence to examine this exchange of notes which are now part of the parliamentary record. I therefore ask the Minister if he would designate the papers which he filed yesterday, as it is recorded in Hansard, to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence so that the committee can at least begin examination of the matter? At the same time I would like the Minister to give his undertaking that he and his officials would appear.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I would like to consult the Government House Leader before making a final determination on the Hon. Member's request. 1 would like to consider it and consult with the House Leader before making a final response. I believe that, in one way or another, the Standing Committee will have an opportunity to

February 11, 1983
Oral Questions
consider this exchange of notes, either from its regular examination of estimates or through the method suggested by the Hon. Member.
O)


INTENT OF STANDING ORDER
Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I would ask the Minister to advise the Government House Leader of the intent of the rule that those committees were to become scrutiny committees far beyond the normal "guillotined" estimates process. When the Minister is speaking to the Government House Leader, will he have that in mind?
Hon. Allan J. Mac Lac hen (Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs): Yes, Madam Speaker, as far as I am concerned I would like to see the widest possible debate in the country, and the widest possible discussion with respect to the over-all arms situation, the negotiations, and how the possible testing of a Cruise missile in Canada is related to the over-all posture of the NATO alliance. I am quite prepared to discuss this matter with the Government House Leader.


RAILWAYS
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Madam Speaker, 1 have a couple of questions for the Minister of Transport. Since the Prime Minister has said, "We do not want to fiddle with the Crow rate unless there is some very strong feelings throughout the West that this rate should be re-opened", and in view of the fact that Canada's main agricultural organization, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture rejected the Minister's plan to demolish the Crow rate, may I ask the Minister is he still insisting on proceeding with his proposal? Does he plan to change it? Is he going to keep on stubbornly fiddling while he "burns our Crow"?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, I must compliment my hon. friend for quoting the Prime Minister well. The Prime Minister said, and I repeat, that no action would be taken on the Crow unless there was a desire in the West for a change in the Crow. There is such a change. There is such a desire for change in the Crow. I have already indicated, and the Member knows it well, that in all recent discussions, for example at the Canadian Federation of Agriculture meeting yesterday, at the "outlooks" seminar in Saskatchewan a few days ago, the question was not should the Crow remain or should the Crow not remain. The question was which way should it be changed. The division among people is on methods and not, basically, on substance.
I recognize the Canadian Federation of Agriculture voted in favour yesterday of continuing payments to the railway. But then at the same time, at a seminar in Saskatchewan two days
ago, three groups opposed the present plan and seven groups agreed with it, with diversified comments on it.
The world is evolving. People are expressing dissatisfaction now that they did not get 100 per cent of what they were looking for, but they will come to the conclusion that 75 per cent or 80 per cent is not a bad average.


NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY PROPOSAL
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Madam Speaker, the Minister just does not get the message. There is no question but that an overwhelming majority of Canadian producers, not only grain producers, but others, are opposed to his proposal. This morning the New Democratic Party released an alternative proposal and I sent copies over to the Minister's office. It is an alternative plan to keep the Crow rate and create 110,000 more jobs than even the Minister proposes, and will upgrade railways by public investment in exchange for equity ownership. Since the Minister's proposal is opposed by the majority of producers, will he consider our proposal, which would cost no more than the Government's proposal?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I will certainly do that. I apologize to my hon. friend. I have not read it yet because I was busy doing something else this morning. I will do so during the weekend, and I am sure we will have plenty of occasions to debate it further.


INCOME TAX
Hon. John M. Reid (Kenora-Rainy River):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. A constituent of mine has complained to me that his total income appeared on his federal individual tax return form. I looked at mine, and I find that my income appears on my federal income tax return form. I assume that everyone's income now appears on their federal income tax return form.
My second point, Madam Speaker, is that the Post Office is in charge of delivering these forms. There is a fair amount of theft which goes on in the mail and I am investigating a case of a young lady who lost her interest payment from Canada Savings Bonds because it was intercepted in the mail. Someone used her social insurance number.
What legislative authority does the Minister have to place on income tax return forms my social insurance number, and every Canadian's social insurance number; my wife's social insurance number and every Canadian's spouse's social insurance number, together with the total family income? What legislative authority does the Department of National Revenue have to make this information available to whomever wants to go and filch it out of the Post Office system?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
February 11, 1983


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of National Revenue):: Madam Speaker, I may point out to the Hon. Member that the new T-l forms that were sent out this year allow for the legislation that is now before the House. I may also remind him that this legislation provides for a new income averaging formula that takes into account the taxpayer's income over the last few years. By indicating last year's income on the form, we are making it easier for the taxpayer who wishes to take advantage of the new income averaging formula in the future, so that he knows what amount he declared as income on his previous return.
As far as the social insurance number is concerned, the Hon. Member knows full well that for practical reasons, the use of computers in processing tax returns is increasing more and more, to prevent any mixups or mistakes and to keep the taxpayer's File up-to-date.


John Mercer Reid: Madam Speaker, that is an entirely inadequate answer.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


USE OF PERSONAL INFORMATION
John Mercer Reid: Madam Speaker, the legislation has not been passed. Parliament has not considered it. Also, it is an invasion of the Protection of Privacy Act to make available my income and the income of every other Canadian-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Mercer Reid: -together with our social insurance numbers. That is an enormous invasion of the privacy of every Canadian. Having anticipated the legislation, having broken the Protection of Privacy Act, will the Minister take steps to change this, to remove it from the projected law, and make sure that whatever is done in this field is done for the convenience of Canadians and not for the convenience of his bureaucrats?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, I would like to remind the Hon. Member that this bill is now before Parliament. The Hon. Member knows at what stage the Bill is now. I would also remind him that the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs has had an opportunity to make a very detailed preliminary study of this Bill. As for using the social insurance number and indicating the taxpayer's income for the previous year on the tax form, we are doing this and we are providing that information to help the taxpayer get the best possible
Oral Questions
benefit from the provisions of the Income Tax Act, and we are not doing so for the sake of bureaucracy.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Hon. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member's point is an excellent one. I would like to ask the same Minister does he not himself have any concern for the privacy of individuals whose social insurance numbers and family incomes are printed on that form. And, if he is concerned, why does he allow this to happen?


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, I am just as concerned as the Hon. Member about the confidentiality of the information given on an income tax return. I would like to point out that the T-l form sent to the taxpayer is sent to his home and bears his name and address. A continuous procedure is used, based on the social insurance number, in order to ensure that the information on the form goes to the person concerned, since he is the one who receives his personalized form. As I said earlier to the Member for Kenora-Rainy River, we are providing information on the amount to enable the person concerned to use to better advantage the provisions of the Income Tax Act, including the new income averaging formula which taxpayers will be able to use this year.


PROPOSAL TO PAY RENT ACCORDING TO INCOME-USE OF TAX RETURNS
Mr. John Gamble (York North):: Madam Speaker, a short time ago the Minister of Public Works suggested it would be appropriate if tenants across Canada paid a fixed amount of 25 per cent to 30 per cent of their income for rent. I was troubled as to how the landlords would ever know what was the gross income of individual taxpayers. It now appears that the system to be employed is that these returns being dispatched across Canada disclosing income can now be used for the purpose of deciding the rent to be paid by tenants. Is that indeed part of the scheme devised by the Minister of Public Works?


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, I think it is always good to elaborate on an intelligent question, but if there are gaps in the process, logic may well go out the door. I think that is exactly what the Hon. Member has done. The Minister of Public Works mentioned what he thought would be a reasonable share of the individual's income that could be spent on the monthly rent. This has no connection with the amount printed on the T-l forms which is directly related to the new income averaging

February 11, 1983
Oral Questions
formula that is now before the House and which, I hope, will be enacted within the next few days,


John Albert Gamble: Madam Speaker, the stupidity lies in the Minister of Public Works' initial suggestion.


LANDLORDS' ACCESS TO INFORMATION
John Albert Gamble: Madam Speaker, unless the federal Government complies with the general suggestion made by the Minister and supplies total income data to landlords, how would landlords be able to determine accurately how much to charge a tenant for rent? Is that not part and parcel of the arrangement decided upon and recommended by the Minister of Public Works?
[ Translation]


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, I do not think I should answer for the Minister of Public Works as to his intentions in making that statement. As far as I can tell, the comment was made after looking at a number of studies contained in his departmental files.
As far as any possible use of Revenue Canada information is concerned, we shall never violate the principles of the Department of National Revenue. Personal income tax returns are confidential, and that is one of our principles. When we indicate an amount on a tax return, that is because the form is directed to a specific individual and the amount represents that individual's income, and we are therefore maintaining confidentiality.
* *
*


CONSTRUCTION OF COAL TERMINAL AT PRINCE RUPERT, B.C.
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport regarding what seems to be a Fantasay Island situation in Prince Rupert. As he knows, last August, Dillingham-Sceptre accepted a fixed price contract to construct a coal terminal. In November they began construction and now, two months later, that company has suddenly received authorization from the federal Government to do the project on a cost plus basis.
My question to the Minister is threefold. First, is the Minister convinced in his own mind that there is no Canadian company capable of constructing the coal terminal at a fixed price; secondly, will he table all of the project bids from last summer; thirdly, how can there possibly be effective cost controls on this project when all of the supervisory personnel are American citizens? Is this not likely to be like the Montreal Olympics? Is the Minister going to allow 50 per cent, 100 per cent or 200 per cent overruns on this project?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I presume my hon. friend calls it Fantasy Island because there are so many things that the federal Government is doing in that area to enhance its economic prestige and quality. I agree with him that it is really wonderful what is happening on Ridley Island now.
On the subject of the contract itself, I am aware that my hon. friend has been in extensive consultation with officials of the National Harbours Board and I compliment him on that. If there is something else he wants to know, I will make sure he gets it. The reason for the cost plus approach to this project is essentially one of timing. Things could not be done sequentially; they had to be done concurrently. The packaging of the marine works had to be done in relationship to the other works taking place in the coal development on the Island; the stacker reclaimer and the railway loop and so on and so forth. I repeat, the reason it had to be done this way, i.e. cost plus, is essentially one of timing. Because of that, the control system is rather strong. There is a good Board on which both National Harbours Board and private sector people are represented, with a Treasury Board officer watching over the whole thing, and we will try to make sure there will not be any abuse in the cost-plus contract. If my hon. friend thinks there might be, I will go into an inquiry session for him.


James Ross Fulton: Madam Speaker, I thank the Minister for his comments. I know many of the Members on the Prince Rupert Board are very careful about cost overruns.


ISSUANCE OF WORK PERMITS TO AMERICAN CITIZENS
James Ross Fulton: Madam Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration who earlier in this Question Period made everyone in this House aware of such comments as "buy Canadian", and "a lot of Americans would be pleased if their Government brought in initiatives like Canada". Would the Minister explain to the two million unemployed in Canada right now why 23 per cent of the workers at Ridley Island are American citizens and why his office in Vancouver gave them EMP2151 work permits without ever posting those jobs anywhere in Canada? Is he going to tell these two million unemployed Canadians in Canada right now that not a single one of them is capable of taking one of those jobs at Ridley Island?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Employment and Immigration I have looked at this matter. Someone gave me a hint that it might come up. I found that out of 103 employees on the marine works, nine of them are Americans, they are legally in Canada, they have a work permit from the Department of Immigration-


Some Hon. Members:: Why?


Jean-Luc Pepin: -all are supervisors, and all are underwater drilling experts. It is important to underline that fact. This company, Sceptre, is partly owned by an American firm, I
*


February 11, 1983

recognize that, which has done work elsewhere such as at Valdez, Alaska and the Aleutian Islands. It has acquired experience and that experience is very valuable, and it is being used now. I think this is the best use of experience and knowledge around the world, and Canadians should not be so narrow-minded that they are not willing to recognize that occasionally other people in the world know a little bit more than they do about some things, like underwater drilling.


AGRICULTURE
Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture who realizes that conditions like those depicted in John Steinbeck's "Grapes of Wrath" are beginning to appear in certain parts of rural Canada. If the Minister is serious about taking steps to ensure that the family farm maintains its position in Canadian agriculture and taking steps against the banks of Canada, is he prepared to bring forward for second reading Bill C-653, an Act to amend the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, to allow family farms to stay in place in Canada during these very difficult times? I can assure him through you, Madam Speaker, that he would have full support from the New Democratic Party for rapid passage of this Bill.


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, I had discussions yesterday with the Liberal Member for Lambton-Middlesex who sponsored the Bill, and I understand he is trying to make arrangements so that the Bill can be brought in, in some form. I support the principle of the Bill.


IMMIGRATION
John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. With the downturn in immigration into Canada there are a number of so-called immigration consultants popping up all over the place, providing so-called expert advice. Has the Minister given any consideration at all to the licensing of the legitimate immigration consultants here in Canada?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I think the Hon. Member points out a serious problem and one that we have been examining. As he knows, we commissioned some reports from the Immigration Task Force, specifically on what to do about immigration consultants. On the question of licensing, the problem we discovered is that it falls between federal and
Oral Questions
provincial jurisdictions. It could be corrected through an amendment to the Immigration Act. We are looking into that and hope that the legislative timetable for the next year will give us an opportunity to do so.
In the meantime we are establishing a number of specific administrative procedures to try to correct the problem. One is to provide alternative sources of information in areas of heavy concentration of immigration applications. We have developed a new series of brochures and pamphlets that we are prepared to issue which will give people more complete information. As well, we have been working very closely with my colleague, the Solicitor General and the RCMP, to undertake prosecutions of those people who have very directly contravened the law and have given out bad advice.
I thank the Hon. Member for his observations and I can make the commitment to him that we will continue to work as hard as we can to correct the problem.


FISHERIES
Hon. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. It seems to be common knowledge that the Kirby Report is to be made public on Thursday of next week. May I ask the Minister whether, prior to that or at the same time, he will make a statement on what parts of the report have been accepted by the Government? Will the Government make an announcement to that effect and, if so, on what day will it be made?


Hon. Pierre De Bane (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Madam Speaker, I am putting the final touch to a statement in that regard. I hope that early next week I can give the Hon. Member the precise date on which the report will be made public.


RAILWAYS
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Apparently the Department of Transport has engaged a firm of consultants to canvas the views of Maritime businessmen with respect to the Maritime Freight Rates Act. May I ask the Minister what his Department intends with respect to this study? There is a growing fear that we may lose our eastern Crow in its present form in the Maritime Freight Rates Act. Is there any validity to the suggestion that this is the direction in which the Government is heading?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I hope we are talking about the same thing; the

February 11, 1983
Point of Order-Hon. Walter Baker
question could refer to either the Maritime Freight Rates Act or the At and East subsidy. I do not know which of those two my friend is talking about.
As usual, before doing anything in the Department of Transport we research everything in great depth, and a number of times. My hon. friend has cautioned me about something now, so I will look at it very seriously. If any change is to be brought about, I will consult with him and with many others beforehand.


POINTS OF ORDER
Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order which arises out of the tabling of the document described on p. 22714 of Hansard yesterday, February 10, 1983. The Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) tabled, in both official languages, a document described as follows:
-an exchange of notes between Canada and the United States constituting an agreement between our two Governments on the use of Canadian facilities and airspace for the testing and evaluation of U.S. defence systems.
Under the rules of the House of Commons adopted unanimously some time ago, Standing Order 46(4) reads as follows:
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.
The Minister tabled the report in the House of Commons as a Member of the House but also as the Secretary of State for External Affairs, as designated in Hansard. His tabling was therefore deficient. That deficiency should be cleared up immediately by the Minister designating the appropriate Committee, which would be the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence.
It is not that the tabling was improper; it is that he did not follow the second step required by the rules in order to carry out the intent of the new rules, and that is to designate the Committee. 1 think it is appropriate that the Minister now designate the Committee. He could do that today or tomorrow, but it should be done without delay.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I would just remind the Hon. Member that reports, returns or other papers laid before the House are governed by the expression "in accordance with an Act of Parliament". In other words, if a report is obligated for presentation by an Act of Parliament, then it is automatically referred.
In this particular case, there was an exchange of notes not flowing from any particular section of an Act of Parliament. Therefore, I do not think that the particular Standing Order applies in this case. I make that point as a procedural matter.
The substantive point made by the Hon. Member, namely that whether, when there is an exchange of notes, that ought to be considered by a committee, is a matter which I will take up with the Government House Leader. I believe it would be beneficial for the Committee to examine this whole question. It could be done in the normal way when the Estimates go to Committee or it may be desirable to do what the Hon. Member suggests. That is what I should like to discuss with the Government House Leader.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I appreciate that the hon. gentleman is going to discuss that with the Government House Leader.
Let me say, however, with respect to Acts of Parliament, that the Minister is acting under the authority of an Act of Parliament. First, he is a Member of the House of Commons and therefore his conduct is governed by the Statutes dealing with the House of Commons. Second, and perhaps more important, as Secretary of State for External Affairs he has charge over the external relations of the country, the operation of the Department and the matters to be dealt with by Parliament.
I hope that under the new procedure we are not going to rely on legalisms which are doubtful to start with, and which was not the intent of the Committee when it wrote the rules. The intent of the Committee and the intent of the House was that Members of the House of Commons who are not Members of the Government should be engaged in the affairs of state to the extent that is possible. The best way to do this would be to have a debate immediately, of course. The Government may decide, as a matter of policy, that that is not right.
It would equally not be right if the Government decided that a committee of the House with their new powers, to which under the new rules the Government must respond after a report of a committee, was not allowed to work. I think the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Smith) is as mindful as anyone else of the purposes of the Committee's report to the House: it was to allow Members of Parliament to engage in policy matters.
I hope the investigation to be undertaken by the Minister will be with respect to his powers and that he will not rely on what I term a petty legalism.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I am glad that the Hon. Member is back in his former role of arguing procedure. I find it rather compatible to join him in a pursuit which we followed almost daily in the past.
I would make two observations on this matter. First, if one accepts the reasoning of the Hon. Member, then every paper tabled in the House must go to a standing committee. I do not think that is the intent; the intent is that where the Minister must lay upon the Table the report required by Act of Parliament, then it must automatically be referred. That is the sound approach. It is not the explicit requirement of the rule nor was it the intent to have every paper, no matter what it is, sent to a standing committee.
February 11, 1983


Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, the Minister made the point that because it was not explicitly set out in the rule, it may well be that the Government would choose not to allow a debate on this matter to occur in the very near future. Also the Minister indicated yesterday that he would discuss the matter with the House Leader, and again indicated today that he would discuss the question of whether or not there ought to be some time allocated for discussion of this very important matter, one which touches upon the lives of people in this country and in other countries now and in the future.
Notwithstanding the fine legal point which he made with regard to the appropriateness of the rule, there was a desire on the part of the Committee established to review the rules of Parliament that matters of substance, heretofore not dealt with in the House of Commons or in committee by virtue of any automatic referral, could be dealt with and would be dealt with. This matter falls four square into the category. It is a matter of considerable importance to the vast majority of Canadians, notwithstanding on which side of the argument they come down.
Again I ask the Minister, as I did yesterday, whether he is going to rely on some very fine legal point to thwart the right of Members of Parliament to discuss matters of vital importance to the future of the country, or is he going to rise in his place and say that the deployment and use of the Cruise missile, which will be effected by the complicity of Canada in providing a testing site for it, is to be given time in the House and in committee. I suggest that it needs time both in the House of Commons and in committee for a reasonable debate, the time limits of which we would easily agree upon.
Does the Minister not think, in the over-all scheme of things with which we deal in the House of Commons on a day-to-day basis, that the question of the use of the mechanisms to be tested in Canada is a justifiable reason for debate in the House of Commons? If he does, surely it is not too much to ask him to sit down and work out the mechanics of having that take place.


