1983-10-14

STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21


Mr. Lee Clark (Brandon-Souris):: Madam Speaker, the latest reports out of Iran remind us that the systematic genocide of the Baha'i community in Iran continues. Sadly, the reports have an all too familiar ring-imprisonment, torture, beatings, and executions. One estimate puts the death toll at well over 5,000 since February of 1979. These shocking reports ought to jar us all into the realization that the Iranian Government continues to torture, with shocking regularity, innocent people who only desire their religious freedom. The Baha'is' only crime is their refusal to renounce their faith.
Women of the Baha'i faith have, as of late, faced increased danger. Because they are regarded as equals within their faith, the Iranian Government, which does not share that belief, has begun to arrest, torture and execute Baha'i women in much greater numbers than before.
Here in Canada it is perhaps difficult to imagine a land where people pay for their religious beliefs with their lives. But in Iran the persecution against the Baha'i community has neared the point of a holocaust.
1 urge Canadians, and indeed the entire international community, not to become complacent. For as long as the persecution continues, we must continue to express publicly our utter abhorrence of these horrible acts of violence.


CANADIAN HERITAGE
Mr. Stanley Hudecki (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, recently on a remote site along the Pacific coast, north of Vancouver, stones decorated with prehistoric Indian carvings, known as petroglyphs, and weighing several tons, were stolen. These petroglyphs which have been in existence for thousands of years are among Canada's major archeological treasures and their seizure
represents a great loss not only to the Canadian archeological community but to Canadians in general.
These petroglyphs provide vital information on man's ancestral beginnings in Canada. According to the director of the National Museum of Man in Ottawa, new archeological techniques make possible more accurate interpretation of information contained on these stones which date back 10,000 years. These records give evidence of cultural cross-ties with the Soviet Far East, suggesting people crossed the Bering Strait from what is Soviet Siberia. It is a shame that, as new skills are being developed to understand our distant past as recorded on petroglyphs, these pages of ancient history are being ripped out and senselessly destroyed even before being read.
It is my concern that this site and similar sites in Canada are vulnerable to treasure hunters and vandals who have little concern about our nation's past. For this reason I urge the federal Government, in co-operation with the Provinces, to co-ordinate activities to ensure as far as possible that artifacts of Canadian historical significance are protected from vandalism.


TOURISM
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Madam Speaker, taxes, like death, may be inevitable, but Canada's tourism and hospitality industries say they are tired of bearing the burden of too many tax hikes. The latest dose of bad news is the 13.3 per cent hike in the federal excise tax on liquor, with all the concurrent increases in provincial and sales taxes. Not only do consumers feel the pinch of price hikes but the effects ripple across to the airline industry, hotels and restaurants, all of which make up the tourism and hospitality industries.
It has already been said by me that the tourism industry is the largest employer in Canada, providing jobs to 11 per cent of the work-force, and represents 5 per cent of total gross GNP. When everyone speaks of recovery, need I remind everyone that this industry only faces tax increases, decreasing revenues, and less demand, particularly applicable to alcohol and tobacco.

October 14, 1983
THE LATE PATRICK MacDONNELL


Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Madam Speaker, on July 14 of this year they found Patrick MacDonnell dead. He had killed himself. He was 35 years old.
On November 5 of last year he was laid off as a result of a government cutback. Pat went on unemployment insurance. It devastated him. He did not want unemployment insurance; he wanted to work. He applied for jobs far beneath what he was capable of accomplishing, but he was told he was overqualified. That did not stop him. He created his own make-work project. Pat used up all his personal life savings creating and developing his idea. He made around $100 and reported this on his unemployment insurance card. On February 6 he was cut off because they deemed him self-employed.
Reading through all the letters and memos of the next four months, a Kafka nightmare emerges. Pat, broke, mortgage in arrears, with an empty fridge and no income, tried to correct this situation. He appealed. He wrote me. He wrote the Minister. He wrote the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). But nothing changed. Pat was defeated. On July 14 he attached a hose to his car's exhaust system and gassed himself.
Patrick was a big, strong, curly-haired, good natured Irishman. He was honest. He was creative. He was intelligent. He had initiative and skills. He had all the qualities a civilized society would hope its members would have. Patrick MacDonnell did not survive in our society.
Something is dreadfully wrong when the Patrick MacDon-nells at the age of 35 die by their own hand. Something is terribly amiss with the world created by our corporate boardrooms and government offices. It is killing our best people.

[DOT] (mo)


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Madam Speaker, the Port of Halifax must compete for international marine cargo with other national ports on the east coast of Canada, particularly the Port of Montreal. The Port of Halifax provides a deep water facility, equipment, and labour force, which together ensure an effective service for ocean vessels of all types, especially container ships. However, the weak link in the chain of service is the rail line between the East Coast and inland destinations.
Canadian National Railway Company is the sole provider of railway service to and from the Port of Halifax. Freight rates are a vital factor in determining the economy of utilizing the Port of Halifax for marine shipments. Now CNR has threatened to add to the cost burden for users of the Port of Halifax by increasing freight rates an additional 5 per cent. This would be a unilateral decision of CN management, not based on any cost analysis or documented expenditures. I ask the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy) to review carefully any action
taken by the CNR respecting freight rates so that this delicate competitive balance will not be disturbed.


POLITICAL PARTIES
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, open revolt has broken out in the ranks of northern Ontario Liberal Members of Parliament. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mrs. Erola), the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt, has been doing everything in her power to fight the changes to her riding boundaries proposed as a result of the upcoming federal redistribution. The Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner) went so far as to accuse the embattled Minister of "reprehensible behaviour" for putting her own self-interest ahead of northern Ontario and the interests of her fellow northern Liberals, surely an endangered species in these troubled times.
As well, the Hon. Member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Irwin) has bitterly complained that loyal Liberals in northern Ontario are not getting enough patronage appointments. He went on to say that he was reluctant to criticize his esteemed colleague, the Minister, because "she is my regional Minister and she is a woman". The Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) accused the Minister of ignoring the wishes of the vast majority of her northern Liberal colleagues in the redistribution process.
I would like to invite the aggrieved Minister to rise in her place at some point today and defend herself from these scurrilous attacks by her fellow Liberals in northern Ontario on her good name and reputation. I am sure all Members of the House would want to extend our heartfelt sympathy to the embattled Minister in her plight, and remind her colleagues from northern Ontario, specifically Sault Ste. Marie, Algoma-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