John Mercer Reid: Madam Speaker, I just want to point out to the House Standing Order 46(4) which reads:
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-
One of those papers which would be permanently referred to the parliamentary committee is an annual report. Surely any procedural expert would tell us that an agreement of the kind which comes under an annual report would automatically be referred to that committee. Therefore, it seems that the point of order raised by the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) is not really a point of order at all, because that committee, as soon as it is set up and the referral of the annual report is made, will have all the authority it needs to conduct a
Point of Order-Hon. Walter Baker
discussion into the papers laid before the House by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen).


Mr. Doug Lewis (Simcoe North):: In joining the debate on this point of order, Madam Speaker, I would ask you to consider very seriously the essence of what we are discussing. We have a document which is vital to Canada tabled by the Minister. Despite the comments of the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid) that it may some day become part of a report which some day is referred to Parliament, the fact is that it was tabled yesterday. I request that you reserve your decision, Madam Speaker, in order to consider very carefully the vital nature of what we are trying to do, which is to provide scrutiny of these documents immediately by standing committees.


Mr. D. M. Collenette (York East):: Madam Speaker, as a Member of the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure, I beg to differ with the Hon. Member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis). I think the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) has outlined the problem. I am certainly in agreement with his interpretation of the Standing Order.
I would not want to put words into the mouth of the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker), but my recollection was that he was one of the people at the Committee most concerned that minor-or major-administrative matters, not necessarily dealing with policy but all administrative matters, would be before the House on a regular basis. I would certainly defer to him on this particular point, but I thought it was he and some other Members of the Committee who actually stipulated or made the point before the Committee that the words "in accordance with an Act of Parliament" be included, specifically so we would not be dealing on a routine basis with administrative matters, no matter how important they may be.
I am not addressing myself to the substance of this matter; I hope we can divorce it from the procedural question.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, dealing with what I think is an important question, I have cited two Statutes; there may be others. Before there is a ruling with respect to the matter, perhaps we ought to reserve in terms of the argument to see whether or not it is in fact "in accordance with an Act of Parliament". The words are quite clear.
I accept what the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid) said with respect to the annual report, but nonetheless the words of the Standing Order are quite clear. They set out the intent, really, of what we meant if we were to view it. I agree that it is not the intention of the rules that every minor administrative matter, as the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Collenette) said, should go to the standing committees. I have to allow that this is not a minor, routine administrative matter. Nonetheless, two Statutes were cited. I do not know whether the Chair has had a chance to read the Statutes yet or whether the Clerk of the House has had a chance to read them in order to advise the Chair. It might be wise if there were a

February 11, 1983
Point of Order-Hon. Walter Baker
reservation on that, perhaps for further argument, but at least to establish and take a look at the law.


Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Madam Speaker, I would just like to reinforce the remarks that this in fact is not a minor administrative matter and that there appears to be mechanisms available for statutory justification.
This is an issue beyond the House of Commons. Referenda across the country have shown that 75 per cent to 80 per cent of the Canadian public is vitally interested. Demonstrations have brought out thousands of people opposed to this, yet the House of Commons is not in a position to provide further information or investigate the matter. I would urge, Madam Speaker, with the information you have available and the knowledge of how important the issue is viewed not only by legislators in the House but citizens across the country, to rule in favour of allowing this matter to proceed to committee for closer scrutiny.


Mr. David Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, this is the first time this new provision in the Standing Orders has been discussed in the House. It is important that it be made absolutely clear that all Members who serve on that Committee hope that we will try to resolve what these new provisions mean in a spirit of good faith.
It is not my view that the Statutes which the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) cited really draw this matter into the particular ambit. Notwithstanding, I think he has made his arguments in good faith. I do not (think it goes that far, but it is important to appreciate what the Minister said.
The Minister said that he would look qt it. It is quite possible that he will, notwithstanding his conclusion that he is not obliged by the Standing Orders to refer the matter to the Committee, give a reference to the Standing Committee. I hope that people would not then jump on a gesture of good faith which flowed from his tabling the letters as a courtesy to the House and try to establish it as a precedent. I hope all Members try to keep it in that perspective.


Mr. Mark Rose (Mission-Port Moody):: Madam Speaker, I will not speak very long because we have heard a great deal on this matter already. The Hon. Member who just spoke talked about a gesture of good faith; I would like to underline it. If we use a legalism to escape the reference of a very important subject to a committee, a subject as important to all Canadians as this one-that is, the Cruise testing agreement-then I think all the good faith which has been built up throughout Committee study will be destroyed or severely damaged.
The differences I noticed between this House and Westminster were attitudinal ones which make the difference between a House co-operating and one always in conflict.
I would just add my plea that a reference to committee needs to be immediate. Allowing it two months from now after all the facts are out or when it is too late and the horse is out of
the barn is not good for this House of Commons. So 1 would urge the Minister to make that reference. One of the reasons we have these new rules and new powers conferred upon committees is to make them important to backbenchers, not just some place for busy work by Liberal Members. We wanted these committees to have powers, decision-making capacities and powers of initiative. The new rules were set up and designed for that purpose.
I hope the Minister will reconsider and send this matter to committee immediately; otherwise, I think much of the work of the Special Parliamentary Reform Committee will have been destroyed and the good faith lost.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I suggested, respectfully, that the matter might be reserved so that the Minister, the Chair and everyone involved might check the law. The Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Smith) suggested that the matter would be considered by the Minister and considered, I assume from what he said, reasonably quickly.
Given that sense of urgency about looking at the rules and being sure they operate properly, the guts of the issue, there are two grounds for saying that there might be a reservation of the matter today so it could be considered by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen), if that is agreeable to the Chair. I, who raised the point of order, would certainly be agreeable. We are charting new waters in terms of the rules and we may not have to decide the point of order with respect to this particular matter.


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Madam Speaker, this is a matter of Canadian sovereignty. This is a matter of our relationship with another country and whether the Canadian people through their elected representatives have appropriate control over decisions made with a foreign power. It would be very dismaying, not just to thousands of people I know of in Spadina but to people all across the country, if we were to find that even the new and revised rules of Parliament make it impossible for Parliament to consider a matter as important as this. Hundreds and hundreds of thousands of Canadians have registered this concern by their votes and by their presence in public activities. This is a matter of Canadian sovereignty. I hope the rules will not prevent us from dealing with it.


Madam Speaker:: That, of course, was debate. The Hon. Member did not speak to the point of order. I should have interrupted him but I wanted to see if he was going to discuss the point of order.
I think Hon. Members are quite right. This is a change in the rules and we are faced with a new situation. I believe we would all like to think about it and reflect on what the consequences of that exact wording would be.
I tend to agree with the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker), and I think all Members would be of the same opinion, that these changes in the rules were worded precisely to give Members a better opportunity to discuss matters in committee.
February 11, 1983

On the other hand, it is clear that the rule as it is worded includes a phrase that does qualify the amount of discussion allowed. I tend to agree that the Deputy Prime Minister was probably right in saying that these reports and returns, papers and documents are governed by the phrase "in accordance with an Act of Parliament". As the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid) pointed out, this particular document would obviously be discussed once the annual report of the Department was tabled, because it would flow from the report, and under one heading or another Members would be able to discuss it. However, the urgency might be taken out of the matter when it is discussed at that time. That, of course, poses a problem that I cannot solve because I do have to rule within the confines of the wording of the particular Standing Order.


Walter David Baker: You could reserve.


Madam Speaker:: Yes, I do want to reserve on it. But I think it is helpful that I tell the House how I read the Standing Order, so that if Members of the Committee do want to look at the Standing Order again or let me know what the real intent was and whether it was really expressed precisely in the Standing Order, it would be easier for me to rule on the matter.
I am telling the House now that if I were to rule on this question, I would have to consider the phrase "in accordance with an Act of Parliament". I would like Hon. Members to tell me whether they did want to restrict those documents that are "in accordance with an Act of Parliament". If that is what the Members meant, then that is fine with the Chair. I will look at these words as being the important key words in any ruling that I might make.
However, the Deputy Prime Minister has offered to discuss the matter with the House Leaders. It might be that the Deputy Prime Minister will refer this matter to a committee. Therefore, for the time being the House will be satisfied. Indeed, I think it would be wise for me to reserve and study this matter very carefully. Even if the Deputy Prime Minister did allow this matter to be discussed in a committee and referred it to a committee, the situation might arise again, so we may as well think about it now as later.


MR. LEWIS-REPLY OF MR. BUSSIERES DURING QUESTION PERIOD
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, I rise on a new point of order. During Question Period the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Bussieres), in reply to a question put by my colleague, the Hon. Member for York North (Mr. Gamble), defended the comments of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. LeBlanc), the Minister responsible for housing, who suggested in Toronto that he was considering taxing Canadian tenants who were not paying between 25 per cent and 30 per cent of their income for rent. In answering the question, the Minister of National Revenue referred to reports
Petitions
received by the Minister of Public Works as the substance and the reason for his making those comments.
In view of the fear tenants have in this country that the Liberal Government is planning to tax anyone who is not paying between 25 per cent and 30 per cent of their income for rent, I would ask you, Madam Speaker, to rule whether or not the comments made by the Minister of National Revenue, in referring to those reports, are sufficient for the House to require that those documents, which have been cited in an answer, be tabled in the House.


Madam Speaker:: I do not recall that the Minister quoted or cited from those documents. I do not believe that procedure has been changed in the rules. The rules are quite clear that unless a Minister quotes or cites a particular document, he is not obligated to table it, and the Chair would have no authority to ask the Minister in question to table that document. However, the Minister might make a decision to table those documents if he wished to do so.
[ Translation]


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Madam Speaker, I think that in his comments, the Hon. Member is going much further than the Minister did in his answer. I am truly sorry that the Hon. Member should try to scare Canadian tenants and-


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: The Minister did.


André Ouellet: No! The Minister did not say that in his answer, and I think the Hon. Member should not be trying to scare tenants in this way.


Madam Speaker:: This is debate, but what is done is done.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, I am happy to present a petition from a number of constituents of Grey-Simcoe voicing their opposition to Dr. Henry Morgental-er's plans to open an abortion clinic in Toronto.
I am well aware that it falls within the jurisdiction of the Province of Ontario to uphold the law by prosecuting to the full extent of the Criminal Code all those who contravene the law by performing illegal abortions. It is my hope and the hope of the petitioners that this in fact will be the case regarding Dr. Morgentaler, if he goes through with his plan.

February 11, 1983
Striking Committee Report


Pauline Jewett: Madam Speaker, I rise today to present a petition which the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) should particularly note. This petition is signed by 699 members of the IWA in the lower mainland of the Province of British Columbia who are deeply distressed by massive lay-offs and the almost two million unemployed in this country.
The petition points out the failure to protect existing jobs or to create new jobs for the unemployed, and the inadequacies of the Unemployment Insurance Act in dealing with today's crisis.



STANDING COMMITTEES


Mr. Charles Turner (London East) moved:: That the third report of the Striking Committee, presented to the House on Monday, January 31, 1983, be concurred in.
He said: Madam Speaker, this is the first time in many years that a Striking Committee report has been debated. In fact, it is the first time in many years that there has been any substantial discussion about committee composition at all.
Until 1968, committees were very large. I understand that there were between 30 and 60 members of those committees, which had very little to do because the House sat for only three or four months at that time. When they did have an assignment and changes in membership were required, the Chief Government Whip had to propose a motion in the House that could be debated and was debated on at least one famous occasion.
In 1968, it was decided that the size of committees would be reduced, usually to about 20, but in the case of two popular committees-Agriculture and External Affairs and National Defence-they were struck at 30. Some committees, including special committees, were smaller. Substitutions became mere administrative concerns.
Last fall, the House adopted the recommendations of the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure to reduce all standing committees to between 10 and 15 members on an experimental basis. The substitution rules were stiffened and a system of alternate members was instituted. As before, any Member of the House may attend and speak at any public committee meeting but does not have the right to vote.
Two of the standing committees, Agriculture and External Affairs and National Defence, had consisted of 30 members. It seemed clear that the maximum number of 15 members should be appointed to those committees. This meant that whenever the two Opposition Parties voted together against the Government, the chairman of the committee would have to cast the deciding vote. On our side, we were hesitant to place chairmen
in the position of constantly breaking ties and thereby appearing too partisan but in these two cases the need for maximum numbers prevailed.
It was decided by a majority of the Striking Committee that all of the other committees would have ten members. This would ensure that the chairman would be able to act in most circumstances as a mediator, without concern about being compelled to vote on a regular basis.
I have attended over 1,000 brotherhood meetings during my 27 and one-half years' service with the Canadian National Railways. I have also attended membership meetings and meetings of many other organizations and never once saw a president of the brotherhood, a service or fraternal club called upon to break a tie during any discussion.
At times, the language we heard at brotherhood meetings became a little rough around the edges. Sometimes debate was tough and very heavy. In fact, we used to say that there was more debate in the hotels across Canada and the cinders were flying all of the time. But when we went to lodge, a decision was made one way or the other.
I think the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) would agree that the parliamentary procedure during the meeting was first-class. The Hon. Paul Martin used to say when he attended union meetings that if you want to know parliamentary procedure, go to a union meeting.
I have attended many House of Commons committee meetings. Unless the witnesses were Ministers, officials of Departments or presidents of Crown corporations who were on the hot seat, less than half of the members of the committee were in attendance. This would reduce the number of the committee to below ten. Therefore, in my opinion, I believe that committees composed of ten members is a very sensible suggestion. It certainly allows more members to become experts in the subject of their choice. This also allows regular members to participate in committee debates more often and ask more questions. It also allows the chairperson to be strictly neutral on all subjects debated by the committees.
As I have mentioned, this new system is a one-year experiment. I urge the House to adopt my motion quickly so that the committee part of the experiment may commence and we could put all Members of the House back to work in the committees.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Comments, questions and answers.


Mr. Mayer:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Hon. Member if he thinks the breakdown of a ten-member committee to six, three and one, with regard to the three Parties of the House, is fair, based on the fact that there are roughly 150 Government Members, 100 Members of this Party and 30 Members of the NDP? Does he think that the breakdown of six, three and one as it relates to 150, 100 and 30 is fair?


Charles Robert Turner: Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, the chairman will not participate. Therefore, it would be five, three and one. I think that ten is the logical figure.
February 11, 1983


Charles James Mayer: Does the Hon. Member believe that committees should be a reflection of the House? If he does, I would point out to him that the Speaker is not neutral. In the case of a tied vote, the Speaker would have to vote. If he thinks of committees as an extension of the House where the Speaker would obviously have to break a tie, why should the situation be different in committees where he is setting up the membership to allow the chairman to be neutral?


Charles Robert Turner: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to the Hon. Member that the Speaker would not be independent. Five, three and one is a reflection of the House of Commons. If the Hon. Member checks the records, he will see that the system is less than ten. In fact, I understand that the two large committees have eight, five and two members out of 15. So, I think ten is the maximum.


Charles James Mayer: With all due respect, the Hon. Member did not answer the question. Does he believe that committees are an extension of the House of Commons where the Speaker can be called upon to break a tie vote? Why is he setting up the committees in such a way that the chairman would not have to break a tie?


Charles Robert Turner: It is my understanding that never in the history of the House of Commons has the Speaker been called upon to render a vote to break a tie. I think a committee set up with ten members, broken down to five, three and one, with a neutral chairman, is a reflection of the House of Commons and a reflection of this system.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, I was interested in the last remark of the Hon. Member for London East (Mr. Turner). He mentioned a five, three and one set-up as opposed to a six, three and one. I am not sure that that is what he is still proposing. I think that some of us on this side would be very interested in exploring that idea. As a matter of fact, I think it will be proposed by my colleague perhaps a little further down the road this afternoon.
This way, if it was a five, three and one plus a chairperson, that would permit Hon. Members of the Opposition to be chairpersons and, further, as is the case in Westminster, would enhance the independent nature and unbiased kind of chairing of a committee which I think we should be seeking. Therefore, I would like to know whether or not he is proposing a five, three and one plus a chairman.


Charles Robert Turner: I think the Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. Rose) passed a motion in committee and it was supposedly to be six, three and one, and the chairman was to be neutral, which amounts to ten. Five, three and one plus a neutral chairman is ten. I think that that is a reflection of the House of Commons. It gives all Hon. Members a chance to go to committee and express their opinion on behalf of their constituents.
Striking Committee Report


Mark Willson Rose: I would just like to have that clarified again. Is the Hon. Member for London East now telling us that it is really five, three and one, plus a chairman who may not necessarily be a Member of the governing Party, in this case, a Liberal?


Charles Robert Turner: Under this system the majority rules, and I therefore think the chairman should be a Government Member. You may be in power some day, so you will have that opportunity.


Mr. Reid (St. Catharines):: So a Government Member is always going to be neutral?


Ian Deans: Don't wish that on us!


Mr. Wenman:: I would like to ask a specific question to gain assurances from the Hon. Member who last spoke. While there is an automatic reference of reports and so on, can he guarantee that there will in fact be an automatic convening of that committee within a given period of time? I know the Hon. Member may have asked for comment on that matter, but I would like to have the assurance of the Government side that the committees will in fact be convened. In other jurisdictions there are the same rules, but they simply do not convene the committees.


Charles Robert Turner: For the Hon. Member's information, it has been suggested to me that the Striking Committee has nothing to do with the establishing of the committees. The Speaker has reserved judgment as to what should be done. I would set the committees at work right away, next week. I think we need the committees in operation.


Mr. Laniel:: Mr. Speaker, I was very intrigued when I heard the Hon. Member for London East saying that we should learn a lesson from the debates which take place in labour unions. At the same time, I would hope that this was not an opinion of his own on some of the contents of those debates and what I would call undemocratic decisions which are sometimes made by some of our well known unions throughout Canada.


Charles Robert Turner: I would simply like to suggest to the Hon. Member that the railroad brotherhood, the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, was formed before this country was born and it has been democratic down through the years.


Ian Deans: It is about time you guys on the Liberal side realized that. Mr. Speaker, I just want to join with the chairman of the committee in saying that his Liberal colleagues could learn a great deal from going to a labour union meeting. However, I want to support a position-


Joseph Lloyd Reid: Why not? Birds of a feather.


Ian Deans: Wait a minute. I was just about to support one of your friends; do not keep shouting, Joe.


Joseph Lloyd Reid: Do not get caught up in a lure.

February 11, 1983
Striking Committee Report


Ian Deans: I want to return to a point made by the Hon. Member for Fraser Valley West with regard to the method of reference and the convening of the committees, and to suggest that that is, indeed, a fair topic for today.
When we are discussing the establishing of the committees, one of the various considerations concerns proportional representation. But that is not the only factor. I might say to the Chairman of the Committee, through Your Honour, that one of the concerns is that in the past difficulty has arisen from time to time in calling and convening committees for the purpose of dealing with business. We would not want to think, in this spirit of co-operation which has suddenly emerged in the House of Commons-long needed, I might say-that the Government would go about its business in the same way as it did before and thwart the efforts of Hon. Members to raise legitimate and important matters by simply not calling the committee together.
I assumed, as a member of the Committee which studied the rules and procedures, that because we decided on the automatic reference, committees would meet so that the automatic reference would mean something. Although I know the Chairman of the Striking Committee cannot give me any assurance other than his own, perhaps he shares our concern that committees should be properly convened and meet regularly.
I certainly think the Government should pay heed to this matter, and those who are appointed as chairmen of committees should recognize that their responsibility is not simply to do the bidding of the Government. Otherwise, the whole question of impartiality raised by the Chairman of the Committee would be for naught.


Charles Robert Turner: I would like to say that the Striking Committee does not have the power, but I will certainly take it up with the House Leader and ensure that chairmen are appointed or elected at the first regular meeting so that we can get on with the work of the House.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, under the new rules I am allowed to comment on what has been said by the Hon. Member for London East, whom I have known for a great number of years and have come to admire. He is not only the Chairman of the Striking Committee in the House but he is also the Chief Government Whip, a position which he occupies with distinction, if I may say so, and he carries out his duties with distinction as well.
As a member of the Committee and of this House, I welcome his statement that he would entreat the Government House Leader to consider this particular matter, because I do want to tell him that during the debate in the House prior to the adoption of the third report of the Committee, it was a matter of concern that committees would in fact meet in order to deal with the business, and it is a matter which is presently before the Special committee. On behalf of the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure, speaking as ViceChairman, and I know I also speak for the Hon. Member for Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle (Mr. Lefebvre), the Chairman, I
would thank and comment him for his undertaking and say that we as a Committee look forward to dealing with that matter. We hope we can provide some help and assurance to the hon. gentleman in the undertaking he has given to the House, and I once again thank him.


Charles Robert Turner: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say thank you to the hon. gentleman for Nepean-Carleton.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. The Chair must inform the House that the time allocated for questions and answers is now exhausted. If the Hon. Member for London East wishes to respond, he would need the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Charles Robert Turner: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to thank the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton. I have known him for many years. You have taught me much in the House. Your skill as a lawyer and as a debater in the House is first-class.


Walter David Baker: Thank you.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: The Hon. Member for London East should address his comments to the Chair.


David P. Smith: Free commercials today, Walter!


Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin my remarks by responding to the statement of the Hon. Member for London East (Mr. Turner) with respect to the debate which will ensue on the motion to concur in the third report of the Striking Committee. We are not here simply to debate the mechanics of the Striking Committee report and the piece of paper that is before the House. We are here to debate the principle involved, as represented by that Striking Committee report.
That principle is very clear and very important. It is the implementation of the spirit of parliamentary reform that we had hoped and thought pervaded the activities of the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure, the report of which led to the changes made and represented in the Striking Committee Report. So it is principle that we are talking about here, the principle of parliamentary reform and the implementation of that spirit of parliamentary reform. We will not be put down by simply saying that we are quarrelling about numbers or quarrelling about mechanics. We are here to express our concern that the spirit of parliamentary reform will be diminished and destroyed by the attitude of the Government and the Government's representatives, and it is evidenced by this Striking Committee report.
Let me begin my remarks, Mr. Speaker, by reviewing very briefly the history of the specific parliamentary reform movement which led to this change in committee structure and resulted in this report of the Striking Committee. The Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure, which has
February 11, 1983

become better known as the Parliamentary Reform Committee, was established on May 31, 1982. Its purpose was to make proposals to the House of Commons that would lead to reforms in the parliamentary system, in the procedures that we follow, and in the rules that apply to our processes and procedures.
That Committee met on numerous occasions, I think in a spirit of reform and of assisting Parliament to better conduct the affairs of the people. In result the Committee formulated a report which was tabled in the House of Commons in November of 1982 and later met with the unanimous consent of the House of Commons, so that the specific recommendations for changes that were proposed by that Parliamentary Reform Committee could be carried out and implemented.
The net result is the new Standing Orders which we have and which, with respect to committees, are represented by Standing Order 69. I think it may be worth while to review very briefly the specifics of those changes recommended by the Parliamentary Reform Committee and unanimously approved by the House of Commons that we have now implemented in Standing Order 69 and in other Standing Orders of the House.
The first and foremost provision and change was that standing committees would be limited to a regular membership of not less than 10 or more than 15, and I want to speak more specifically about that provision later on. It was also established that in standing committees there would be regular members and alternate members. The idea of that change, as I understand it, was to ensure that there would be continuity of membership. That is to say that if a regular member could not attend a meeting of a standing committee, a substitute who was already briefed and knowledgeable in the matters before the standing committee would stand in the place and the stead of that member. There is, of course, a provision for substitution on a 24-hour notice basis, so that membership will be assured either through the attendance of regular members or alternate members.
One of the important changes that were carried out in the new Standing Orders was the reference to standing committees of all reports, returns or papers tabled in the House of Commons by a Minister. I do not have to underline the importance of that provision because we have already had a debate in the House of Commons today on that very point and we have seen the real attitude of the Government towards parliamentary reform. Notwithstanding this specific change in the rules authorizing a reference to a standing committee of the House of Commons, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) refused to make such a reference and argued that he does not need to make such a reference.
So the case that I would have made in my presentation has almost been made by the debate in this House of Commons this very day. We have had an example of the exact mischief that was attempted to be prevented in this rule change-the covering up of matters of importance, not only to Members of the House of Commons but to the whole Canadian population
Striking Committee Report
who are not going to have that window on Government apparently that we thought we were going to have through the references of reports, returns and papers to Standing Committees of the House of Commons.
It is not with a very clear heart and mind that we view these changes that are supposed to be implemented in the new Standing Orders, particularly with respect to the committees of the House of Commons. Our specific concerns have already been expressed by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Port-age-Marquette (Mr. Mayer), in his questions to the Hon. Member for London East, but I will repeat them here. It is, simply stated, that we do not think that the size of the standing committees and the allocation of membership on those standing committees is fair in the circumstances, and we certainly do not think it is in the spirit of parliamentary reform.
In case Members opposite do not understand what I mean, I will explain it once more. The report of the Striking Committee calls for standing committees of 10 members except in the case of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence. All other standing committees listed in Standing Order 69, and there are 18 of those standing committees, must, by virtue of the provision of the Striking Committee report, have a minimum of 10 members.
Not only that, Mr. Speaker, but the Striking Committee, by exercising its power to allocate positions on the standing committees to members, has chosen an allocation of six Members of the Liberal Party, three Members of the Progressive Conservative Party and one Member of the New Democratic Party. So there we have, in 18 of the standing committees, a membership of 10 with an allocation to the Parties in the House of six to the Liberals, three to the Progressive Conservatives and one to the New Democratic Party.
Simply stated, we do not think that is fair and we do not think that is in the spirit of the parliamentary reforms that were adopted and advocated by the Parliamentary Reform Committee, were agreed to by the House of Commons and are now being implemented by the Striking Committee report.
Because we do not think it is fair, Mr. Speaker, we want to introduce an amendment and I beg your leave to present that amendment to the motion to concur right now. I will read it, if I may do so. I move:
That the third report of the Striking Committee be not now concurred in but that it be recommitted to the Striking Committee with instruction that they have power to amend the same so as to recommend that the Standing Committees of the House of Commons, with the exception of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence, consist of eleven (11) members each and that, of those eleven (11) members, six (6) members shall be representatives of the Liberal Party, four (4) members shall be representatives of the Progressive Conservative Party and one (1) member shall be a representative of the New Democratic Party.
Mr. Speaker, I present that motion, seconded by the Hon. Member for St. Catharines (Mr. Reid).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Shall we call it one o'clock?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.

February 11, 1983
Striking Committee Report


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. It being one o'clock, I do now leave the Chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When the House rose at one o'clock, the Hon. Member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby) had the floor.


Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, before the recess 1 had made it clear that we are not merely opposing the report of the Striking Committee relating to standing committees, but we are opposing the attitude of the Government towards parliamentary reform. That attitude is characterized by such arrogance and inflexibility that the whole spirit of parliamentary reform, which pervaded the activities of the parliamentary committee in dealing with these reforms, will not only be diminished but may be destroyed.
In specific terms, the Striking Committee has demanded that 18 of the 20 standing committees have a membership of not more than ten persons. It has only allowed the Official Opposition three memberships and the New Democratic Party one membership on those committees. Obviously, Mr. Speaker, as has already been pointed out, that does not reflect the representation of Hon. Members in the House of Commons and the Hon. Members who belong to the particular political Parties. The Government, through its representatives on the Striking Committee, has simply endorsed the will of the majority without respect for the rights of the minority, and it is in support of democracy that we stand to object to that kind of imposition of the will of the majority. The House of Commons, after all, is the seat of democracy in this country.
Let us consider for a moment the purpose of parliamentary reform. We know that committees in parliamentary democracies play an important role in the legislative process in the broad sense. In many countries parliamentary committees or congressional committees, as the case may be, have varying roles. In the United Kingdom, the parliamentary committees play a relatively minor role and deal primarily with legislation, with no inquiry powers. On the other hand, in the United States Congress, the congressional committees are, in many ways, the seat of power within Congress and deal with a wide variety of matters. It is common knowledge that legislation will not be passed by Congress unless it has the support of the relevant congressional committee.
It is interesting to note, Mr. Speaker, that a report I read recently on State legislative committees indicated that 24 per cent of the authority with respect to significant decisions
rested with committees of the State legislatures, as opposed to 26 per cent of the authority in relation to significant decisions resting with the presiding officers. In some legislatures, therefore, Mr. Speaker, the committees, which are the emanations of the legislative body, play a very important role.
I believe part of the attitude and intent of the Parliamentary Reform Committee is to give that kind of strength, that kind of capacity and ability to the committees of the House of Commons. But the Government has already, as I have indicated, destroyed that spirit and prevented that transfer of power taking place, so that Hon. Members of this House of Commons will continue to be subjected to the will of the majority and will lose the ability to represent the people of Canada, and their interests, through the medium of parliamentary committees.
Once again, Mr. Speaker, I want to underline the fact that the Government is taking an inflexible and arrogant attitude in not co-operating with all Hon. Members of the House of Commons to arrive at a mutually satisfactory arrangement with respect to membership in parliamentary committees, thereby uniting in the common goal of assisting the people of Canada, and allowing those persons who have special interests to come before Parliament to express those concerns.
We are trying in this parliamentary process, as I thought, to make Parliament more effective by allowing Hon. Members of Parliament to become more effective and, therefore, better able to represent their constituencies and the interests of Canadians. But, Mr. Speaker, if the Government does not change its attitude, then that purpose will not be achieved. Members of Parliament must seek a better rapport with the people of Canada.
This is evident from many things which have been written and said, but I want to refer specifically to the words of Arthur Lower, a distinguished Canadian historian who commented on parliamentary reform and specifically the reforms proposed by the Parliamentary Reform Committee. He was quoted in Maclean's magazine as saying:
I would say those changes are relatively unimportant because it is not mechanical changes that are necessary to improve Parliament. Unfortunately, what needs to be changed is a much bigger task: human beings. What we need in Ottawa are more able, more sensible, less selfish, self-interested, less partisan members. It is the calibre of members that needs improving.
This eminent Canadian has put his finger right on the problem. We can change the mechanics, the process and procedures, but what we really need to change is the attitude of Members in Parliament. I do not believe the Hon. Members of the Official Opposition need to change their attitude. What must be changed is the attitude of the Government towards the effectiveness of Parliament and its Members. And when Mr. Lower is talking about selfishness, I am sure he is talking about the Members of the Government of Canada and not the Members of the Opposition. It is that attitude of selfishness
February 11, 1983

and self-interest which has to be changed if we are ever going to accomplish a reform of Parliament or the institutions of Parliament.
We are here to get the message across to the people of Canada that we need and require effective changes. We need new procedures and processes if Parliament is to become effective and reflect the will of the people across Canada. But we see no real evidence that the Government is willing to make those changes.
In the few moments I have left I would like to outline to you, Mr. Speaker, the fact that in the course of this debate we hope to present to the House of Commons and the people of Canada a wide variety of thoughts and opinions on parliamentary reform. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), a veteran of many years in this House and committee work, will give some historical background to the need for changes. The Hon. Member for St. Catharines (Mr. Reid), who is a working Parliamentarian, attends regularly at committees and knows how they function and should function, will indicate what is wrong with the Government and its attitude towards parliamentary reform. The Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker), who worked long and hard on the Parliamentary Reform Committee, may have to say how disappointed he is with the result of that work in terms of the attitude of the Government.
We hope in a general way to provide a broad base from which others may attack the Government for its attitude, in the perhaps forlorn hope that the Government will see the error of its ways, will bend a little bit and really take up the spirit of parliamentary reform. We hope it will try to give some meaning to this process in the House and in the committees of the House, where we can arrive at mutually satisfactory decisions by the process of discussion and common understanding. But we do not want that process destroyed in round one by an arrogant Government which refuses to bend to good sense and good judgment.


David P. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I believe the Member who spoke prior to lunch said that he felt both the size and the composition of the proposed committees were unfair. Now, I can understand his reservations about the composition, but I find it difficult to understand that the size is unfair. I would like to ask the Hon. Member, through you, Mr. Speaker, why did he and his party unanimously vote for the provision in the Standing Orders which says that the size of committees should be from ten to 15 if he now thinks the size is unfair? I do not understand how he can say that.


Charles James Mayer: How can you ask a stupid question like that?


Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, I am amazed that my friend even raises the question. The Standing Orders call for standing committees of not less than ten or more than 15. It is not that provision we quarrel with, it is the unwillingness of the Striking Committee to choose a number between the minimum and
Striking Committee Report
maximum. In the case of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence, the Striking Committee was willing to allow 15 members. We make the same request for the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs. That ought to be 15. In fact, there is no reason why 15 cannot be the standard as much as ten would be the standard. But we could not go down the list of 20 standing committees and determine what size each committee would be.
In endorsing the action of the Striking Committee, Mr. Speaker, my friend opposite is saying that there should be as many members on the Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs Committee as there should be on the Northern Pipelines Committee. That speaks for itself; it makes no sense.


David P. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I still do not think the Hon. Member has explained why they voted unanimously for a provision which allows committees to be ten. In any event, I would like to ask him if he believes it is desirable that a chairman of a committee be neutral, and if he feels that a chairman can in fact be neutral when both sides are evenly balanced and he is continually obliged to break ties in favour of the Government? How does he feel about that? Does he believe a chairman can be neutral if he is in the position of having to do that all the time?


Howard Edward Crosby: I think that is a very interesting point, Mr. Speaker, the possibility of having a neutral person as chairman of a committee. I know that Your Honour adopts habits of neutrality in residing over the business of the House, but I challenge anyone in this House to stand up and say that they have ever noticed in the work of the standing committees of this House neutrality on the part of a chairman who was a Government representative. There are ways and means to establish neutrality of the chair in a committee of any kind, including the standing committees. But not one provision was added to the Standing Orders by the Parliamentary Reform Committee or anyone else which would assure that kind of neutrality or judicious treatment of Members involved in the activities of the standing committees. So to stand in this House and say "Oh, we want judicious and neutral chairmen of committees in this new reform" is ridiculous. There is no foundation for saying that. There are all kinds of actions which could have taken place to assure a judicious approach by committee chairmen and not one provision was added. So I say to the Member: Show me where in the Standing Orders there is any obligation of neutrality or judicious conduct on the part of a chairman of a standing committee, and I will agree with him.