MANITOBA TELEPHONE SYSTEM-TESTING OF METHANOL FUELED CARS
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine):: Madam
Speaker, in Winnipeg a program is currently under way to determine the efficiency of specially manufactured cars running on 90 per cent methanol fuel. The program will examine how well cars start in cold weather, the wear and tear on engines, and fuel consumption. This testing began on July 27 and will ascertain over the next two years the commercial potential of methanol fuel.
This project is being carried out as a Manitoba/Canada conservation and renewable energy demonstration project for alternate fuels. The Manitoba Telephone System has been
October 14, 1983

actively involved for the past three years in experimenting with propane, gasohol, and now, in this program, methanol fuels. System maintenance and repair, as well as supervisory staff, will be using the methanol test cars. The cars will only be used in Winnipeg where special methanol fuel is available.
The Manitoba Telephone System has shown leadership in this field, and on behalf of my colleagues in the House of Commons I would like to congratulate the Manitoba Telephone System on its fine and outstanding efforts.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Madam Speaker, like many Canadians, not the least of them Ontario's Attorney General Roy McMurtry, I am incensed over the release on bail of a man charged with paralysing an 18 year-old girl for life. Indeed, the suspect, one Clive Brown, age 19 of Mississauga, faces charges of forcible confinement, armed robbery, attempted murder, and using firearms.
An 18-year-old Becker's Milk Store employee, Barbara Turnbull, was shot in the throat during a $200 robbery. The spinal cord damage that Ms. Turnbull suffered will leave her paralysed from the neck down for the rest of her life. So what does Brampton provincial court judge Kenneth Langdon do last week? He releases Clive Brown on $40,000 bail, on condition that he show up at Clarkson Secondary School in Mississauga. He did not show up, and has not been heard from since. He is not at home, not at school, and the judge says, "I don't know where he is".
I say, on behalf of every law-abiding Canadian, Madam Speaker, that 1 am thoroughly disgusted with a judicial system which lets a known criminally-minded individual out on the loose again after committing such a horrible, senseless crime for 200 bucks. I join the Peel Regional Police Force and the Attorney General of Ontario in opposing this disgusting release of an attempted murderer. Because of that punk, Barbara is ruined for life. Her assailant is free, and the Crown Prosecutor says he does not know where he is. Where, in the name of heaven, is there justice in this country for innocent people like Barbara Turnbull?



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Bill Kempling (Burlington):: Madam Speaker, my question was to be directed to the Minister of Consumer and
Oral Questions
Corporate Affairs, but I will ask it of the Minister of Finance.
It is with regard to approximately 750,000 Canadians who are locked into high interest rate mortgages. This matter was first raised in the Speech from the Throne in 1980. Since that time six Ministers of the Government have played with the problem, two Ministers of Finance, two Ministers of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, and two Ministers who report for CMHC. All of them have clawed the air and implied through their replies, inside and outside the House, that they would do something about it, but nothing substantive has happened in three and one half years.
Yesterday the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, after stating that she would seek an amendment to the Interest Act, informed the Hon. Member for Oshawa that-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


William James Kempling: -mortgages-all right.


Madam Speaker:: I really must interrupt the Hon. Member. He has not come to a question and he has already taken three minutes of his time.


William James Kempling: She informed the Hon. Member that trust companies were under provincial legislation.


Madam Speaker:: No, no, I really meant the Hon. Member had to ask his question immediately.


William James Kempling: What does the Minister propose to do about some of our trust companies which put clauses in their mortgage agreements that require mortgagors to waive their rights under Section 10 of the Canada Interest Act and other federal-provincial acts dealing with the prepayment of mortgage contracts?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, this is indeed a very long question, and I contest the allegations contained in the preamble. I would start, first of all, by answering the preamble, and then I will address the question.
As far as the preamble is concerned, the Hon. Member is quite wrong. We have taken a number of steps to help Canadians who were caught with high mortgages. One of the steps, for instance, cost the federal Treasury $75 million in help to Canadian consumers. That was the Canada Mortgage Renewal Plan that the Minister of Public Works introduced to help those who were facing difficulties in renewing their mortgages when the interest rates were quite high. The Hon. Member will remember that at that time the federal Government was giving up to $3,000 in subsidies for mortgage renewal. That program has been used by tens of thousands of Canadians and it helped them at a very, very difficult time.
In addition, when it comes to current renewal at lower rates, as the Hon. Member knows 1 have provided Members of Parliament with a list of senior officials in all the banks and trust companies in Canada to which representations could be made on behalf of constituents. I, myself, have made representations on behalf of constituents and Members of Parliament,

October 14, 1983
Oral Questions
repeatedly. The president of a trust company, for instance, appeared before the parliamentary committee on Finance two weeks ago, saying that in a single day he had received 36 letters from me addressing the issue on behalf of a number of Canadians who were facing difficulties, and steps have been taken following those representations, in a very large number of cases.
Finally, as far as the question raised by the Hon. Member is concerned, I have indicated to him, as the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs indicated to him yesterday, that in a number of instances those trust companies are under provincial authority. As well, Canadian consumers, when they enter into contracts, must look at those contracts carefully and also shop around to find out whether they can get a better deal elsewhere.


An Hon. Member:: Statements by Ministers.


Marc Lalonde: As far as the specific point is concerned, these are the steps that we have already taken.


REQUEST FOR LEGISLATION TO ASSIST HOME OWNERS
William James Kempling: Surely the Minister knows that, under Section 91(19) of the Constitution Act, interest is the jurisdiction of the federal Government, and it does have jurisdiction.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William James Kempling: In the United States, under the Federal Housing Act it is illegal to charge a fee or penalty for a prepayment of a mortgage.
In 1976 the Government introduced Bill C-16, the Borrowers and Depositors Protection Act, that included a clause in Section 15 which dealt with this very matter. Is the Government prepared to introduce such legislation again, and will it attempt to deal with the 750,000 Canadians who are trapped in this mess?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member mentions the figure of 750,000 citizens. I would urge him to be careful in terms of the numbers he is using. He may find himself very much off base in that regard.
The Hon. Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and I have indicated that we are examining the situation, reviewing it, and will continue to do so. When we have reached a decision we will make it known promptly.
It is important that we avoid any steps that will mean that Canadian citizens in general will end up paying more than they are presently paying for mortgages as a result of Government intervention, or which may lead to a situation where certain types of mortgages that are available now would disappear from the market. The Hon. Member knows that interest rates fluctuate and that we cannot have a situation where one can benefit from interest rates going down and be
fully protected when they go up. No country in the world has been able to arrange that.