David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up on the comments of my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Smith), because surely the Hon. Member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby) contradicts his own argument. A few moments ago he stated it was the intention of the Special Committee on Parliamentary Reform to seek perhaps more independence of committees and permit committee membership some investigation. I think we have achieved that somewhat. Yet he now proposes an amendment

February 11, 1983
Striking Committee Report
which in effect would fly in the face of that general trend towards more impartial and independent committees. Let us face it, Mr. Speaker, the chairmen of standing committees are Government Members-


Mr. Lambert:: Why?


David Michael Collenette: -and obviously they have to be very sensitive at present to what the Government wants. Well, Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) on the far side of the House would hold his counsel, he will have his chance to speak.


Ian Deans: On the far right.


David Michael Collenette: On the far right or the far left. I would ask him to show courtesy in this House as befits his former office.
My point, Mr. Speaker, is that the Hon. Member for Halifax West is contradicting his own argument, because some of us do believe we have to move towards independent chairmen of committees where they do not take orders from the Government. Some of us believe we should emulate the British system where half the chairmen of select committees are drawn from the Opposition.


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, let us have a civilized debate here. People are asking me to ask a question and they should realize this is a period where we can make a brief statement, which I have been trying to do, as well as ask a question.
I would like to hear from the Hon. Member for Halifax West how he answers this question. If we adopt his amendment it will mean that on every single procedural as well as substantive item in committee the chairman, who is now a Government Member, will be forced to break a tie. If we are talking about good faith, then surely this is no way to have good faith.


Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, the only indication that there is going to be neutrality or a judicious attitude on the part of chairmen of parliamentary standing committees comes from the Hon. Member for London East in his speech today, and that is not good enough for me. That is the simple answer.
I hope the Hon. Member was not announcing a new Government policy which will prevent Members of the Opposition from being chairmen of parliamentary standing committees. I hope this does not mean that the chairmanship of the Public Accounts Committee will pass from the Opposition back to the Government, or the chairmanship of the Members' Services Committee will pass from the Opposition back to the Government. I hope that is not what the Hon. Member for London East had in mind when he said we would have judicious chairmen. However, the Hon. Member for Portage-Marquette (Mr. Mayer) also has some thoughts he would like to express.


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few comments. The House unanimously adopted the report of the
Committee which recommended that the membership of standing committees be composed of not less than ten and not more than 15 members. I see three Members of the Government opposite who were on the Committee that I am pleased to be part of. They will agree that not once, when discussing the size of committees, did we discuss the possibility of having committee chairmen who would be totally neutral. As I understand it, the rules in committee are an extension of what goes on in the House. In the House the Speaker, if called upon, has to vote if there is a tie. I do not see why, all of a sudden, we should change the committee structure when it is really supposed to be an extension of the House.
Standing Order 13 reads as follows:
The Speaker shall not take part in any debate before the House. In case of an equality of voices, the Speaker gives a casting vote-
It is the Speaker who, if called upon, has to break a tie in the House. What is wrong with allowing more Members to participate in the committee structure, which is exactly what we tried to do in the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure?
All of a sudden we are faced with this question of neutrality. I would put a little more stock in the opinion of Government Members if they would offer an amendment that no committee chairman would ever vote. Members who attend committees regularly will have to agree that Members of the Government have a poor record of attendance. If they now want to say that when there are only three Members of the Government attending a committee and one happens to be the committee chairman, then, even if the vote would be lost, the committee chairman would not vote, I think there would be some credence to their position that committee chairmen will be nonpartisan. Until that happens, they are simply trying to juggle the numbers on the committee to suit the Government so that they do not need to have any more Members on committee than they had in the past.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I hesitate to interrupt the Hon. Member but the ten minutes provided for the question and answer period have expired. I am sure the Hon. Member will have an opportunity to participate in the debate.


Ian Deans: At the outset, Mr. Speaker, I want to deal with the amendment proposed by the spokesman for the Conservative Party. It is not at all unlike an amendment offered during the time the Steering Committee was meeting. The Hon. Member's argument for fairness falls short of credibility and that is unfortunate. I agree that proportional representation as set out in the Striking Committee's report might not be entirely accurate. If one were to look at the position the spokesman for the Conservative Party takes, then one must come to the conclusion that a division of three Conservatives and one New Democratic Party Member is fair and equitable and, therefore, supportable, but that a division of four Conservatives and one New Democrat is grossly unfair and inequitable and is therefore unsupportable.
February 11, 1983


Charles James Mayer: What about six Liberals and three Conservatives?


Ian Deans: My colleague wants to usurp his ten-minute question period by asking me whether six Liberal Members to three Conservatives is fair and supportable. The answer is no.
We are forced to work within the restrictions imposed by the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedures, however. It said that committees, when established, could be no fewer than ten in number and no larger than 15. In order to achieve the proportion that the House might well reflect by formula, we would have five, three and one. But that would be nine members. Unfortunately, that is one less than the minimum number the House adopted as being suitable for the smaller committees.


Charles James Mayer: What about seven, four and two?


Ian Deans: Seven, four and two, as offered by the Hon. Member for Portage-Marquette (Mr. Mayer), would be quite acceptable to us, but I want to point out to him that it would be unfair inasmuch as there would then be only four Conservatives for two New Democrats. That would be out of proportion. That is equally true of the larger committees. The trouble is that the numbers recommended and accepted really do not divide reasonably and fairly with the present composition of the House of Commons. At the large end it should have been 17, and at the small end it should have been nine. Those numbers would have given us the proper numbers of members on committees and at the same time would have allowed for fair, equitable and proportional representation.
I want to say to the Government, and to the Official Opposition, as I have said privately and publicly before, that this Party would be quite prepared to accept an amendment to establish nine and 17. I know the Chairman of the Committee is not surprised to hear me say that as he knows it is my view. I am prepared to accept any number that will adequately allow for representation on the committees that is in keeping with the numbers in the House of Commons. However, we should face the fact that the House of Commons will not always be made up in the way it is now. We hope there will be fewer Conservatives and fewer Liberals next time and then the New Democrats will, as the Government, in all fairness to the other two Parties, make sure they are adequately represented. That is our common practice.
The argument about the numbers as proposed by the Conservative spokesman, the Hon. Member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby), is unacceptable. Let me offer an amendment that could have been acceptable had it been put. If someone in the House of Commons were of a mind to move that, though the number in the small committees be ten, the chairman be appointed from among a number of chairmen submitted by each of the Parties in proportion to their representation in the House of Commons and that the chairman would, in every instance, be seen to be impartial and would be required to vote only on that very rare occasion when a tie is apparent and to follow the normal processes of people who chair committees on
Striking Committee Report
those occasions and vote to continue the deliberations, as is the normal practice, then I suggest on behalf of this Party that we would support that amendment.
In essence, it would mean that on the smaller committees there would be ten people, nine of whom would be voting members. Five would be from the Government, three from the Official Opposition and one from the New Democratic Party. There would be a chairman who may or may not come from the governing side of the House, depending on which committee was involved. That chairman would be seen by all to be impartial and would be seen by all to operate in the interest of the committee rather than in the interests of the political Party he or she represents.
I do not know how anyone could argue that that would not be a fair and reasonable way to approach this problem. Some may say that that is not what was proposed during the deliberations of the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure. I think I could safely say that a proposal in that form truly was not made. However, there was a discussion and there have been ongoing discussions about the desirability of impartiality in the chair and about the desirability of looking at, and perhaps adapting to or adopting, the method used in Great Britain of a panel of chairmen or chairpeople. From among senior Members of the House of Commons-and that does not mean only those who are older but even the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid) might fall into the category of senior Member, young though he is-would be drawn those who have a demonstrated capacity to chair in an impartial way.
Let us say for the sake of argument that there were 12 committees. Perhaps seven of them could be chaired by Government appointees during a session of Parliament at the Government's behest or by using some other fancy method, I do not care; perhaps four or five members could come from the Tory Party and one or two from the NDP, depending upon how the numbers break down; and that would continue through that session of Parliament. This would achieve the result the Government would like to see achieved-impartiality.
I know the Chairman of the Committee is an honourable person. When he says that he hopes to see that degree of impartiality, with the chairman not having to become involved in every picayune item which arises, I know it is a desirable objective. If we could follow what I am suggesting as a possibility, we could achieve that result. We could achieve what the Conservatives desire in terms of the impartiality and not overloading committees with Members from the Government side. Also we would give senior Members of Parliament a somewhat different role to play, a role which would respond to their natural abilities. Take my colleague, the Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. Rose), for example-


An Hon. Member:: You take him.

February 11, 1983
Striking Committee Report


Ian Deans: Take him, I don't want him! No, actually he would be an excellent chairman. He would be a person that everyone in the House of Commons would be delighted to support as chairman of a committee.


David P. Smith: He wants to go to the Senate.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Deans: He chairs the caucus of the New Democratic Party. Hon. Members should consider this for a moment. Under the chairmanship of my colleague, have they ever heard of discord or disharmony in the NDP caucus?


Some Hon. Members:: Never!


Ian Deans: Never, because we had a firm but fair hand at the helm which allowed us to have little disagreements, but Heaven forbid they should go too far.
Having made the argument, I hope it does not fall on deaf ears. If we in the House of Commons believe that the committees are ours and that they should represent what we the Members of the House of Commons, want-


J. Michael Forrestall: When you live long enough by the Niagara, you do not hear it.


Ian Deans: I am sure the relevancy of that comment will sink in later. I promise that I will read it and try to apply it. I suggest to Hon. Members that since the committees are our committees, since the committees will be given additional powers, and since those powers will presumably give members of the committees a sense that they are in fact participating for the first time in the ongoing deliberations of the House of Commons and the country, perhaps we could afford a brief reference back and a hurriedly-called meeting of the Striking Committee. It will meet on Sunday, if need be; then we could consider the suggestion I have just made. It would satisfy everyone. It would cause no particular hardship. Although the Speaker is not empowered to make comment, I am sure he must find some slight favour with the thought, knowing how he enjoys the Chair being an impartial position and he exercises impartiality all the time.
I cannot support the amendment because it is no less unfair than the situation before us now.


Joseph Lloyd Reid: The Hon. Member is a member of the Striking Committee. What will he do about it?


Ian Deans: I have already made suggestions as to what I will do about it. We will not support the amendment. If the Hon. Member for St. Catharines (Mr. Reid), who is offering advice gratuitously, would be interested in offering an amendment along the lines of the one I have suggested, I could guarantee him the support of this Party in trying to achieve that end. I think there are a number of Members who think that would not be such a bad idea. Of course, it is a small but further step in the process of developing the committee system.
I say quite bluntly that I understand the unfairness of the division. Even now I understand the unfairness of it, but to
make it equally unfair on the other side is not to make it fair. Thus, I have to choose between one unfairness and another. It seems to me that the impartiality of the chairman argument is one with which I find favour, although I am not satisfied entirely that we can achieve it in the way that the Striking Committee recommended. By the way, I am a member of the Striking Committee, as I have already said.
Let me say briefly that I hope at some point we will, in addition to doing what the Striking Committee did, take a look at the need for different kinds of committees. I feel confident the Committee on Procedure will look at it and look at, in today's quite changing society, the need for a committee to deal with matters related directly to women. I think it should be a separate committee since there is in fact a Minister who deals with women and the status of women. It might be very helpful and useful to have a committee to which all matters directly related to women are referred.
Given the controversy which has raged over a long period of time with regard to the environment, the impact of modern society on the environment and on the future of matters directly related to the environment, I suggest that we could give consideration to establishing a committee which deals directly with all these matters.
In addition to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence, there should be a committee which is particularly taken up with the question of human rights. It is a serious question, not only as it affects Canadians directly, but also as it affects people from other parts of the world. Our interest in human rights extends beyond our own borders.


J. Michael Forrestall: Talk about relevancy, Mr. Speaker!


Ian Deans: On the matter of relevancy, we are speaking about the setting up of these committees and alternatives which I think are reasonable and probably would find favour with the public, if not with the Hon. Member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall). He was the same Member who offered me advice on the waterfall. I am not sure what that was about either.
I make these suggestions to be considered by the Government. Perhaps we are too restrictive in the determination of which committee should be established. Maybe we are a mite too traditional in seeing committees within certain restrictions and guidelines. Perhaps we should have a broader view of a much-changed society and establish committees to meet today's needs, rather than simply try to fit today's needs into the existing committee structure, because it does not always work. I think we could achieve it.
I am sure there will be Members who will want to ask questions and that I will likely have the answers, but I would like to make one parting comment to the Hon. Member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby). He asked whether we could name for him any committee in which the chairman was impartial. I thought the Standing Committee on Public Accounts had an
February 11, 1983

impartial Chairman. I even thought the Standing Committee on Management and Members' Services had an impartial Chairman, as well as the Special Committee on the Disabled. If I had enough time I could come up with a number of committees where the committee chairman was impartial in view. I am sure the Hon. Member for Halifax West between the time he spoke and now has reconsidered what he said and recognizes that there are Members in the House of Commons whose dedication is beyond reproach and who act in an impartial way. I think to call them into question on the floor of the House is unfortunate. Anyway, that says it.
We would like to see the matter resolved if possible as quickly as it can be resolved in order that the committees can get on with the work they should be doing. We think that if there is to be any delay at all a few hours would make no difference if the Government were prepared to accept my suggestion for a different system of determining who shall chair the various committees with some kind of proportional representation on a panel of chairmen to accommodate that desire. With that in mind, if the Government were now to rise and say it is a wonderful idea, I would be prepared to attribute it to the Government.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are there any Hon. Members seeking to ask questions of the Hon. Member who has just spoken?


Charles Robert Turner: Mr. Speaker, is it not true that when we had the vote in the Striking Committee, the Hon. Member for Hamilton-Mountain (Mr. Deans) voted with the Liberals and the two Opposition Members voted against?


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I want to make it clear that the argument I made there is exactly the same argument I made here. I pointed out that to give the Conservatives an additional member would not make it a better balance. The balance that was there, unfair though it would appear in numbers, was no less acceptable or no more acceptable to me than the balance the Tories were proposing.
1 want to make it clear also, and I say this to the Hon. Member in a rhetorical way, that I am sure he remembers my saying that the unfairness of the system that exists could be accommodated by a motion in the House of Commons changing the numbers from ten to nine and from 15 to 17, and then we could get the proper balance. I even said that I would be prepared to guarantee swift passage of it as far as this Party were concerned. There is no doubt in my mind that I covered all of the angles.


Mr. Siddon:: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Hon. Member for Hamilton-Mountain (Mr. Deans). I do not think the Hon. Member would disagree that the division of representation in this House is 53 per cent Liberal seats, 36 per cent Conservative seats and 11 per cent NDP seats, whereas the proposal before this House gives Government Members 50 per cent more representation than Opposition Members. In other words, the Government would have 60 per cent of the membership of committees and the Opposition would have 40 per cent.
Striking Committee Report
This means representation on committees is strongly biased in the Government's favour.
Is it not possible that committee size be adjusted so that on certain committees where more members might be needed, a higher than average balance is given to certain Parties and on other committees perhaps a lesser than average balance? In considering this we would give particular attention to the 15-member committee where the NDP will get 13.3 per cent of the representation and the Progressive Conservative Party would get only 33 per cent. In other words, we are giving up representation to the New Democratic Party on the 15-member committees, in a proportional sense.
Would the Hon. Member not support the notion that with a degree of flexibility the Striking Committee could have suggested something along the lines of the provision in the Standing Orders which applies to the joint committees?
On page 71 of the Standing Orders, the second paragraph reads:
Provided that a sufficient number of Members of the said joint committees shall be appointed so as to keep the same proportion in such committees as between the memberships of both Houses.
Would the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain not consider that rule might have been applied and the committee size adjusted somewhere between 10 and 15 so that in some cases perhaps the NDP would pick up the advantage and in other cases the Progressive Conservative Party would; but in no case would the Government be given 50 per cent more representation on committees than Members of the Opposition, which is totally unfair to backbench Members of the Opposition who get far too few opportunities as it is to raise important issues before this House.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Hon. Member is simply not aware that I offered to consider any proposal that would give fair and equitable representation in terms of both the Government and the Opposition and between the two Opposition Parties. If the Hon. Member has a specific proposal that I have not yet seen, then he need only put it before us. I can assure him that consideration will be given to it forthwith.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, I will make my intervention short. The spirit of the amendment which this Party has put forward this afternoon would allow a referral back to the Striking Committee. I do not think the mover of this amendment would be hard and fast as to whether all of the 18 committees that are presently constituted of ten members would be held to 11 members as proposed. Perhaps some might have 13 members and a few more might have 15 members. Some of the committees have a much larger work load than ten members could handle. That speaks for the importance of a careful reconsideration by the Striking Committee, perhaps over the weekend. Nonetheless, such a reconsideration is essential if Members in the New Democratic Party agree with us that the Government has loaded the deck so that the Government has 50 per cent more Members on committees than Opposition Members, and that is totally unfair.

February 11, 1983
Striking Committee Report


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, it might be just me but I did not notice a question in the Hon. Member's remarks. But let me say that the suggestion being made by the Hon. Member is more difficult to implement than he believes. The only way to resolve this difficulty is to change the outer limits, to alter the Standing Order in order to allow for 17 members on the large committees, which number can easily be broken down into Government and Opposition representation in a fair and equitable way, and to allow for nine members on the small committees, which number can again be easily broken down to allow for fair and equitable representation among the Parties and across the floor of the House.
There is no way that I can see, and I have looked at it carefully, to accommodate in a reasonable and fair way what the Hon. Member is asking for. There are 101 Conservatives in the House, as I recall.


An Hon. Member:: There are too many.


Ian Deans: An Hon. Member says there are too many and that is a subjective view, but nevertheless, it is true. There are 101 Conservatives in the House. In order for the Conservatives to be entitled to four Members for one Member of the NDP, to get that kind of ratio there would have to be about 130 Conservative Members.


Thomas Edward Siddon: One hundred and twenty eight.


Ian Deans: About 130 Conservatives; I was very close. It is quite clear that the three-to-one ratio is much closer to the actual fact-


Thomas Edward Siddon: It is to your advantage.


Ian Deans: -than the four-to-one ratio. Given the numbers of committees you would have to go through in order to achieve a reasonable balance in the way the Hon. Member suggests, there are not enough committees. There are just not that many. I suggest that if your Party could have supported my proposal to send the matter back for further consideration in the House of Commons, we would not be in the dilemma that we are in today.
However, perhaps I could again in a rhetorical way, since the Member cannot answer me, ask him or some spokesman for his Party to comment on the suggestion that we might find a way out of this dilemma by having an impartial panel along the lines I have suggested.


Mr. Herbert:: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) did not have an opportunity to look at the Westminster operation, as did his seatmate.


Ian Deans: I have been there before.


Harold Thomas Herbert: He knows that the chairmen are selected from a panel of chairmen. But the assumption is that those committees which are studying legislation always have a majority of members in support of the Government, and it is set up that way to ensure that the chairman will not be in a voting position
and can remain impartial as far as the operation of the committee is concerned.
Putting aside the numbers game which we are playing a little this afternoon, would the Hon. Member accept the premise that the structure of the committee should be such that the members, other than the chairman, should always include a majority of Government Members so that the Government would always be, at least theoretically, in a position to carry the vote?


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief because I recognize the time is almost up. I would be prepared to see the committee structured in such a way as to reflect the composition of the House of Commons. When there is a majority Government, as there is today, then the committee should reflect the majority that the Government has in the House of Commons without the chairman voting. If we are in a minority situation, the committee should reflect the composition of the House of Commons at that time. I am absolutely committed to making sure that committees adequately reflect the way the House of Commons is made up as a result of any election.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are other Members seeking to ask questions? If not, the Chair recognizes the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid).


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure looking into this question, I think I recognize that perhaps the most difficult reform we proposed was the reduction in the size of the standing committees. We were under no illusion as to what we were doing. We felt that there was a consensus in the House of Commons to reduce the size of the standing committees. We tried to find a formula that would be applicable to the House of Commons forever, since every time there is an election there are different proportions of Members from different Parties. I have been in the House when there have been three Parties, five Parties and sometimes six Parties and when independent Members have sought to become voting members of a committee.
After looking at figures, we came to the conclusion that there was no way we could develop a formula that would satisfy everyone forever. After considerable debate, we came up with a range which we thought was reasonable and fair: that was 10 and 15. Obviously, we arrived at those figures by dividing the size of the existing committees in two. We arrived at 15 because there were two committees consisting of 30 members each and we arrived at 10 because 20 was the standard size of most committees. The mathematics become more difficult and even more delicate when we deal with smaller numbers. This puts increasing pressure upon the chairman.
I was personally surprised by the Government's attitude when it decided to buy the whole package without amendment. In fact, I suspect that it not only surprised me and Members on this side, I think it amazed Members on the other side of
February 11, 1983

the House that the Government would, in fact, buy such a revolutionary set of proposals and, furthermore, be prepared to implement those proposals without going through the usual negotiations to clear up the inevitable loose points. I think we have come to deal with one of those loose points.
One reason for deciding to look at the figures of 10 and 15 was simply that we looked at how many Members actually showed up to do committee work. If Members look into any committee records to see who was present, they will find that it was a corps of members who basically carried on the work in every committee. If you look even further and review the committee work, you will find that there is an enormous shift of members on and off of these committees. If a subject came before a committee that was of interest to members, they would negotiate with their colleagues and there would be a massive shift of people. When there occasionally had to be a vote in committee there would be a massive shift of people again in an attempt to get enough members out to have a vote.
After seeing what members actually do, we concluded that there was a relatively small corps of members who carried on the work of the committee. There was the group that I called the prima donnas who like to be on committees when something exciting or unusual is happening so they could bask in the glory of committee work. There were a number of Members from all sides who were used to being drawn in from all sides for a vote so it would look respectable.
It did not take too much effort to arrive at the figures of 10 and 15. We first decided to eliminate the hordes that went around to vote. We accomplished that by setting up a list of people who were qualified to be substitutes on the committee. Another reason for making that list was to guarantee Members their place on the committee. We made it impossible or very difficult for a member to lose his place on the committee because the Whip must come to the floor of the House to say that he is removing someone from a committee and replacing him with another.
We were trying to give members a proprietary right in those committees. We were trying to provide that right to those members who actually carried on the work of the committee. In effect, we were trying to enhance the role of the Private Member and trying to provide an independence of mind in the committee structure in an attempt to get away from the power of the Whips and the power of Party leaders.
That is the purpose of this reform. We knew this would be a painful process because of the practice that has grown up in the House of Commons. All of us are guilty of that practice. When we seek re-election, we produce a long list of committees on which we have sat perhaps for ten minutes, so that we can impress our constituents with the knowledge that we are hard at work in more committees than any one person can sensibly attend in a given year. What we have become concerned about in this debate, to a large extent, is the matter of status, pride and the fact that we must realize that we can no longer run this place as we have in the past if Private Members want to
Striking Committee Report
have power and authority. To accomplish that, they will have to specialize in certain areas and make some sacrifices.
We decided to recommend 10-member and 15-member committees because we want to improve the lot of Private Members. In order to do that, Private Members will have to become more disciplined, more specialized and independent. These proposals ensure that Private Members have independence.
A point of order was raised after Question Period today. It concerned this very issue. The point of order concerned whether papers produced by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) have to be referred in any way to a standing committee so that it could examine them. I intervened in that point of order to say that under the new rules, as long as it comes under the umbrella of an Act of Parliament or annual report, the committee has a right to look into that subject matter. The annual report of the Department of External Affairs certainly refers to disarmament, peace, NORAD and NATO, all of which are covered in the document signed and tabled by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In my judgment, there should have been no point of order raised. The standing committee should simply have gone off and announced that it would hold hearings. In the ordinary course of events the committee would have come to the House of Commons with a report which we would then debate. That is how I see the system working. In order to do this and ensure that Members can participate in a sensible way, we can no longer have the floating hordes floating around and looking for a place to light for momentary glory while pushing those Members who carry on the work of those committees out of the way. We want to have a system in which Members have tenure on the committee, and when there is a change in the committee, that change is within the control of the individual Member and not within the control of the Whip or Party leadership.
We will have to give up certain sloppy practices that have developed over a period of time in the House. It seems to me if Private Members are anxious to take power and responsibility, changes in attitudes will have to be made. There must be changes in the way in which they approach the business of committee and the business of Parliament in order to make it take place. We know that this change will be very painful, because we know that there is status involved, sitting on a large number of committees. We know that there are many Hon. Members who like to see their names on a variety of committees. However, we also know that there is a large number of Hon. Members who take their committee work seriously. We want to give those Hon. Members the maximum opportunity to show their stuff and bring authority and power back to the private Members and away from the Party leaderships, back to the floor of the House of Commons and committees, where it belongs.
When we were in Great Britain, the special committee studied the way in which the British committee system was
22768

February 11, 1983
Striking Committee Report
structured. We found, to our surprise, that there were some 200 Members who belonged to no committee at all, and it was not considered to be an exceptional matter. It was accepted that one had to work and fight his way on to a committee by demonstrating his knowledge and ability. No one attained that position because he was a Member of Parliament but, rather, because he was worth it. The British system works reasonably well and is, 1 think, fairly effective. The Members we met who were not on any of those committees were not exactly ecstatic about the system, but they felt they had the right to intervene and participate.
I would remind Hon. Members that the right to intervene in a committee is not affected by the changes we have brought in. Hon. Members can still attend any committee they want and participate as equals.
Returning to the British system, another aspect of great interest to us involved the role of the chairman. In Britain there are two types of chairmen. In the committees which deal with legislation, the chairman is drawn from a panel selected by the Speaker. When I say "selected by the Speaker", I mean selected by the Speaker. The Whips indicated that if they ever dared suggest anyone, such person would automatically be a lost cause and would have no opportunity of being selected. I think it is no secret that we were impressed with that idea, and it is probably no secret that we will be studying ways of implementing a variance of that recommendation in one of our reports, because we fundamentally believe that the success of standing committees and, in fact, every other committee, depends to a large extent upon the quality of their chairmen.
I am prepared to agree with the Hon. Member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby) that this was not really a direct consideration in our discussions of the size of committee. However, it was raised in a peripheral sense as being a problem which we had to consider in the future. We all recognize that there are very real problems, and it is not fair to put a chairman in a position where he will be the one responsible for breaking tie votes. It is not fair to put anyone in that position, and it is certainly not a good practice for the chairman of a committee.
I would direct Hon. Members who are concerned about it to the publication by the Speaker's office entitled "The TieBreaking Vote of the Chair". It was published about eight months ago and sets out a very useful discussion of the role of the Speaker and the chairman in terms of breaking tie votes. It is a very difficult subject, and although the paper may be rather ambiguous in its conclusion, I think the dilemma is posed precisely.
I would like to recap by saying that we recognize that this was the most controversial recommendation we were making. We thought that there was a consensus to reduce the size of committees so that Members on those committees could participate more and we might be able to get rid of the dreaded ten minute rule. We thought we would be going some distance toward emphasizing the position of backbench Members of Parliament by giving them tenure on those committees and by guaranteeing that when something finally came up, they would not be bashed aside by the prima donnas
rolling around. We thought we would be providing them with more responsibility by ensuring that they could not just go running off to do things, making them responsible to that committee and ensuring that people who worked on it carried things through.
We feel that the Government and the Opposition Parties have been surprisingly agreeable in terms of putting into effect the total recommendations we brought forth. If this is the only difficulty which Hon. Members are having with our recommendations, then I think we did a much better job than we realized at the time. However, I think Hon. Members should look upon it as being a series of experiments. We should consider it from the point of view of what is actually happening to Hon. Members instead of what sometimes comes out. We are not dealing so much with the numbers game as we are dealing with a real problem in terms of there being fewer places than there were before. I can tell Hon. Members that when I saw the job my Whip had done to me, I felt as bad as any Member of Parliament who had lost his committee. It not only happened on the other side, but it also happened over here.
I would therefore plead with Hon. Members to be aware of the background of what we did and why we did it, to understand our motivation, and to give it a chance to go ahead. We expect that over time there will be a working out of the problems coming back and forth. We recognize the dilemma of individual Members, but we think one must examine this, not from the point of view as to how it would affect individual Members but, rather, as to what this tool placed in the hands of backbenchers could do toward bringing responsibility to the floor of the House of Commons, to remove it from Party leadership and place it where it belongs, directly in the hands of the representatives of the people.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are Hon. Members seeking to ask questions?


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might ask the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River a couple of questions which seem to be posed by his interpretation of the positions taken by the Committee. It relates particularly to the British experience. Of course, committees are much larger in Britain. During the course of its deliberations, did the Committee take into consideration the fact that under our present direction, and well within my lifetime, there may very well be 500 or 600 people in this Chamber?


Mr. Nowlan:: Never.


J. Michael Forrestall: In any event, there will be 320 in a relatively short period of time. The Hon. Member indicated that at one point the Committee structure was being considered in terms of "forever", and that startled me a little bit. I was pleased that he mitigated that to some degree by using the word "experimentation" over the next while. Of course, we carried out the experimentation 10 or 12 years ago, and we know what a mess we got ourselves into. Could the Hon. Member tell us whether or not the Committee in its deliberations considered
February 11, 1983

the built-in growth factor of the size of the House, and whether or not it had reached any conclusions? Set against the cardinal rule of this Chamber that a Member shall be heard, were these matters kept in balance, were they discussed and was a conclusion reached?


John Mercer Reid: Yes, Mr. Speaker, when we attended the British Parliament, we found that their select committees, which are equivalent to our standing committees, have about 9 to 11 Members from a House of approximately 635 Members. My recollection is that there are only about 14 of them, as I recall. There are a different series of committees, and these are the legislative committees, and their membership is almost negotiated for each Bill. Therefore, even if one considers the numbers that we have allotted here, amounting to ten for the standing committees, and compares that with the ten Members on the select committees, and the fact that we have about twice as many committees as they have in Britain, one finds that there is far more opportunity for Hon. Members to participate at that level here in Canada.
Concerning the question raised by the Hon. Member with respect to the increase in the size of the House and other changes, we envisaged two processes. First, we tried to provide a range, because we recognized that there would be an increase in the size of the House, but what is more important is that we also decided that the Standing Orders would be under continual revision by the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization and that when the House met for the first time after an election, or at any time, the Standing Orders would be automatically referred to that Committee. We tried to provide a mechanism for an ongoing review of the rules so that problems, as they inevitably came up, could be dealt with as quickly as possible by that Committee.
So the answer to the Hon. Member's question is, yes, we did take into account the generality of the growth. We tried to provide a particular route to have those matters dealt with by a parliamentary committee and we did take into account the problems that he raised.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment the Member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid) on a most interesting exposition on the background of this particular proposal under review, the proposal of the Striking Committee in terms of the number of Members on the committees. I know he has had a continuing and consistent interest in parliamentary procedure and the reform of Parliament as we both sat on the last meaningful, relevant Procedure Committee some time ago under the chairmanship of the then House leader, one Mitchell Sharp, which committee went first to England some years ago.
I any not beguiled or seduced by the British experience. Quite frankly, our experience in this country and the whole metabolism of this country is fundamentally different from that of the Mother of Parliament. While we have heard some good things, I am not going to follow it down the smokescreen road of just everything in England being the answer here. I know the Hon. Member did not intend that, but my question is
Striking Committee Report
this: because of all the good things he said, the consideration of the numbers on the committees and the surprise that it was acceptable both to Government and Opposition holus-bolus, in total, and the revision under discussion today, does the Member not feel, in view of his interest in parliamentary reform and the continuation of parliamentary reform, that where we get a fundamental cleavage on something that seems as simple as six, three and one or six, four and one, this could pollute further parliamentary reform? As the Hon. Member knows, the number of members on committees was to be between 10 and 15.
Certainly, from the Opposition's point of view, there will be much more careful scrutiny of reports of the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure because there was a feeling on this side of the House that, while there were many good things recommended in the report on parliamentary reform, which has now been adopted for the year, frankly the Committee's consideration really was rather low on the totem pole and still encompassed, in general, a membership of between 10 and 15. It was felt that a dogfight on the addition of one member that is, six three and one or six, four and one, is something with which the House should not involve itself because of the danger that it is going to prevent further reform.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member has zeroed right in on it. This is perhaps, in my judgment, the most significant reform of all. Really, what it has done is to shift away control over committees, over the agenda, over the membership-


Walter David Baker: The subject matter.


John Mercer Reid: -the subject matter, all of that is shifting away from the Party Leaders, from the House of Commons, to the committees themselves.
That is fundamental. It is also very painful and we are all going through it. I agree with the Hon. Member that it seems ludicrous for us to spend a whole day debating whether one member should be added on the committee but, in point of fact, that really means a great deal to a great many people because it has become a symbol for a lot of people who are vaguely dissatisfied and have a dislike for the total package of reform.
I think we should be under no illusions as to what it is we are debating. We are not debating one additional member on a committee. We are debating a lot of concerns that many of us have as to what this transformation is going to do to our political careers and to our political activities in Ottawa. That is what we are debating, and I think it is appropriate that we spend a day debating it.
My answer to the Hon. Member is, briefly: no, 1 do not believe that this division of opinion is going to be fatal. I think it is very healthy to have this, and I am only sorry that we had to bootleg the debate on the reform that we brought in, in this way, on the floor of the House.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.

February 11, 1983
Striking Committee Report


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair has to keep in mind the division of time. The Hon. Member has been given a substantial block of the ten-minute period already.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I just have one more question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All right. There is only another minute left.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, my question follows from my first one. I did not think we would be so limited this afternoon. With respect, my question, very directly, is: does the Hon. Member, with his experience, not appreciate the fact that the difficulty is that Government has 137 or 139 Members, 80 of whom are appointed as members of Cabinet, or as Parliamentary Secretaries or committee chairmen, so you have an avenue other than Cabinet for the private Member to be involved. But it is quite different in the Official Opposition-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member will have an opportunity later to make a speech.


John William Bosley: Mr. Speaker, I have to indicate as well that I was extremely impressed by the Hon. Member's speech. I want to ask one single question.
In light of his sense, which I think is entirely appropriate, of the need to understand the experimentality of this issue in order to protect its integrity, is it not somehow strange that the initial use of that experiment had such lack of flexibility that somehow all committees but two have 10 members, and those two have 15 members?
Would it not make more sense, in the context of the Hon. Member's own concern about flexibility and experimentality, to recognize that some committees have members who do more of the regular work and those committees may need 12 or 13 or 11 members? Is he not worried about the rigidity that is being imposed?