William James Kempling: The 750,000 figure is established by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation which advises that 715,000 people are trapped with mortgages above 17 per cent. I am sure there are another 35,000 people out there somewhere. That is the basis for the figure.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
William James Kempling: Madam Speaker, the Minister's rationale does not stand up. In the United States where they have lower rates, and interest deductibility, there is no shortage of mortgage money.
In this mortgage monopoly game that is being played, the prize is $3.5 billion to $4 billion. The Minister should realize that, and make some calculations. Does the Government stand with a handful of trust companies or with the 750,000 people who are trapped in this mess?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I believe I have demonstrated to the Hon. Member that the Government stands quite clearly not only with the 750,000 people who have mortgages whom he is talking about but with the 24 million Canadians who will eventually have mortgages in many instances. We want to avoid taking any steps that would not be carefully planned and would cause more trouble and prejudice to those Canadian citizens than they may face at the present time in some instances resulting from their own decisions. This is something that must be looked at very carefully before steps are taken which would hurt Canadian consumers.


AMENDMENT OF INTEREST ACT
Mr. Doug Lewis (Simcoe North):: Madam Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is on record as saying that the federal Government is considering changes to the Canada Interest Act in order to allow all home owners who are caught in the trap of mortgage interest as high as 22 per cent, to renegotiate their mortgages. Is the Government in fact considering this legislation and, if so, when does the Minister intend to introduce it in the House?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member mentioned that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs was considering certain measures in connection with the Canada Interest Act. The Minister did not say what conclusion was reached. We are keeping our options open, while in addition to this approach we are also considering a number of other options. As I said before, as soon as the Government decides whether or not further action is necessary, the House will be informed accordingly. At the present time, we are reviewing the situation very carefully, since we particu-
October 14, 1983

larly wish to avoid taking measures that in the final analysis would add to the interest rates citizens are carrying on their mortgages or lead to a situation where some kinds of mortgages now available to Canadians would disappear from the market altogether because it would no longer pay the financial institutions to maintain them.


PROTECTION OF HOME OWNERS
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, Canadians went through this review nonsense for two years while interest rates were as high as 21 per cent. Now we are still going through the review nonsense while the banks and the trust companies are charging these bonuses. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs says there has to be something more permanent. When will the Government introduce something more permanent which will protect Canadian home owners?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the Progressive Conservative Party is hardly in a position to tell the Government what to do in this respect.
Regarding the measures taken by the Government with respect to housing, we have, over the years, shown an abiding concern for the interests of Canadians in this area. As far as interest rates are concerned the Hon. Member is aware that we spent over $75 million to help Canadians at a time when they were faced with having to renew their mortgages at very high rates. These measures were particularly effective in helping Canadians who were genuinely in need.
As for the matter raised by the Hon. Member, I informed him in my first answer that as soon as the Government has reached a final conclusion on the matter and has something to announce, 1 should be glad to inform the House accordingly.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Finance. This week the Economic Council in its report indicated that the Government should move now to set a target level for unemployment. Other countries, like Japan and Sweden, with very diverse economies have set economic targets for unemployment and they have been able in the main to match the targets they have set. Has Canada set a target level above which it believes unemployment is unacceptable? If so, what is it? When will it be reached? And what are the people who are presently unemployed supposed to do in the meantime?
Oral Questions


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, as long as there will be one person unemployed in this country this Government will not be satisfied.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marc Lalonde: Our target is to provide employment to all Canadians in so far as we can do it and in so far as the economy can do it. It is as simple as that. Do not ask me when we will be satisfied with the level of unemployment. We will never be satisfied with any unemployment.


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, that will be small comfort for those who are unemployed and out of benefits.


PLIGHT OF UNEMPLOYED
Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, what are the people of Canada who are currently unemployed, and who are at this point in time unable to receive benefits from unemployment insurance, supposed to do in the meantime while the Government dreams of some day having absolutely no one unemployed in the land?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, instead of dreaming, the Government has taken many measures to help the unemployed in this country. If the Hon. Member would care to compare the measures taken by the Canadian Government with measures taken by almost any other industrialized country, he would realize that Canada's policies in this respect are among the most advanced. In fact, Canada is one of the countries with the best record for protecting its social security measures during the recent recession, while everywhere else in the world, in other industrialized countries, there was a period during the recession when those countries made cuts in their social security measures.
The Standing Orders do not permit a detailed account of the measures we took, but perhaps I may remind the Hon. Member that last year, we spent more than $1.5 billion on manpower training.
Billions of dollars were also spent on direct job creation. In fact, we are now spending more on direct assistance to Canadian citizens than we have ever done before in our history.
Finally, the last budget I brought down in April made it quite clear that we were introducing a series of measures to help the private sector create the jobs this country needs.


Ian Deans: What the Minister says, Madam Speaker, is a lot of rubbish.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

October 14, 1983
Oral Questions


PERSONS BEREFT OF UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS
Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, there are 1.5 million people in this country presently unemployed. Upwards of 20 per cent of those people are on the verge of or have already run out of unemployment insurance payments. Those people cannot find employment because there is no employment, notwithstanding what the Minister says. What does he suggest that those people should do, given that they cannot find a job, given that they cannot get unemployment insurance, and given that the Government seems incapable of coming forward with any rational policies that will offer them any kind of hope?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, not only is what the Hon. Member says rubbish, it is also damaging. I have to tell him that, if he wants to quote numbers, there are over 30 million unemployed in the industrial countries, in the OECD countries at the present time.


Ian Deans: Who gives a damn? You operate here.


Marc Lalonde: 1 know the Hon. Member does not give a damn. We give a damn about that situation.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: We have taken steps consistently over the years. As I indicated, we have allocated more public funds to help Canadian people during this period of recession than at any other time in our history.


Ian Deans: Answer my question.


Marc Lalonde: I have to tell the Hon. Member that these measures are producing results. We are creating jobs in the country as fast as any other industrialized country at the present time.


Ian Deans: Answer the question.


Marc Lalonde: That is what we are doing. The record is there to show quite clearly that no only have we taken steps to protect the social safety net in the country while other countries have cut it, but we have also announced in the budget a series of measures which are having an effect at the present time and are showing growth in employment in our country as fast if not faster than any other country. This is the record.


PRESENCE IN SPEAKER'S GALLERY OF MR. LORNE GREENE, CANADIAN AMBASSADOR TO 1984 OLYMPICS
Madam Speaker:: I would like to draw the attention of the House to the presence in our gallery of Mr. Lome Greene, Canada's Ambassador to the 1984 Olympics at Los Angeles.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


DANGEROUS PRODUCTS
Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Madam Speaker, that is a "Bonanza" of a presence in the gallery.
My question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Following recent and very serious allegations about the safety of the 750-millilitre-size pop bottles which can explode under certain conditions, has the Minister contacted industry representatives? If so, what has been their reaction? If not, what will be her recommendation when she meets with the industry?
Hon. Judy Erola (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Madam Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his question. His timing is nothing short of terrific. I am meeting with the industry this afternoon. We have already had a meeting of my Department and the industrial technical committee. This afternoon we will discuss further measures based on those earlier discussions.
The Hon. Member brought out the fact that the 750-millilitre bottle is a very real problem. We are looking at various methods. The first one is a public awareness campaign to make the people of the country aware that indeed this is a problem and that it should be treated with great care.


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: I am sure the industry will be interested to learn and pleased to know about the Minister's acceptance of a public awareness campaign, which I think is needed.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Madam Speaker,
I am also interested in the Minister's statement on CBC "Marketplace" last week when she held a 750-millilitre Coke bottle and she said, "I don't understand why they can't do it". Do what? And, whatever it is, is that a reflection of Government policy? Has the Minister made up her mind in terms of protecting the public?
Hon. Judy Erola (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): As I said earlier, Madam Speaker, yes, the first move is a public awareness campaign. Do what? Make people aware that this is and could be a dangerous object. That is the first measure we will take. There are other measures, and those
October 14, 1983

measures, as I mentioned earlier, will be discussed at a meeting this afternoon.
* *
*


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Robert Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for Canada Post. Will the Minister inform the House about the purpose of the current trip to Europe of the President and Chief Executive Officer of Canada Post, Mr. Michael Warren?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Labour):: Madam Speaker, as part of his duties, I believe the President will be meeting with Post Office representatives in Great Britain to discuss a new postal service he would like to introduce in Canada. The President will be visiting another country as well for consultations with local postal authorities, with a view to improving services between that country and Canada.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: I would like to thank the Minister for his detailed response.


COST OF TRAVELLING EXPENSES
Robert Lloyd Wenman: Madam Speaker, would the minister also tell the House what benefits will accrue to Canada by virtue of the presence on the same trip of an individual named Miss E. Mylrea, as well as Mr. Warren's executive assistant, especially in view of the fact that Mr. Warren and another person are using first-class seats for their trip to London, Zurich, Bern, and Paris, at a cost to the taxpayer of a cool $4,000 per ticket?


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker,
I think this is the kind of question that belongs on the Order Paper instead of being dealt with during oral question period. I must say I disapprove entirely of the Hon. Member's attitude and his assuming that some impropriety has taken place. It is typical of the Progressive Conservatives to indulge in mudslin-ging. I am sure that the President of Canada Post will be able to explain the reasons for his trip very satisfactorily, and quite probably, as soon as he comes back, he will be able to provide a satisfactory answer to the questions put by the Hon. Member, who would rather tarnish someone's reputation instead of asking a straight question.
Oral Questions


LABOUR RELATIONS
Howard Edward Crosby: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour. It concerns the management and labour dispute at Eastern Provincial Airways. The dispute with EPA pilots was settled in May, 1983, by a decision of the Canada Labour Relations Board which was recently quashed by the Federal Court, even though Labour Board decisions are final and conclusive.
What action can the Minister take to protect EPA pilots and to ensure a quick resolution of the dispute? Right now EPA is dismissing senior pilots and employing outside pilots in their place, which is contrary to the collective agreement endorsed by the Labour Relations Board. And of course it creates difficulties among pilots in the operation of aircraft.


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, I believe the Airline Pilots Association has now asked the Canada Labour Relations Board to be heard again on a series of complaints formulated by the Association. I have been informed that a hearing will be held as soon as possible, and meanwhile, it is up to the Board to rule on the new complaints submitted by the Pilots Association.


Howard Edward Crosby: I merely want to point out to the Minister of Labour through you, Madam Speaker, that the whole purpose of labour laws in Canada is to ensure fair play and stability in labour relations, It is difficult to believe the Minister would be powerless in this situation when there is such provocation from management with respect to its employees.


REQUEST FOR LEGISLATIVE ACTION
Howard Edward Crosby: Madam Speaker, is the Minister considering any new laws or any changes in the laws which will preclude an organization like the Federal Court of Canada from stepping into a labour dispute which has been settled and completely destroying the work done by the Canada Labour Relations Board? Is he considering any action or provision that might be placed on the statute books to stop such action in the future?


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member is asking me to deny one of the parties the right to appeal a decision. I realize that he may be anxious to see this matter settled, and I share his feeling, but I think he should consider the wisdom of waiting until the Board reaches a decision and acknowledge the right of both parties to appeal the decision.
COMMONS DEBATES_________________October 14, 1983
Oral Questions


CARRIER'S COMMITMENTS
Mr. Tom McMillan (Hillsborough):: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Labour. Given that EPA services have been disrupted because of the current labour-management dispute, has the Minister consulted his colleague, the Minister of Transport, to ensure that EPA is not using this labour dispute as an excuse to circumvent its firm commitments to the Atlantic Provinces as the regional carrier under federal charter?


André Ouellet: Indeed, Madam Speaker, I have had discussions with my colleague the Minister of Transport about the EPA dispute, and I am satisfied that justice is being served in the current proceedings.