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member makes an excellent point. It was not the intention of the Committee to recommend any particular size for the committees. But we did recognize one thing. There has been a terrible tendency in this House when something starts small to keep growing. The dilemma that we had was that if we made a recommendation that the top limit would be 20 but that we should really keep it down to 12, we knew that there would be no cutting in the size of the committee. We knew that it would be right up there because we recognized the desire, if not the really felt need, that Members have to be on committees. So we decided we would try an experiment. I would think, at some point, after we have had six months or a year of experience we would want to look at it again. Maybe we should then look at what the corps of troops is on each committee and then recommend a series of numbers.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair is reluctant to interrupt, but the House has adopted rules and the Chair is trying as fairly as possible to apportion time to Hon. Members for a period of questions. It is not easy. At this stage the question period has expired.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, today we have arrived at a point at which 1 think, in review, we can look for experience to the time when this House had practically no committees, as I remember in 1957 and 1958 when there was the novelty of some new committees being established, such as Veterans Affairs, Public Accounts, and then gradually more and more committees. At least they sat to consider expenditures after the event. Estimates were considered entirely on the floor of the House. Hon. Member will remember the evolution that came in 1969 into what we now know as the present system of committees based upon a practice in the British House. May I say that some Members felt that we should not follow the British House slavishly. Yet, John Stewart, who was then a Member of the House, was the mastermind of the plan and we tried a British experiment, the specialized committee where everyone gained expertise.
With the greatest respect, we know the problems that we have faced. First of all, we did not follow the British practice, and that is, that the Government Party insisted that the chairman should be a Member of their own Party. It was the third line of caucus patronage, that is what it was. There were some notable exceptions to that. Many, if not most, of the committee chairmen were the chief Government spear carriers in the committee. This conclusion is based upon many years of observation. I know that some junior Members of this House will say that is not so, but I can tell them I have worked on practically every committee of this House and I know some real spear carriers. That is how they gained their promotions to Parliamentary Secretaries and Cabinet Ministers. It is not like the British House of Commons where a man makes his reputation as a neutral chairman in order to make his way up the ladder to Speaker of the House or to Cabinet Minister. At that time we had, with a plethora of 20 standing committees, some two or three joint committees and then some special committees. In the months of January to May, every Tuesday and Thursday morning, one saw about 17 or 18 committees trying to make it out of the gate. Then, gradually, it was Friday morning, then back to Monday night, and then committees sat while the House was sitting on Tuesday and Thursday afternoons. This is why we saw the decline of participation in committee work, that is, the hard core committee work.
Frankly, in many instances, the committee became a playpen for a number of Members. It kept them busy. They did not accomplish that much work because it became the practice of far too many Government Ministers to be as difficult and coy about their appearances as movie queens. The Ministers decided somehow or other that one or two committee sessions were sufficient to consider their Estimates. There was about 80 minutes in elapsed time in each session, and we know the famous ten-minute rule. A Member might ask a question, which would take a minute, and the Minister, or a delegated
February 11, 1983

person from the Public Service, would take the remainder of the period. That was the questioning time for that Member that day. At best, a critic from the Opposition might get in three or four questions for the study of department Estimates.
1 have seen departmental Estimates kept until the final week in May by the majority of the Steering Committee because of the so-called inability of the Minister to be present to discuss his or her Estimates. There were other committees, Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs for one, which were overloaded with legislative work and, therefore, Estimates received just a rough brush in many instances. Departments often went through without even a nod.
The membership on both sides of the House has now come forward with the idea of changing the rules to see if the performance of committees cannot be improved. There has been a proposal to cut back the membership, that is, to get away from the ten and five rule. Frankly, I believe the committee missed the boat in its proposal. It was not Draconian enough. I have been through this exercise twice as Chairman of the Subcommittee of the Committee on Procedure and Organization dealing with committee structure. The last one was about 1975 under the chairmanship of the Hon. Mitchell Sharp. I made a proposal, which was accepted by all Parties in principle, with the exception of one point raised by the Government. But the Government House leader of the day, now the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen), would not hear of giving us a reference. This was work which we had done on our own, but that Hon. Minister did not want to have a debate. He did not believe in the power of the Cabinet being affected at all by independence on the part of committees and backbenchers.
Therefore, I have some reservations about the remarks of the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid). While they may have expressed a general hope of backbenchers, there is always the rocky, rigid side of Cabinet which decides in the end, one way or another, whether it will allow such independence.
I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the Committee would have worked better if it had reduced the number of standing committees to 14, reduced them by a third and reduced committee membership by a third. In the year 1975 the formula of 14 or 15 presented a beautiful balance. We did not have to argue about the weight to be accorded the separate Parties of the House because there were two fundamental facts which went beyond that. First, standing committees could elect anyone from their membership they wanted as chairman, but their only business was Estimates. All the legislation which the rules provided was to go to committee would go to legislative committees, of which the Minister proposing the Bill would have to be a member. That Minister would be there to defend his Bill. The committee would be under the chairmanship of a chairman named by the Speaker from a panel taken generally from the House. The Chair could consult with the Whips or the Party Leaders, but they would be Members recognized for their particular interests and their abilities as chairmen. They would not have the right of vote, with the exception of a tie-
Striking Committee Report
breaking vote. And this is an anomaly in this House. If the Speaker is, by Standing Orders, precluded from voting, then the chairman of a committee, which is in itself an extension of this House, must govern operations of the committee much like the Speaker does in the House. Why is it necessary, then, that that Member should not have the right to vote except to break a tie?
A legislative committee-and you could give it any name you wanted-would die once third reading had been completed because, as we know, there is an opportunity on third reading for the reference back of the legislation to reconsider certain clauses. Therefore, it would have to die after third reading. That would not mean there would be that many committees existing at one time. My proposal would cut back the number of standing committees to 14 or 15, with perhaps a little more flexibility for the Committees on Agriculture, External Affairs and National Defence, or Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs. Remember, that is a Committee with a great overload. I know that from experience. We would introduce some flexibility and I think a smoother operation.
Now obviously all reports required to be tabled by an Act of Parliament would be automatically referred to the appropriate standing committee, that is, on Estimates. On legislation this would provide an avenue for Members who do not serve on standing committees but who have a particular interest in specific legislation. The Minister would be there, but the difference between the British House and this House is that Ministers in Britain are much more prepared to accept amendments than they are here. The unfortunate situation in the Canadian Parliament is that the Bills have been passed by the senior bureaucracy up to the level of Minister by the Cabinet Committee on Legislation, and they are writ in stone. There is no flexibility whatsoever allowing it to accept amendments. That to me, Mr. Speaker, is a fundamental weakness in our committee system. Legislation goes to committee to be studied and amended. But what happens? It is turned back as a matter of course by an unyielding Minister backed by an unyielding bureaucracy. It is not this House which decides; they decide on that which we will speak, on that which we will amend, and nothing can be done without their permission. To me this is a fundamental denial of the democratic principles on which this House was established.
Now let us go to the independence of backbenchers. We have seen some good work recently by task forces, small groups of Members, but the subject matter is designated by the Government.


Walter David Baker: But with no decision by the Government.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: But I think it is also incumbent upon this House to decide the subject matter it may pursue. That is why I propose the establishment of a small committee on expenditures which would act as a sort of steering committee. This

February 11, 1983
Striking Committee Report
committee would not be caught by any parliamentary calendar, and that is why it is called an expenditure committee; there is no deadline. So a proposal is made that a subcommittee of the committee on expenditures shall study, shall we say, the participation of the Government of Canada in postsecondary education. Now, you would never get that reference from the Government. There are many other things that one would never get from the Government.


Mark Willson Rose: Nuclear power.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The proposition or subject could come forward from any of the Opposition Members, but the expenditure committee would act as a screening committee. It would also screen the budgets proposed by the subcommittees. One of the biggest problems that Speaker Lamoureux and Speaker Jerome experienced was the runaway costs of committee and task forces which decided they would travel, print reports and hear witnesses in public. The budgets just went straight up. However, the Speaker faced the problem after the event, and this has led to the escalation of costs in the House of Commons. Therefore, when a proposition comes forward from Members, there would be a screening committee, the steering committee of the expenditures committee, which would consult with Mr. Speaker as to its budget and all other matters. Also there would be control over the number of Members who might be away from a committee meeting, and I can see the Government Whip who would nod very sagely on that particular control. That to me, Sir, would be a meaningful change in the committee system.
We are faced with a narrow question here. Shall it be six, three and one, or six, four and one? I think the Government is missing the boat by insisting on the minimum of ten so that it will have the advantage. That is not the spirit in which this House operates. Members opposite have to remember that comes another day and the Government Party shall be on this side of the House; the political representation of this place is not writ in stone. One lesson they can learn from the British, and I thought perhaps some of the new Liberals would have learned this, is that you do not make or observe the rules in such a way that you will have the knife driven in your back when you are on the other side. You have to be able to live with the rules. So I would strongly urge upon Members that the amendment be accepted in the spirit of reform.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are there Hon. Members seeking to ask questions at this point? If not, the Chair recognizes the Hon. Member for St. Catharines (Mr. Reid).


Joseph Lloyd Reid: Mr. Speaker, in echoing the words of the Hon. Member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) I want to point out again that the spirit of parliamentary reform is what we should be concerning ourselves with. It was in that spirit that earlier today Madam Speaker-even though there might have been a difference of opinion with respect to interpreting the rules or the words of the Standing Order on the experimental rules-pointed out that it is in the interest of fairness and justice that she reserve judgment and take into consideration the intent and purpose of parliamentary reform.
Parliament and parliamentarians have fallen into disrepute. They lack the respect and confidence of the people of this country. In the eyes of the news media we are losing credibility. That is why parliamentary reform had to come, Mr. Speaker. I cannot help but say, as Madam Speaker pointed out this morning, that we have to keep in mind the purpose and intent of the reform which the general public of Canada rejoiced over when they heard that at last this House was introducing the reform for which they have waited so long. When that reform package was introduced, the stated purpose was that it would enable this democratic assembly to operate more fairly and effectively. It was designed to protect the rights of Members of the House, not only Members of the Government but of Members of the Opposition.
There was a consensus that the time of Parliament could be better organized and made more productive. The search was on to find ways to enable private Members to make a greater input to legislation and to the productivity of the House. More free votes were to be called and developed for private Members.
I suggest that the public at large is not aware of the ineffectiveness of the committee system in years gone by. The Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) and the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid) and others turned their attention to the broad subject of parliamentary reform, but still other Members were looking to the committee system as a means of providing individuals with a greater opportunity to add to the productivity of the House.
Each of us was elected in a democratic way to represent a sizeable segment of the population of the country. It is that individual Member who is the cornerstone of the parliamentary system. It is in the interests of the country that the highest calibre of person be attracted to become a Member of Parliament. It should follow that Members of Parliament be given an opportunity to make a meaningful contribution to the consideration, deliberation and development of legislation. That has not been the practice in the past, however.
There was a broad consensus that the committee system was not effective, and that is putting the matter kindly. There was a wide range of variance in the volume of work that the committees had to consider. Reference has been made to that today. There were regional differences, and the frequency of meetings and a number of other things contributed to a discrepancy between one standing committee and another.
When the third report of the Standing Committee was introduced, not too much concern was expressed about the provision that the standing committees be composed of not less than 10 and not more than 15 Members. It was viewed as a range within which the Striking Committee would operate and within which the number of parliamentarians to serve on the respective committees would be determined.
I was rather disturbed when the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans), who is a member of the Striking Committee, spoke of altering the range and making it from
February 11, 1983

nine to 17 members. Why was that not done before and, as it was not done before, why does the NDP not introduce an amendment now to correct that injustice-an injustice which obviously prevailed and which, as the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain pointed out, the Striking Committee report invokes upon Members of the Progressive Conservative Party?
As the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River pointed out, the Striking Committee gave additional powers to committees. When there was some comment with respect to the capacity of the chairmen, however, the Hon. Member for London East (Mr. Turner) pointed out that the chairman has to be picked from the Government side. There were additional comments to the effect that there has to be a cushion of Members. The chairman is protected from breaking a tie vote but there has to be a cushion of Government Members, six, three and one, on all committees except two. I cannot think of anything more unfair than that.
As we start off on a basis of parliamentary reform we start off on a basis of unfairness that puts 37 Members on this side of the House in the position of not being able to serve their riding or being able to do the job they want to do in the House. They are deliberately prevented from so doing by Hon. Members opposite who abuse the right of the majority.
The good beginning made by parliamentary reform will be negated by this third report if it is carried today, as I presume it will be.
I do not want to abuse the time of the House, Mr. Speaker, but I should like to make one personal reference. The Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River emphasized the necessity of developing a specialty. Then the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Smith) emphasized that it was not a good thing to have a chairman who must break a tie. Like myself, that Member served on municipal Government and sat on committees. He watched his mayor break ties. That was his responsibility. If he was a man at all, that was his job. I see no reason why the Government should protect its chairman from the necessity of breaking a tie. I think it is an abuse of the system to say that there must be a majority of Government Members to provide a cushion, notwithstanding the chairman. To say that the chairman does not reflect the attitude of the Government is completely wrong.
Parliamentary Secretaries sit in to echo the comments of their Minister, if the Minister is not present. These are passed on to the chairman, and the chairman is a reflection of the wants and wishes of the Minister.
I was the mayor of a municipality and we had to make decisions and break tie votes. I was the mayor of an urban industrial city of 125,000 people. I am not now in a position to reflect the attitudes of that automotively oriented city. I am not now in a position to reflect the concerns of the marine industry which is developing along the Welland Canal. As a veteran with perhaps the longest service of any Member of this House-five years and eight months-am I in a position to sit as a Member of the Veterans' Committee?
Striking Committee Report
I consider the actions of the Striking Committee and of the majority of Members on the Government side in limiting the membership of committees to be a devious means of preventing Members of the Opposition from speaking out. It is a means of cutting down on the opportunities of Members to serve their constituencies. Members of the Government have looked after themselves. The Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River made a plausible argument. He said, "We are affected too". But I have already pointed out that there are 37 Conservative Members who are not able to sit on a committee because of the Striking Committee report. Does it affect the other side? There is provision for 120 members as opposed to 64, which is not proportionate to the representation in the House, or opportunities for Members to sit on committees. They appoint the representatives from the Speaker's chair down. They have the Cabinet and the Parliamentary Secretaries. No wonder they are not concerned with or interested in a change of the membership of committees. They do not have the bodies to put in them. They are all fixed with a second opportunity to serve, already. Where is the equity and fairness in that kind of situation as it applies to this side of the House?
The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain said that he recognized the unfairness. It is there, but to adopt or support the amendment would give an opportunity to put 20 more of the unemployed 37 Members of the House to work. He indicated that it would sort of give a greater disadvantage to their side because it would not be proportionately the same. The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain is on the Striking Committee. I do not know, because I was not privy to the actions which took place, but I heard the Government Whip, the Hon. Member for London East, point out that he voted with the Government to introduce the report and that he voted in support of it.
What is the position of the New Democratic Party? What amendments does it propose to bring forward? I heard the rhetoric and the comments with respect to a neutral chairman. I heard that the NDP would not support the amendment which my colleague proposed to bring forward, but I have not heard of any NDP amendment to the report which is unfair to us, as the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain now recognizes, and to them as it presently exists. Surely there is a better way of improving the situation. Surely there is an opportunity for the House to start off parliamentary reform on the basis of equity. If we miss the opportunity today, then it might not come around again.
The Government side fails to appreciate that even though these are experimental rules for one year, the possibility is that precedents are being made. I rejoice in the precedent established by Her Honour Madam Speaker this morning. I rejoice in it because it was a precedent with which she was concerned, but this will be a dangerous precedent if it is followed. Also, Government Members fail to recognize that they do not rule by the divine right of kings. The opportunity will soon come when they will be replaced. If they adopt this as a precedent

February 11, 1983
Striking Committee Report
today, one can bet one's sweet life that I, for one, will not be particularly willing or ready to change if I am to be one of the 37 unemployed Members of the House. If I am not able to sit as a member of any of the committees established by that body, I will not be prepared willingly and happily to change when the next session of Parliament rolls around.
Serious consideration should be given to the amendment. There were sufficient comments made by the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River and by Members on both sides of the House today to justify the Striking Committee's taking another look at the composition, even the extreme ranges, and even to the extent of bringing the matter back before the House for an appropriate amendment to vary the numbers, if necessary, but at least taking a look at varying the numbers within the composition of the standing committees. Flexibility should be the order. There must be flexibility between those numbers of 10 and 15 so that a larger representative group of the House will be employed to their capacity to the extent they are prepared to devote to the work of the House.
I support the amendment, and I urge all Members to do likewise.


David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to speak too long because my colleague, the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid), answered most of the criticisms of the Opposition in a very good speech a few moments ago. I think we have to emphasize what both of us are trying to achieve, at least on the Government side. I remind Hon. Members opposite that just because we sit on this side does not mean that we are of the Government. We are supporters of the Government, and we certainly have our own independent judgments. While we may support the Government, it does not mean to say that we always agree with the Government on every issue.
I would count the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River and myself as two of the leading proponents. We are trying to convince the Government, and hopefully the Opposition, to try to shift the emphasis in Parliament so that the criticisms which were made by Professor Lower in the article which he wrote in a recent edition of Macleans, to which the Hon. Member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby) referred, can be realized. Professor Lower made some very good points about the diminishing effectiveness of Parliament. He really laid it at the feet of Members of Parliament themselves and their attitudes. He indicated that it did not matter what institutional or structural changes there were in the House, that unless the attidues were changed, the House would not be improved. I agree with that. Some of us are trying-and I am sure it is not only those of us on the Government side; I know that some of my colleagues on the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure are trying as well-to change the attitude certainly of the Government and also of the entrenched interests in the Opposition Parties. In effect, we are trying to change the attitudes of the Party leadership in the House-and it is not only that of the Government but that of the Party leadership of the Conservative Party and of the Party leadership of the New Democratic Party-to accept a more flexible system, one which gives more
independence to the role of Members of Parliament. We hope to achieve this through the committee system.
I would like to view this in terms of steps. We introduced the fourth report of the Committee, which has really been gathering dust. It received some comment, but it did not really come to much. It concerned the whole question of the method of selection of the Speakership. I do not propose to go into the substance of that issue, but it was a unanimous report which indicated that to try to do away with any inference that the Chair may be something less than impartial, we as Members should have a say in the selection of the Speaker. Also it indicated that it should not just rest with the Governor in Council, which in effect is the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). As tradition has developed within our system, it has become the Prime Minister's full prerogative. With all due respect to the current Prime Minister and previous ones, we believe that the decision-making process should be opened up and in fact returned to where it was. If we look back to our heritage in the British parliamentary system, the Speaker was reluctantly dragged to the chair by Members on all sides. It was not a calling from the Prime Minister of the day; they did not have prime ministers in those times. It was a collective decision of Members of the House that that person act as the Speaker. We have brought forth this idea in our fourth report. I am not saying it cannot be refined and I am not saying it does not have weaknesses. But if we can develop the notion of complete impartiality of the Chair, and I am not faulting you, Mr. Speaker, nor any of your colleagues in the Chair, and put aside any shadow of a doubt that the Chair is somewhat less than impartial, then I think we have a start in reforming this place.
The next step is to do what is done in Great Britain, and that is, to allow the Speaker to select committee chairmen, as mentioned by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River, according to seniority and competence so that the best people, the most impartial people, determined by the most impartial person in the House, the Speaker of the House, preside over our committees.
I would like to work toward that end. I hear a few cheers from the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) and the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Smith). I think we would like to work toward this end. Then it does not bother me as a supporter of one political Party, in this case the Government, that we have Opposition chairmen. When was the last time we heard criticism about the conduct of the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, the Hon. Member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Clarke)? He has not been criticized. A tradition has grown up in this House that the Chairman of that Committee should be a Member of the Official Opposition. If that procedure can work in the Standing Committee on Public Accounts and in the Standing Committee on Management and Member's Services, surely it can work in all other committees. There should be more of an even balance.
February 11, 1983