PROVISION OF SERVICE TO ATLANTIC REGION
Thomas Michael McMillan: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. Is it the position of the Government that it will not intervene in the EPA dispute, even if that dispute leads to permanent reductions in service throughout the Atlantic region, in contravention of the federal charter?


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, I think that the Hon. Member is jumping to a false conclusion. Through the Department of Labour, the Government did what it had to do in this case and, along with its mediation or conciliation services, it made available all facilities at its disposal with a view to reaching a settlement. When both sides claim that they have been wronged under the Canada Labour Code, they may appeal to the Canada Labour Relations Board, and that is exactly what they did. I would urge the Hon. Member to give free rein to the Canada Labour Relations Board which was established pursuant to an Act of Parliament adopted by all Hon. Members of the House.


FISHERIES
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. I am sure he is aware that the Berger inquiry in 1978 evaluated years of biological and physical information, and concluded that there should be no industrial development on the North Slope of the Yukon. That was supported at that time by the Cabinet and the National Energy Board, including an Order in Council for the withdrawal of certain lands in the northern Yukon.
The Minister's Department is on record as vehemently opposing developments at King and Stokes Points because of seal-pupping grounds, and of both fresh and salt water spawning grounds for fish. First, does the Minister support his Department in opposing development of those two sites? Second, will he inform the Members of this House, and Canadians generally, whether he and his Cabinet colleagues believe that the recommendations of Mr. Justice Thomas Berger were false or wrong when they were made in 1978?


Hon. Pierre De Bane (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Madam Speaker, on the question of fish habitat generally on the Pacific Coast, I have now benefited from the most recent study of Dr. Pearse. On the question of fish habitat and how to offset the conservation of the renewable resource compared to other economic development on the Pacific Coast, I am happy to report to the Hon. Member that the Department in the very near future will be publishing a comprehensive policy concerning fish habitat which I hope will have the support of the Hon. Member.


DEPARTMENTAL CONCERN
James Ross Fulton: Madam Speaker, obviously this is why the country is in trouble. I am talking about the Beaufort Sea. The Yukon borders on the Beaufort, not on the Pacific. My question is with regard to the opposition of his departmental officials to the development by Gulf of Stokes Point and by Kiewit and Sons of King Point, supported by Dome, Esso and others. On Monday of next week a project review group is going to make a decision on need regarding one of those two sites. Will the Minister make a commitment that he will raise this matter with his Cabinet colleagues, educate them on the fact that his Department at least is opposed to these two sites, and assure all Canadians that, if one of those sites is to be developed, there will be an Order in Council and we will not see the kind of frivolous land use permit that is being proposed by his colleague, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.


Pierre De Bané: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member should recognize that the report to which I have alluded concerns specifically the Yukon, Northwest Territories, and the Pacific Coast. When dealing with fish habitat it is the duty of the Department to come up with a comprehensive policy so that all developers in Canada know what are the rules of the game. It is my policy that, every time we have a major economic development, one of the prerequisites is that public hearings be held so that all sides have the chance to express their views.


IMMIGRATION
Hon. Bud Cullen (Sarnia-Lambton):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Employment and Immigra-
October 14, 1983

tion. Given the appropriate decision of his predecessor not to grant a general amnesty to illegal immigrants, and given the former and present Minister's intention to deal with these people on a case-by-case basis, however, they are going to do it anonymously-I can see that with a lawyer, given his solicitor-client privilege-is the Minister not concerned that where a Member of Parliament acts as a third party in an application and the application fails, the Member of Parliament is in the invidious position that he knows the individual, knows the law has been broken, and knows the person is here as an illegal immigrant and cannot report that fact?


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member raises an important and rather difficult question. The procedure which we established is the one which was recommended by the Robinson Report in dealing with the problem of illegal migrants in Canada.
As the Hon. Member correctly said, the proposal put forward by some Members of the public for general amnesty was rejected. It was believed that special arrangements should be put in place to review on a case-by-case basis those which are brought to our attention. It seems reasonable to have a process by which people can bring forward their cases without putting themselves in jeopardy of automatically being subjected to the processes of the law in case the humanitarian review of their case is not successful. If there were not such provision, very few people would be likely to come forward.
My inclination would be to accept the responsibility of the Member of Parliament in this area. It would be similar to that of the lawyer-client relationship, in other words, acting as an agent for those who want to take advantage of this procedure.
I should point out to the Hon. Member clearly that no one is given final entry anonymously. A recommendation is made on a set of facts alleged, and an indication is given by the committee that the individual meeting those facts would likely be accepted, subject to the ordinary reviews done on the basis of security and health.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Employment and Immigration a question on behalf of the unemployed in the City of Calgary. It is Liberal Government policies which have destroyed about 20 per cent of the jobs that existed two or three years ago. The people of Calgary would like to know why the allocation of employment-creation funds is based on a four-year average. How does the unemployment rate in Calgary, four, three or two years ago, have anything to do with the need for jobs today?
Oral Questions


John (Moody) Roberts: Madam Speaker, I believe that the Hon. Member is referring to the constituency allocations under the Canada Works Program. There is a common allocation base for every constituency across the country, a minimum level. The application of Canada Works funds above and beyond that is on the basis of a figure related to the labour surplus, not over four years, but over the past year. The four-year figure refers to the LEAD funds which would be allocated in that way from April on. In so far as the Canada Works allocations are concerned, which are those which would be applied in the Alberta area, it is not a four-year average which is relevant.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: It is an allocation formula based on information that is four years out of date. I think the current situation should be the only criterion used.


CALCULATIONS BASED ON RATE OF UNEMPLOYMENT
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Employment and Immigration uses an 8 per cent rate of unemployment and characterizes it as normal. Labour surplus for Employment and Immigration is calculated as that rate which is above 8 per cent. Does the Minister of Finance agree with the Minister of Employment and Immigration that 8 per cent unemployment is normal and we just have to be concerned about that unemployment rate which is in excess of 8 per cent?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Employment and Immigration never made any such statement. I already answered this question on this very subject in response to the Hon. Member from Hamilton.