Let me get to the point of the debate, the Striking Committee. Some of us made recommendations to the Government House leader. I want to take some of the heat off the Government here because some of us who are not Parliamentary Secretaries, gave our advice and said to him, "Look, if we are trying to develop this and if we are trying to make this approach of more independence work, not only for the Speaker but for the chairmen of the respective committees, then we believe that we should have a ratio in the committees so that the chairman is never forced to break a tie."
Earlier, the Hon. Member for Portage-Marquette (Mr. Mayer) used the analogy of the Speaker and said that situation has never happened here, and if it does the rules are plain. But it will happen on every single item because of the ratio, if we accept the amendment put forward by the Hon. Member for Halifax West, of six, four and one. In the House of Commons we have 282 Members and we have the Government with a reasonable majority. It is not likely in this Parliament, and it has never happened to my knowledge, that the Speaker has had to break a tie vote. But in a committee made up of 11 Members, as suggested by the Hon. Member for Halifax West, it will mean that on every single item on procedural and on substantive matters the chairman will be forced to vote to break a tie. Until we change the attitude of the Party leadership, both on this side and certainly on the other side, in a majority Parliament a chairman will be from the Government benches. Therefore, that chairman will be forced into supporting the Government line. This will undermine the very thing we are trying to achieve. That is why I cannot understand the logic this afternoon of some Members on the other side. I hope this is just one further step in moving toward the development of a panel of chairmen.
I am glad members of the committee were able to travel to England early in January to see how things were there and to see that a coterie of highly respected, independently minded Members from all Parties has developed. These people have the confidence of all other Members in the House in running the House on an ongoing basis. That is what we want to achieve.
I had some experience on this matter stemming from the bell ringing incident last year. Luckily, I was away at the time. As punishment for being away at the time, I think the Government wanted me to be Chairman of the Special Energy Legislation Committee that was set up as a compromise following the bell ringing episode. I took on the chairmanship. But the membership split on that Committee was six, three and one. Who suggested that split of six, three and one? It was the Hon. Member for the Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), the Leader of the Opposition and former House leader of the Official Opposition. He was the gentleman who agreed to the compromise that ended the bell ringing incident breaking the omnibus Bill into eight separate Bills, and it was he who had those Bills referred to the special committee whose mandate has since expired.
It is somewhat odd that I was accused, not only by the Conservative Party but by my own colleagues, of being in
Striking Committee Report
favour of the "other side". The Hon. Member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) and the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) accused me a number of times of protecting the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, now the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde). Members on my own side came to me afterwards and said, "My God, you are letting those Tories run the committee."


Walter David Baker: Obviously you are a fair man.


David Michael Collenette: I want to take the personality of the individual aside, but it does say something for the fact that if you do have this kind of split where you do not have to worry about breaking ties, that person can do the best job possible and be fair to all sides. I think the experience on that committee shows that it can be done.
I am sorry the Hon. Member for Yukon is not here this afternoon to respond to this specific point. But as House leader for the Official Opposition last year, I understand he was the one who suggested the special ten-man committee, not a 20-man committee but a special ten-man committee.


Howard Edward Crosby: A ten-person committee.


David Michael Collenette: I must admit it affected my judgment and my thinking on the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure in putting forward the notion of ten Members. Not everybody bought the idea of ten Members and we could not agree among ourselves, but we did agree that the membership should be reduced. We said, "All right, we do not want our lack of agreement on this one issue to spoil a unanimous report. Let us agree on the parameters of 10 Members and 15 Members for the committees and let us throw the actual numbering back to the House leaders."
I do not find it unusual that there is an impasse and that the Government has to force the issue. It is done all the time. This place does not operate with unanimity. It should not. It would be a very sterile place if it did. Every week the Opposition does not get its way, nor does the Government get its way, and where a compromise cannot be reached then someone has to take the initiative. Invariably the Government House leader will say, "I am sorry, you cannot agree on this, but we have to discharge our obligations to the House to get our package of legislation through and we will force the issue. We are responsible for the administration of business." The Government House leader says that such and such a day will be an allotted day. He tells us what business will be brought forward. He tells us when the Government will limit debate with time allocation, which I believe is now done by Standing Order 80. The Government House leader says when he will bring in closure. That is accepted in the parliamentary system. The fact that we could not unanimously agree on this particular point, or the fact that we could not agree, detracts somewhat from the spirit that was achieved by our committee and I think is really an argument we should put to rest.
I was bothered somewhat earlier by the comments made by some Members of the House, both on and off the Committee.

February 11, 1983
Striking Committee Report
Perhaps I attribute this to myself, that if we cannot agree on this we will not really go anywhere in terms of more procedural reform in the House. I hope that kind of childish argument, which is not confined to one corner of the House, will not gain any credence. The fact is that, at an impasse, the Government sought a compromise. There was somewhat of a compromise put forward by the NDP. I believe the NDP proposed as a compromise a membership made up of eight, five and two on the Standing Committee on Agriculture, and on the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence. I think it is a testimony to the Government that it has accepted the advice of backbenchers on its own side that we should accept a membership made up of ten Members. This will give people like myself more encouragement to press the Government further in developing the consent of a panel of chairmen from which a chairman could be chosen by the Speaker on the basis of merit. This panel could be composed of Members from both sides of the House. I am encouraged by the Government's acceptance to study this issue.
1 hope this debate will not sway us away from our responsibility as Members to make this institution a better place. The experience of the Committee up to this time has been good. I believe there has been some degree of satisfaction from all sides in our third report. Perhaps improvements can be made, but I hope they can be discussed.
I can understand especially the Conservatives' position since there are only 70 committee slots presently available and they have 102 Members. Therefore, many of their Members will not be full time Members of a particular committee. However, do we as Members have the right to expect to be on a committee, regardless of any consideration? I believe Members must earn their way around here. I include Government Members because some of us cannot be on committees either. The Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River is not happy with our Whip's committee choices in some cases. He will have to prove that our Whip was wrong and that he should be back on a particular committee. As well, Members of the Conservative Party will have to work hard to prove that they deserve a place on a committee.
I was concerned by the decision made in the Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure to split up the committees. I believe that the 15-man committee for the Agriculture Committee is particularly unfair to Members of the Conservative Party, which draws many of its Members from western Canada who are concerned with agricultural matters. I would rather have seen two agriculture committees set up, perhaps similar to the British operation which has two agriculture committees. Perhaps one committee could study Canagrex-I hate to offend the Official Opposition with that word-and another one could study a farm support Bill. I believe two agriculture committees could deal with the problem.
I would also propose splitting the External Affairs and National Defence Committee into two separate committees. I
was a regular member of that Committee and I am now an alternate. 1 would like to have been a full time member of that committee. This could have been achieved if we had two ten-member committees, one for External Affairs and one for National Defence.
The Committee on Standing Orders and Procedures decided that this question will require more thought. We decided to defer that issue. This debate illustrates that the Committee will have to consider the matter seriously and urgently and come back to the House so that we may have more committees, which will enable Members on both sides to participate more fully in those committees. However, no one has the right to expect to sit on a committee automatically.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are there Hon. Members rising to ask questions?


Walter David Baker: Does the Hon. Member approve of the idea that has been advanced by Members on both sides of the House of having committees that rise and fall with pieces of legislation to consider a piece of legislation? If so, does he approve of the concept of independent chairmen for those committees?


David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) is, of course, referring to the current British practice, and certainly I would support that.


Mr. Taylor:: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a short comment. The general impression that I am given from listening to the debate is that we are advancing greatly with regard to committee work. I admit that there has been some advance made, but I certainly do not see any great advance because the speech given by the Hon. Member who just sat down indicates that Party politics will still play an important part in committee work.
While it may be utopian philosophy or hope, I do not believe it should matter if a Member is Liberal, Conservative, New Democratic or Independent when dealing with a subject such as agriculture. The agricultural problem certainly must be met and the solutions do not have to rest on the particular philosophy of any one Party. That is the weakness I see in the setting up of these committees. The Government will always have its way unless Government Members are persuaded otherwise. It is difficult to change the judgment of someone who is making up his mind that he will support the Government regardless of what happens. It is difficult for the Government to persuade the Opposition if the Opposition Members make up their minds that they will do whatever their Party wants. I do not see any great advance in this at all.
I am also concerned about the fact that my Province may not even be represented on some committees. At the present time, the Government has no representation in the House from Saskatchewan, Alberta or British Columbia. Consequently, we may not even have a voice in numerous committees. The people of Alberta have a right and expect to be heard in the committees, the same as people from any other Province. That is another area of concern.
February 11, 1983

If we do have the situation where Members are chosen for committees by the Speaker, as suggested by the Hon. Member, I hope they will not be chosen according to the criteria of that person. I believe we are sent here to represent the people who elected us, and that is what we should be doing in the House and in the committees, regardless of Party politics.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: Mr. Speaker, I must say that I am not at all surprised that we have had unanimity in the House of Commons on parliamentary reform. Certainly, anyone who watches us on television would agree that we do need parliamentary reform. I believe that view is unanimous among all Members and all Canadians.
The question we must ask is, do we in fact have parliamentary reform or do we have something that looks like parliamentary reform but is merely tinkering that is ineffectual? Has the Government done this so it can say how productive it has been in achieving parliamentary reform?
I do not see much reform in this at all. It may be more regressive than progressive if the intent of this effort is not pure. I would like to think that the Government's intent is pure.
I enjoyed the idealism expressed by the Member for York East (Mr. Collenette) and the Member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid). If we are to get what they said, then I am not so concerned. However, since I do not think that is the case, I am concerned. If those Hon. Members believe it, 1 do not think that they have been around long enough to see the reality of how this place works. I hope they were correct, because there is a great difference between parliamentary reform and efficiency and expediency which detracts from the parliamentary process.
I suggest that this report will do one of two things: either limit the powers of Parliament or extend them. I do not see anything about extension. I see the words, "the committee wishes to ensure limiting the number of Members". It is limitation. We brought forth an amendment which calls for the extension, a slight extension, a slight increase. But no, the Government says, "We cannot accept that". It wants to limit again. I am concerned about this word "limiting", and concerned about the rhetoric and reality of what could be an excercise and abuse of power, because there really is no power being exchanged here.
Surely we are trying to increase the capacity of this democracy in which we are participating to act more effectively. We are trying to make committees more relevant and flexible to respond to changes. However, I want to know how the External Affairs Committee is, for example, more flexible, more responsive to change, more capable of acting. I want to know how my role as a Member of Parliament is enhanced, let alone whether consideration has been given to the many Members who were cut off from the External Affairs Committee, Members who have been attending regularly and participating in so many different ways.
Striking Committee Report
I see the role of the External Affairs Committee changing daily. As a result of the Government prerogative in expanding Government positions, the ministry of External Affairs has now become a super ministry, and the Department of External Affairs is not just concerned with External Affairs. The Committee is now concerned with Defence, Cl DA, and now Trade is added to it. We have a much larger responsibility and we are cutting our membership way down.
I am really disappointed that the Hon. Member for York East was not able to get the Committee split. That would have been a start. Not only do we need to have the Committee split, but perhaps it should be split into three. Perhaps, for example, the Trade section could be added or maybe a special section for International Development. It just boggles the mind when one sees the functions of that Committee equated with those of the Committee on Management and Members' services, so that the two are supposedly equal committees, with equivalent power, authority and so forth.
I am greatly concerned about the intent of the Government. The intent of the Government to my way of thinking, is registered by what it thinks about committees as they relate to money and ability to legislate. That is what we do here. We legislate and we spend money. We collect money, we spend money and, hopefully, we even save money sometimes. However, the committees have really no capacity to do any of these things. They really only have the capacity to hear and to recommend. I am concerned about that fact, and I am also concerned that there is not a provision for extra staffing. It is stated that they can call staff, but I see no budgetary provision or anticipation by the Government that committees shall in fact be more effective through the capacity of their staff and that they will have the funds to accomplish their work. The Government intent is suspect, right there.
I have not heard any discussion today about making these committees more accessible to the Canadian public to ensure that the public can and will in fact be heard, that the committees will travel, they will be heard, their expenses will be paid, and this type of thing. I have not heard an expression of that spirit of reform. I hear some very broad principles enunciated, but there is no spirit of reform as such.
I have been in other parliamentary jurisdictions in Canada which have enjoyed the same privileges we are granting today. However, what happened was that although there could be an automatic reference made to a committee, the automatic reference would never be made. The committee would meet one day, elect its chairman, and have a majority but would never meet again for the rest of the session. It is one thing to have a reference, but quite another to ensure that committees meet. Will they meet regularly, automatically and in good faith? We have to accept that on the strength of intent and hope, and I do not see that, because I see words like "limit" creeping in everywhere.
The Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River said that the Committee wanted to enhance the role of the Private Member. I do not know how this enhances the role of 37 Hon. Members on this side who are now no longer permanent committee

February 11, 1983
Striking Committee Report
members. I feel that it detracts from their role as Members of Parliament and from their capacity to act. I do not see any enhancement there.
The Hon. Member said that, independent from the structure of the Party hierarchy, the Whips will have less power. The Whips have more power. In fact, the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River just finished indicating that he was not happy with what his Whip had done to him because he lost his position on several committees. The Whip does not have less power, the Whip has more power. He has more power to choose because he has more people from which to choose for more seats. Instead, we will find out that it will be back to the old tradition, with the Whips appointing the ones who keep their seats the warmest, not necessarily the ones out working in External Affairs and other areas, or those who put in extra energy, and sometimes the two go together but not necessarily.
The Hon. Member also said that private Members do not want authority. Private Members do want authority, but is this accomplished? What authority have they gained? What power have I gained as a private Member? I do not see any power that I have gained as a Private Member. I see limitations, but I see no power, because there has been no power transferred, only the ability to hear and make recommendations. There is no power to legislate or real power to control money. We saw the Estimates taken out of the House of Commons, and we thought it was great and we would have more to discuss. The Estimates are a farce. The House has no control and the committee has no control over spending. It did not work. It was a nice intention, but I am afraid that will happen here, too.
This report, if adopted, will also eliminate opportunity for the newcomer. Some people have been on this side of the House for ten years but they will not sit on a committee because the cuts are 37 deep. They are no longer on committee. How can one call what happened to other persons "opportunity"? I know of one Hon. Member who came here ten years ago with some hope, but he cannot even sit on a committee now. It is absolutely disgusting to see what is being done, at least what I think is being done.
There is no authority and no power. There is only pretence. There is a pretence at democracy rather than the practice of democracy. I am very concerned that the right of private Members to act is not being enhanced here. It will depend on the intent of the Government, but every time one passes power on to the Government, one gives up the authority of the House of Commons. Authority of the House of Commons is perhaps being transferred somewhat, but that transfer may result in reduced authority, not increased authority.
The proof will be in the eating, but I think we are being had here. Let us remember that this is a one year process. This is not even necessarily a precedent, because the whole matter will be reviewed in one year. Let us have that clearly understood. One year from now, if I have not experienced more authority as a Member of the Opposition, as a private Member, and if these 37 other Hon. Members have not somehow found ways to express themselves, ways which have now been cut off, then
maybe we had better look to a revision and the continuation of past practice.
Does the Government really mean what it is talking about, this reform? Will it continue with the next stage and the stage after that, or will this be it, in reality? That reality will be tested, as will the intent of the Government. I remain skeptical and doubtful, especially when the Government will not accept a simple amendment which is brought forward in good faith and which would permit a few more of our Members, not 37 Members, to have some small role to play. I cannot understand why the Government will not accept a little compromise so that a few more Hon. Members can have that right. The Government would maintain its control. It has its control because there are so few Hon. Members who are supposedly fighting for these positions. The Government does not have to worry about its quorum. They will be there now. They have to fight for their positions.


Charles Robert Turner: They were not there before.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: They were not there before, you are darn right, but I can tell the Hon. Member that they were there in the External Affairs Committee on the Conservative side, and we had people fighting for those spots all the time, 11 people, and we had to cut them off and decide who would get on. We do not have that problem, and it is our people who are in fact being cut. It is the power of the Opposition which is being cut, and that check and balance is being destroyed once more in another long series of chains which have come in from the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), and the Hon. Member has admitted it here. The Prime Minister, through his prerogative, has taken authority away from here. You are darn right, it has been taken. It has been taken by the Prime Minister in the last series of reforms which, under a guise, saw the transfer of authority and power.
I regret this, and I remain skeptical. One year from now, we will evaluate this matter and it will take much more than one day, unless there is much more good intent, much more than I have seen from the Government in the last ten years.


Mr. Evans:: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the problem we have run up against today with regard to the 10 man committees is that under the old structure of numbers which gave the Government a clear majority plus the chairman of the committee, a situation has developed where the Opposition numbers are so small that they do not have enough representation on the committee. For example, on the Finance Committee, of which I was chairman, the Government had a clear majority, plus the chairman. Those were 20 person committees. The Government had 11 members, the Official Opposition had 7 members and the NDP had 2 members. Not considering the chairman, that is a 10 to 9 ratio. The Government had a clear majority, and the chairman could be independent.
Quite frankly I would like to ask the Hon. Member if, when such questions arise, it is not his opinion that not only are these
February 11, 1983

numbers correct but that the same basic structure of numbers is being maintained under the new system as was the case under the old system. Secondly, is it not his opinion that most of the chairmen, indeed any of the chairmen that I know, have tried very hard to be as impartial and independent as they possibly could be to ensure that all views were heard on committees and that committees were fairly run, from the point of view of the Opposition as well as of the Government?