DISPARITY BETWEEN MALE AND FEMALE INCOMES
Hon. Bill Jarvis (Perth):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour. It deals with the report of the Economic Council of Canada, and particularly the Council's description of the disparity between the incomes of males and females in the work place, which it describes as follows:
-the size and persistence of the gap is striking, even within distinct occupational groups, whether measured in relative or absolute terms.
Does the Minister agree with that assessment of the Economic Council and, if he does, what policies or measures does he intend to put in place to reduce the gap?


André Ouellet: Obviously, Madam Speaker, this is a question which must be dealt with not only by my Department, but by several Government Departments. In light of the report of the Economic Council of Canada, I intend to raise the issue with the President of the Treasury Board and a number of other Cabinet colleagues to hammer out the Government position in that respect.

October 14, 1983
Oral Questions


EFFECT OF HIGH TECHNOLOGY ON FEMALE WORKERS
William Herbert Jarvis: Madam Speaker, that leads me directly to my supplementary question. I am trying to find out about ministerial responsibility with respect to high technology. The Economic Council has said:
The introduction of new technology, if it were accompanied by appropriate adjustments of skills, could be a vehicle for further improvements; or it could erect barriers in the form of dead-end or part-time work-
That was referring to female workers. Are the challenges and threats posed to female workers by high technology regarded as a direct responsibility of the Minister of Labour? If that is the case, then what policies and mechanisms does the Minister intend to put in place to meet the challenge and to deal with the threat to female workers in the work place?


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, I think that by asking the question, the Hon. Member realizes that several Ministers share responsibilities in that field. In the case of Government female workers, the President of the Treasury Board is reponsible as Minister who looks after public servants as a whole. In the case of female workers in the private sector, depending on prevailing conditions in that sector, and if they are covered by the Canada Labour Code, they may come under the responsibility of the Minister of Labour.
As you know, the Government has launched a dynamic technological program under the direction of the Minister of State for Economic Development. That is why I said in the first part of my answer to the Hon. Member that several Ministers share responsibilities in that field and that the report of the Economic Council of Canada will be examined by a Cabinet committee.


PENITENTIARIES
Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General.
The Minister knows full well that his decision to end the excellent education program offered by Laval University at the Laval Institution has been condemned by all Canadian and Quebec associations concerned with criminal justice. How can the Minister justify that ill-advised decision which program Director Mario Ferland has described as being unwitting, irresponsible and disastrous for the development of education in prisons?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):: Madam Speaker, I have stated in this House that I strongly support postsecondary
training in our institutions. The problem is that Director Ferland's program-BAGIL-which was set up at Laval and offered to the 3,500 federal inmates in the Province of Quebec has not been very successful during those three years. Indeed, of late there were 12 students out of 3,500 inmates in the Province. I would prefer a program such as the one we now have in British Columbia where hundreds of students are registered. I think that we can have a program which would gain wider support among the inmates and which would cost a lot less, considering that we are now paying over $8,000 a year for each student in the program which I have just refused to extend.


STATISTICS
Mr. John Bosley (Don Valley West):: Madam Speaker, 1 have a question for the Minister of Communications. He will know that in June of this year his Department sent a letter to a number of Canadian industries which began as follows:
In 1984, the Department of Communications in conjunction with Statistics Canada is planning to conduct a survey on how individuals spend their time, minute-by-minute, over a 24 hour period.
The letter goes on to say that it is proposed to survey 11,000 people in 1984 at a cost of $465,000.
Will the Minister tell the House today that such an outrageous expenditure should be abandoned, and will he say that the letter that he sent to me earlier this week saying that the proposal is still under consideration, should be abandoned as well?


Hon. Francis Fox (Minister of Communications):: Madam Speaker, the hon. gentleman refers to a time-use survey that was planned by a number of federal agencies, including Stats Canada. I have now had an opportunity of reviewing that proposal to do a time-use survey and decided that it would be inappropriate at the moment.


PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Public Works. When the special recovery program was announced, Pacific Highway customs facilities in Surrey were part of that list of special targeted programs for fast tracking. The consultant had been hired and had almost finished his report when the program was withdrawn. I believe that was because of the Minister's directive. Another consultant was hired to do the work all over again. I should like to ask the Minister why that happened? Is it his version of fast tracking? If the funds have
October 14, 1983

been withdrawn, to what other part of Canada have they been assigned?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, one of the things I have learned in my years in the House is to check that sort of allegation to make sure it is factual. 1 will obviously try to do that within the next couple of days.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Laverne Lewycky (Dauphin-Swan River):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of State for Multicul-turalism and of his Parliamentary Secretary, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Justice.
In view of the fact that we will be celebrating the thirty-fifth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights soon, and considering that the treatment of Japanese Canadians in World War II is a black mark on our history, will the Minister of Justice indicate that progress has been made toward making moral and material restitution to Japanese Canadians? Will he consider, as part of that restitution, the establishment of a Chair of Human Rights or, perhaps in conjunction with the ethnic chairs, a Chair of Japanese Canadian Studies in Canada?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Minister of Justice):: Madam Speaker, I think there is a general disposition in Canadian society and Parliament to recognize there were serious excesses in the way that Japanese Canadians were treated during the Second World War. As the Hon. Member knows, as a result of the Bird Commission after the war, that was recognized in part by compensation paid to some 1,300 claimants in 1950 for property claims. Of course that does not exhaust the range of possibilities. Once one gets beyond property claims, however, one gets into undefined areas where there can be a considerable amount of disagreement.
As Japanese Canadian spokesmen have said themselves, it is not just or even primarily, a question of compensation. It is something that has to be worked out by our society with the assistance of the Japanese Canadian communities. There is a considerable disagreement still, as I understand it, among members of that community about how we can best make up for the excesses of the past. I think some further maturing time is required for a consensus to develop on the best way to proceed.
Personally, I have no problems with the suggestions made by the Hon. Member, but I do not think at this point we could adopt one suggestion or another.
Report of Special Committee IMMIGRATION


ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS-RESPONSIBILITY OF MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT
Mr. John McDermid (Brampton-Georgetown):: Madam Speaker, I want to follow up on the questions put by the Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lambton regarding the position of a Member of Parliament who applies anonymously on behalf of an illegal immigrant. If the illegal immigrant is turned down, what is the position of the Member of Parliament regarding his oath to uphold the laws of Canada? Must he report that person, then, to the Immigration Department as an illegal? Has the Minister had a report from the Department of Justice on the position of a Member of Parliament in that particular case?
May I finally ask him why he appointed his Parliamentary Secretary to be the chairman of the committee which decides which illegal immigrants are allowed landed immigrant status and which are not? Why was it not left with the bureaucracy? Why does he bring politics into it now?