Robert Lloyd Wenman: Mr. Speaker, I am not saying that I am objecting to the Government having a majority. We have made a recommendation that we need to have at least one more member. I am sure that if the Government needed one more member, that would be considered. We are negotiating between 10 and 15 members, which is what was unanimously agreed to. Flow can it be said that private Members have more authority when 37 Members have lost their jobs? Why do we not try to get a few more of these people on committees? It is a short Parliament, there is only another year left, and in that year things are going to be changed. We should not be considering the immediate period but rather considering far into the future, so let us be fair and reasonable. Let us negotiate a new kind of amendment. If we need one more Member, fine, but we should try to get some of these 37 Members on committees to give them a role to play in this House of Commons, a recognized role which would allow them really to get as involved as they want to. I do not understand how, when 37 Members are deprived of their right to participate, this helps the House of Commons.


Harold Thomas Herbert: Mr. Speaker, let me continue questions on the same theme. The Member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman) has indicated that they acknowledge that a majority Government should have majority on committees. Frankly, I do not understand what he means when he talks about participation. We have alternates who have been selected as well. I would assume that, if the alternates are going to be sufficiently knowledgeable, they are going to attend the committee meetings. Also we have the right, as Members of Parliament, to attend any meetings we like. Thus, if there is any trouble with any Members of the Official Opposition participating in committee, will the Member not acknowledge that the problem rests with his own side and not with our side? It is not for us to decide whether the alternates who attend committee meetings shall be allowed to participate or not. Will he not acknowledge that his problem is that his own side is shutting out not only the alternates but any other interested Members from participating?
I have been a member of a committee for some 10 years. I am no longer listed. I have been to the Clerk and I am going to be given all the matters that are sent to the Members of that committee and I will continue to participate as a Member of Parliament. The only thing I am losing is my right to vote, if there is a vote, and nothing else. Will the Hon. Member acknowledge that, please?
Striking Committee Report


Robert Lloyd Wenman: Mr. Speaker, surely when the Hon. Member says, "the only thing I am losing is my right to vote", I can ask him, what did you come to Parliament for? You came here to vote and to participate. If you lose your right to vote, you do not have much left, do you? I am very sorry the Government took you off that committee because you were a good Member. This is an example which shows you how power transfers back to the Whip-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I call to the attention of the Hon. Member that his remarks should be addressed to the Chair. Are there further questions to be asked at this point?


Harold Thomas Herbert: Mr. Speaker, my question is, how many times in the history of this House has that gentleman voted in committee?


Robert Lloyd Wenman: Mr. Speaker, I have had an opportunity to vote in committee often and regularly, on and on again.
I have made it on to the committee as an alternate or a member, but at least I will have access. It is not good enough. I agree that it is not good enough, but I am fighting for the 37 Members who did not get on committee. Why do you not stand up for the 37 who did not, and help them to get on committee? Why do we not help you on? I am trying to help you and help some of your backbenchers.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I draw to the attention of the Hon. Member that his remarks should be addressed to the Chair.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: But, Mr. Speaker, there are others in this House of Commons, 37 on this side, without the jobs that they had before, without their right to vote. The right to vote is a very basic right of democracy, and that has now been taken from them by this legislation. That is a limitation, not an extension of their authority and power.


David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to intervene, but the Hon. Member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman) has distorted my comments. I was referring to the prerogative of the Prime Minister. It has grown with respect to the speakership, and nothing else.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, I will attempt to confine my remarks to a relatively small number of points. However, I will probably not have any more success in that than other Hon. Members have had this afternoon. There are two basic arguments here. One is the participation argument, which is made much of by the Member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman), and there is also the voting power argument.
I think that this Party would be prepared to entertain any number, and discuss any number, between 9 and 17 as far as the Committee is concerned, as long as the proportional voting power remains the same as in the House.
I think it is well known that everybody who wishes to be on a committee, and that is true whether a committee sits in camera, whether it is the Members' Services Committee or the Public Accounts Committee, can attend and participate. However, it will only be one's colleagues who happen to be

February 11, 1983
Striking Committee Report
named as members on that committee who will normally speak first who will prevent another Opposition member from speaking.
I think it is specious to say that there might be no one from Alberta on the Agriculture Committee and that an Alberta Member cannot participate. That is demonstrably untrue. It does not work that way today.
Another thing that I would like to point out, as other Members have noted, is that I have been around here a little while too, and I am one of those who participate in committee work, and I found precisely the opposite tendency. When something is hot, it is a really hot topic, there is a great deal of pressure in being a member of such a committee. At other times a committee cannot meet because it lacks a quorum. As a matter of fact, I have seen times when a committee is first struck when one of the first motions we pass to hear witnesses is passed without a quorum, because frequently we lack the necessary attendance. It is not that we lack opportunities to speak. Sometimes we have a workload that is so heavy, especially at certain periods of the year, that we cannot manage to attend committees and get all the things done that we are supposed to get done.
I would suggest to you that if we followed the British practice, we would not be concerned, as was the Member for St. Catharines (Mr. Reid), with unemployed MPs running around with nothing to do and not attached to any committees. If one follows the British practice, a set of committees can be developed which are select committees. In the British House of Commons they have seven domestic committees, including the Committee on Privileges; they have three legislative committees that deal with everything from the European Common Market to the consolidation of Bills. Then they have the oversights of Government, which are called select committees but are really standing committees. But if we move to select committees to treat legislation, or legislative committees, and continue on with our departmentally oriented standing committees, plus our task forces, I am quite certain there would be more than enough for all of us to do.
Speaking of the task forces, I think they did a remarkable job. I would like to see some arrangement where the House, as someone else has said, could direct a task force to begin its work. The example that comes to mind is the nuclear issue. Why have we never had that opportunity to discuss this very important issue as Members of the House of Commons?


Robert Lloyd Wenman: How will we get it out there?


Mark Willson Rose: If the Speaker rules in favour of the point of order today in which the agreement between the United States and Canada, the defence agreement and those papers which were tabled today, become a subject for immediate investigation by a parliamentary committee-I suppose we would call it the External Affairs Committee-I would think that that would be a massive step forward, a massive reform and a massive improvement. I congratulate the Hon. Members of the Committee. I am on it now. I was not a member of the Com-mitte at the time the Report was prepared, but I believe it is something of which we should all be proud. I agree with the point raised by the Hon. Member for Fraser Valley West that
sometimes we have rather lethargic committee chairpersons, and they sometimes do not get around to calling the committees on the Estimates until just about the deadline date. I am well aware of that.
I would also like to say that we need to spin off a few more committees. If we are going to have unemployed Members of Parliament around here in the Conservative Party, then I suggest there may be other committees which we could develop. We could set up special committees, such as legislative committees, if the Conservative Members have all that time, or a committee on the environment, or on the status of women. Some of these committees have been mentioned.
One problem has impressed me, because I have been a victim of it as a Member of a small Party. It was very difficult to be a lone Member from a Party once the committee started spinning off subcommittees. As the only Member from my Party on the Members' Services Committee, it was extremely difficult for me to attend to all of the sub-topics which we deal with on that Committee. Similarly, it was difficult on the Alternative Energy Task Force. When I am away, as the single NDP member of that committee, the whole Party is missing, but if one Member of the Conservative Party-


An Hon. Member:: That is absolutely true.


Mark Willson Rose: And it is true of any single Party Member on a committee. There is nothing that says you cannot vary the size of committees. I believe that was the position taken by the Hon. Member for Richmond-South Delta (Mr. Siddon), that in the British system their select committees vary from 17 down to 6. There are a total of 217 members on these committees, appointed by a committee of Members, not by the Government. There are all kinds of models we could follow. Similarly, an Hon. Member mentioned the appointment of the Speaker. I was asked to limit my remarks, but I could go on for some time because I was impressed by the kind of things we saw at Westminster. And I am quite sure that if we examine the American committee system we might also discover there are certain things we can learn from them as well. I understand that a subcommittee of that Committee will be going down to Washington for discussions.
Let me just say that I believe the House needs to have more control. I believe the House versus Parliament should have the control of the appointment of the Commissioners of Internal Economy. I see no reason why the Commissioners all have to be from the Government side. I see no reason why the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, who is an Opposition Member, cannot be one of the members of the Committee on Internal Economy. I believe the Government has just grabbed those spots, and Parliament should have them back.
There are still a great many things I could say, but I must limit myself to the agreement because I believe there is some disposition for this debate to end at a reasonable time. Just to sum up, I will say that we should look at separating the
February 11, 1983

committees on Estimates, if you like, from the legislative committees, which could be just temporary committees. I believe we should have greater use of the draft Bill so we are not locked in at the committee stage much sooner than we really need to be. After all, those of us experienced in municipal work know about provisional budgets. You do not bring out a budget in a municipality and say, "This is the budget we are going to fly with". I believe we can do all kinds of things like that to give more power to a person who is elected to this place, but I believe we have to be patient to see if the steps we have taken already are going to be helpful and are going to allay the legitimate fears which have been expressed of unfairness in many cases. Let us give it a year. Let us see what else the Committee can come up with to strengthen the power of the private Member. It it accomplishes that, then I think it will receive the approval of the House. If it does not, then we have to throw it out. We can throw it out a year from now, but let us give it a try in the meantime.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, in listening to the final remarks of the Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. Rose), I cannot help but wonder what the magic is in waiting a year for democracy to be restored to this House. We are witnessing a situation where the Government has given itself 50 per cent more Members on a committee than the Opposition, and we see a degree of complicity by the New Democratic Party, who will not support the amendment before the House, which would refer this matter back to the Striking Committee to ensure that fairness and equity is exercised in the determination of committee sizes. Why, Mr. Speaker? Let us look at the actual breakdown of proportional representation on the committee of ten which has been proposed. The NDP would have one member, giving them 10 per cent, the Official Opposition would have three members, giving us 30 per cent, and the Government would have 60 per cent of the representation on that committee. The NDP, Mr. Speaker, is getting proportionately a better deal than the Official Opposition because in fact we have 36 per cent of the seats in this House but we are only being given 30 per cent of the positions on committee. That is the beginning of the injustice, Mr. Speaker, and only the beginning. If we look at the proportional representations, the number of seats the NDP have in this House, we will find it represents 11 per cent of the total. And yet it is getting 10 per cent. If you look at the ratio, you will find, Mr. Speaker, that on a proportional basis, this Party is being hit more drastically than the NDP, because if you take the two 15 member committees being established, the NDP has 13.3 of its representation on those committees, and this Party has only 33 per cent. So the NDP have a good deal going for them. That is why they are guilty of complicity with the Government in this matter and are prepared to wait a whole year, while Members of the Official Opposition are deprived of their right to represent the concerns of their constituents before the standing committees of this House.
The basic injustice which has been presented this afternoon is that every Member of the Government will sit on a committee or in Cabinet, or carry the title of Parliamentary Secretary. Indeed, there will be 124 positions created for Government
Striking Committee Report
Members on committees. There will be doubling up in some cases. And every backbench Member of the Libera! Party will be able to go home wearing on his sleeve at least a representation on one committee of this House, whereas 40 per cent of the Members of the Official Opposition will not be given an opportunity to represent the particular interests which they bring to this place, and the particular interests of their constituents, as fully accredited members of a committee. That is where the basic injustice originates. Forty per cent of the Members of this Progressive Conservative Party will not be officially represented on committee, and 1 might add that ten Members of the New Democratic Party, or one-third of their Members, will not be represented on the committee structures as presented here. But every backbench Liberal Member will have a job.
I am not saying this, Mr. Speaker, because I want another job, but I believe we have all come here as equals and we should be treated as such, in the spirit of the words of the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid), whose judgment and sensitivity to this problem I am sure we all appreciated this afternoon. Nevertheless, there seems to be a degree of hypocrisy in his suggestion that what we are achieving today is to give more power to the backbenchers, to improve the lot of private Members, as he put it. It is a matter of status, of pride, to be able to take a position as a member of a Parliamentary Standing Committee, he told us. Yet where is the status if every Liberal Member is able to enjoy one of those positions? Where is the pride for the 37 Members of the Conservative Party, as pointed out by my colleague, the Hon. Member for St. Catharines (Mr. Reid), who will be deprived of the right to represent one or more of their special interests as a regular member of a standing committee?
That basic injustice, Mr. Speaker, cannot be denied. The Liberal Party has 53 per cent of the seats in this House, and they are trying to take 60 per cent of the seats on the standing committees, and that is not fair. The Liberal Members have made a great to-do about the fact the chairman would probably not vote very often, but, Mr. Speaker, if that is the case, why does the chairman need to vote at all? Perhaps a compromise could have been worked out. If, with the ten-member committee, we withdrew the right of the chairman to vote-if that is what they are trying to tell us-then we would have one NDP Member, three Conservative Members, and five Liberal Members instead of six. The sixth Member would be a totally unbiased chairman selected from any of the three Parties. He would not be able to vote because there would be no need for deciding the vote. There would be nine voting Members on that committee and there would never be a need for a tiebreaking vote. So if this is the line Government Members are taking, that the chairman would really be unbiased and would rarely vote anyway, then why would they not agree to withdraw the right of that person to vote?

February 11, 1983
Striking Committee Report
I think, Mr. Speaker, there are those basic injustices. The additional point I want to make is that one would have expected the Striking Committee to look at the possibility of introducing some flexibility as to having a ten-Member committee or 15-Member committee. I do not agree with the Flon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) who said we would have to have either 9 or 17. If we were willing to give or take, and allowed the NDP a little heavier representation on some committees and the Conservative Party on others, if we looked at the workload of many of these committees, we would find that we could justify 13 and 15-Member committees in cases where there are only 10. I think in particular of the Finance Committee or the Fisheries and Forestry Committee which encompasses the three different subjects of fisheries, forestry and environment. We have had a problem there with revolving membership because the Members interested in fisheries were very often not interested in the forestry questions, and Members interested in forestry were not always interested in environment. When we look at the Miscellaneous Estimates Committee, we see the travesty of a hodge-podge of different subject matters such as Stats Canada, CBC, official languages, science and technology, Canada Post, Department of Supply and Services, Treasury Board, Auditor General, PMO and the Privy Council Office. You cannot have three Members from this Party and one Member from the NDP developing expertise in all of those areas. In one particular case, Mr. Speaker, that being science and technology, many Members of this House feel there should be one ten-member committee exclusively dedicated to that field. That would ensure that science and technology, which is at the heart of Canada's future economic development, would receive much more than lip service in this House and in the work of committees.
What I am saying, Mr. Speaker, is that the Striking Committee could be much more innovative. They could have used the latitude between 10 and 15 Member committees to be more fair to the specific interests of backbenchers and the need of their constituents by ensuring that the committee workload would be relatively equally balanced. These larger committees could be given 15 Members or 13 Members. The committees which meet less frequently need only ten. But to see the rule applied that there shall be ten Member committees except for the Committee on Agriculture and the Committee on External Affairs and National Defence really hamstrings many Members of this Party and this Parliament who would like to have a more effective opportunity to engage in discussions and bring forward constituents' concerns before committees. I think of transport. This Party is going to have three representatives on the Transport Committee. We deal with surface transport, air transport, marine transport, and we deal with West Coast and East Coast issues, Great Lakes issues, aviation policy; in short, a wide spectrum of subject matter, and we are going to have three Members from this Party dealing with all those areas.
I think the Striking Committee should go back to the work table, with the encouragement of this House, and exercise a lot more ingenuity in adjusting these committees and even proposing to the Committee dealing with Parliamentary Reform that we restructure some of these committees, retitle them, and try to be much more fair in the balance we provide so that all Members of Parliament including the 37 Members of this Party, will have an opportunity to participate as full, regular Members in the standing committees of this House.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I was going to ask the Hon. Member if he will at least acknowledge that my position was not as he put it, but rather that I said 1 was prepared to sit down and look at any numbers that would reasonably and adequately reflect the composition of the House of Commons. I suggested the two numbers which most readily fitted were 9 at the small end and 17 at the large end. But I said I was prepared to consider any formula that would adequately represent the House of Commons.
More important, does the Hon. Member recognize also that when you speak of the Members on a committee, what you are really talking about is the voting power? As long as the voting power is in the same proportion as the numbers of Members in the House of Commons as it is composed now, then there is no Member who is excluded from taking part in the committee deliberations. However only three Conservatives are entitled to vote and only one New Democrat is entitled to vote, and at the moment there would be six Liberals, if the chairman voted, but only five Liberals on the floor of the committee entitled to vote. That is reasonable and in the same proportion as exists in the House of Commons.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: Would you agree then that we go to 17 Members?


Ian Deans: I tried that already and could not get acceptance at the time. I offered to accept anything that will satisfy the Conservatives, and I do not think that is possible, after having listened to some of the things which have been said. But if the Conservatives would like to move an amendment that would accommodate the size of the House, the proportion of Members in each of the Parties, then I am quite happy to take a look at it over the weekend.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the flexibility indicated by the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans). I think I heard him say he would be prepared to accept anything that the Conservatives would propose.


Ian Deans: No, I said-


Thomas Edward Siddon: There is an amendment before this House, and I hope he will support it.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to make one brief comment here about the Hon. Member for Richmond-South Delta (Mr. Siddon). The very fact that he can get up and ask questions, receive answers and make comments is the result of the new rules.


Thomas Edward Siddon: I appreciate that.
February 11, 1983


Mark Willson Rose: So he got a little extra mouth power out of reform anyway.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:
Striking Committee Report


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 12(3), the division on the amendment is deferred until Monday next at 3 p.m.


David P. Smith: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. There was an understanding that the debate on this matter would be completed today in a one-day debate. In the spirit of that understanding 1 would seek the consent of the House that an order issue that the vote on the motion of the Hon. Member for London East (Mr. Turner) take place on Monday immediately following the vote on the amendment.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, in reply to that point of order, the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Smith) is correct in that there was an understanding that there would be a one-day debate. We have had the debate, but we are not in a position to give unanimous consent to both votes taking place at the same time on Monday.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.
Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until Monday at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2.
At 5 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, February 14, 1983