John (Moody) Roberts: Madam Speaker, I believe the answer to the first question is that I am not in a position, nor is it customary, to give legal opinions to Hon. Members. The answer to his second question would be that I do not think it appropriate for me to determine or dictate to Hon. Members of Parliament how they perform their duties. It seems to me the procedure for review is there and it is quite proper for a Member of Parliament to bring cases to it. I would leave it entirely up to an Hon. Member's discretion and conscience as to whether he or she think they are acting wisely in taking advantage of that procedure.
To answer the third question, Madam Speaker, the reason why I appointed my Parliamentary Secretary to chair that committee was that I thought it was very useful to add to the bureaucratic assessment the views of the kind of person who is in regular contact with constituents. It seems to me there is in this process not simply a question of bureaucratic determination, but also the application of compassion and political-I do not mean partisan-judgment in the best sense.


John Horton McDermid: Not at all.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Walter Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Madam Speaker, there are seven motions standing in my name, which are

October 14, 1983
Report of Special Committee
reports from the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure. The first one would be the fourth report, the second would be the fifth report. I would be grateful if the Chair would call the motion with respect to the fifth report.
I move:
That the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure presented to the House on Thursday, March 3, 1983, be concurred in.
This is the first opportunity, Madam Speaker, that any member of that committee has had to address the House with respect to concurrence in the reports, beyond the third report, setting forth the temporary rules we are living under at the moment. Therefore, in my preliminary remarks, Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay tribute to certain people who have laboured long and hard on the work of the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure, the committee, generally, of parliamentary reform.
The first group I would like to mention is the very distinguished staff of the committee. We had two co-ordinators on the committee, Mr. Alistair Fraser, who was a Clerk of the House, and Mr. John Holtby, who is a distinguished student of Parliament and who learned his craft over many years in the Ontario Legislature. I am so pleased he was able to help our committee in such a competent way. The Clerk's department was represented by Mr. Marcel Pelletier, Mr. Robert Marleau, Mr. Philip Laundy, Mr. David Gussow, Mrs. Susan Baldwin, Lucie Gratton, Hugh Stewart, Nino Travella, Rita Blais-Beaudoin and Marjolaine Morrisette.
The Library of Parliament was represented by Mr. Gerald Schmitz, Mr. Gary Levy, Mr. Bruce Carson, Mr. Louis Mas-sicotte and Mr. Brooke Jeffery. As well-


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, may I refer you to page 27998 of yesterday's Hansard? The Chairman of the Special Committee on Parliamentary Reform (Mr. Lefebvre) said the following-this is very short-and I quote:
Madam Speaker, because my position as Chairman of the Committee was brought into question by the words that were spoken, I want to say that there definitely was an understanding by the members of that Committee that these reports-
-and one of these reports is the one the Hon. Member is debating-
-would be arrived at by consensus, that there would be unanimous decisions on the understanding there would be no move to concur in the House.
The Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) is betraying his colleagues, the members of the Committee, and he is breaking his word, and in the circumstances I submit, with respect, that he is acting contrary to an understanding among Committee Members and that he should not be heard in the House today, because-


An Hon. Member:: Order.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I quoted the Chairman of the Special Committee on Parliamentary Procedure who said on the floor of the House yesterday that there was an understanding among Committee Members that there would be no move to concur in the House, including the report the Member for Nepean-Carleton wishes to debate. I can only say that he is betraying his fellow Committee members, that he is out of order and that he does not have the right to move his motion today. I am simply making a point of order, and I ask the Chair to interrupt the debate in order to respect the undertaking that was given and observe, purely and simply-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. I thought the President of the Privy Council was proceeding to a motion of one sort or another. For that reason, I have allowed him to go on. There is nothing coming out of the point being made by the President of the Privy Council. If there is indeed a point of order which he wants to make, I will obviously hear it. However, so far I have not heard a point of order.
[ Translation]


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I am asking the Chair to declare this debate out of order, considering the fact that, as the Chairman of the Committee said yesterday in the House, there was an understanding among members of the Committee according to which-


Mr. Nielsen:: That is an abuse of the rules.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. That is a dispute between, in this case, the President of the Privy Council and the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton. I need to have a motion of some kind before me relating to unparliamentary statements made on either side of the House, or something of that order, before I could deal with a point of order. I do not yet see a reason for interrupting the debate or for calling the debate out of order.
[ Translation]


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, a dispute between the President of the Privy Council and the Member who was speaking? I quoted the member for Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle (Mr. Lefebvre) Chairman of the Special Committee on Parliamentary Reform. The dispute is not between me and the member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) but between the Chairman of the Committee and the Member for Nepean-Carleton.


Erik Nielsen: That is not a point of order.


Mr. McGrath:: Why do you not quote what I said?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The President of the Privy Council does not, in my view, advance an argument which causes the Chair to become responsible for interrupting the debate. The essence of the remarks made by the President
October 14, 1983

of the Privy Council are to the effect that there is a dispute between two Members.


Erik Nielsen: More than two.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I know of nothing in our Standing Orders, nor in Beauchesne and other authorities, which would cause that to constitute a responsibility of the Chair to interrupt the debate or to call the debate out of order. However, I will recognize the President of the Privy Council again.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, 1 am not abusing the Standing Orders and 1 am not questioning your ruling. 1 think you are probably correct in saying that if we adhere strictly to the Standing Orders, you do not have much choice in the matter. What we have here is mainly a matter of honour among Members, and if the Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) wishes to go on breaching the understanding that was reached among Committee Members, let him!


James Aloysius McGrath: I rise on a question of privilege.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: 1 will recognize the Hon. Member for St. John's East on a question of privilege. However, I was about to say that that is precisely the route which would appear to me to be available. 1 believe the President of the Privy Council was referring to the Hon. Member for Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle (Mr. Lefebvre), who is the Chairman of the particular committee. There might be an argument of privilege; that was certainly the argument I understood the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) was making. But again, even if there is a case of privilege, I would not know how to go from there to saying that this debate is out of order.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, 1 for one did not breach an agreement. 1 will not pursue that now as a question of privilege. I will wait until my colleague has concluded his remarks.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, 1 worry very much about the process of parliamentary reform when the Government House Leader stands up and, in defence of his apparent inability to accept the unanimous work of the committee, begins accusing Members of Parliament of acting in bad faith.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: I think it is very important to realize, if one reads yesterday's Hansard, that 1 made a statement which reflected my understanding of the understanding that was reached, as refined by the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath).
Report of Special Committee


Walter David Baker: 1 understand he spoke to the Hon. Member for Gatineau-Pontiac-Labelle (Mr. Lefebvre) and informed him-


James Aloysius McGrath: I raised it in committee as well.


Walter David Baker: He raised it in committee as well, that at a meeting when the Hon. Member for Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle was not there, nor was 1 there, it was made clear that there would be no concurrences while the committee work was being done. But that arrangement, which no one disputes, would be off when the committee's work was completed.


James Aloysius McGrath: Precisely.


Walter David Baker: That is the position. 1 frankly tell the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) that 1 resent-


Yvon Pinard: You don't tell me anything, you just-


Walter David Baker: -the way he has decided to do this. I am not going to waste the time of the House-


Yvon Pinard: That is what you are doing now.


Walter David Baker: -by getting into petty questions of privilege because I see on the face of the Government a complete abandonment of what it said it would do regarding parliamentary reform. That is what 1 see.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Yvon Pinard: He should be ashamed, Mr. Speaker.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: When you have a weak case, about and pound the table, Walter. That is what you are doing.


Yvon Pinard: You should be ashamed.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: You blew it all, Walter.


Walter David Baker: Oh, yes, you blew it all.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. I have allowed the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) to make his point because earlier the President of the Privy Council wanted to make a point. I had to find that the point made by the President of the Privy Council was not in order, and I now have to ask the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton, with courtesy, to address himself to the motion now before the House.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, 1 thought I was doing that. Nonetheless, 1 am going to deal with the report because it is very important and very simple. I have chosen it very carefully because I think it is something the Government should not turn down. It rounds out the work of the third report.
You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that during the proceedings on the third report of that committee, which was adopted unani-


Mr. Evans:: Revised.

Report of Special Committee
mously in the House on, I think, one day's debate, a provision was established for independent references by committees. In other words, committees could begin to act independently and take up references from matters arising out of the Estimates as they saw fit. They were not hampered in their investigations because the time for Estimates came to an end. But one of the things pointed out to us in that debate by Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition House Leader, the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), was that there was no provision in that report for the calling of committees. That was recognized by the committee as something we overlooked in the third report. So one of the first things we undertook to do as a committee was to bring forward a proposal, contained in the fifth report, which would remedy that situation.
We considered a number of the matters which took place in the debate on November 29-Mr. Speaker, I am having very great difficulty. The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans) is talking from his seat as usual and I am having very great difficulty-


John Leslie Evans: Quit playing politics.


Mr. Dick:: Shut up, Evans.


Walter David Baker: -with that buzz of heckling from the other side of the House. I ask the hon. gentleman to show me the courtesy I try to show him when he is addressing the House.


John Leslie Evans: Get it on the record.


Walter David Baker: In order that there could be some assurance to minorities on the committee, not the Government majority but minorities, there was a proposal that Standing Order 69 be amended by adding a new subsection, which would read:
Within ten sitting days following the adoption by the House of a report of the Striking Committee the Clerk of the House shall convene a meeting of each Standing Committee reported on for the purpose of electing a Chairman and Vice-Chairman.
In other words, there could be no delay in convening committees; it would have to be done within ten days by the chief administrative officer of the House. The second subsection goes on to read:
Upon the written request signed by any four Members of a Standing Committee the Chairman of the Committee shall convene a meeting of the Committee within ten sitting days following the receipt of such request by the Clerk of the Committee. The reasons for convening such a meeting shall be stated in the request.
Now, the committees have not used it very much yet, but they have the power to carry out an investigation. The purpose of that report was to ensure that the question as to whether or not a committee should be struck would be set aside and handled through the machinery of the House. More important, those who were interested in a particular issue would know that that issue could not lie buried. It could be brought forward publicly before that organized committee. The decision taken as to whether that issue would be investigated would be taken publicly, openly, notoriously and in the light of
October 14, 1983
day so that judgments could be made as to the effective operation of the system. It is a very simple but very important
right because, as it stands now, if this is not adopted_and 1
hope it will be today-then Members of Parliament will have no complete right to exercise the new powers given to them in the third report under which we are operating at this time.
I do not intend to speak very long on this matter because it is very simple and straightforward. But I do want to say to the House that there was a first-class feeling in that committee. I think it is important that the House knows that in the course of those proceedings we had 73 meetings from June, 1982, to September, 1983. We heard valuable testimony from a host of individuals who are interested in and worried about the operation of the House of Commons. Many Members of Parliament came forward. The wishes of some Members do not appear in those committee reports, but many do. We are grateful as a committee that all of them came forward. We addressed a number of issues, and in all those hearings that committee, made up of people from all Parties, was able to conduct its business without a vote or division on any occasion. We operated by consensus, and I honestly and earnestly hope that the Government House Leader and Members of the Government will, if there are personal differences, set them aside for purposes of improving upon the temporary Standing Orders. There may well be differences. My friend makes statements from time to time which, when the history of this time is written, he will regret, because he will be proven to have been wrong. I now forgive him for that because it is absolutely essential that the work of the committee not slide by the board.
I also want to express my thanks to the Members of my own caucus. We have argued long and hard over these issues. Members of my caucus should agree unanimously, as they did through the mouth of our House Leader yesterday, to the acceptance of these reports, hopefully without debate. I think that it is a tribute to the reform work that has been advocated in this Party by the Hon. Robert L. Stanfield when he was Leader, by the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark) when he was Leader, and now under the Hon. Member for Central Nova (Mr. Mulroney), that this tradition of reform is being carried on.
I also want to express thanks to my friends in the New Democratic Party. I gather one of them will be speaking today with respect to the importance of these reports, this one and others, in the work of the committee. I want to thank them for unanimously agreeing yesterday to going forward without debate, so as not to cut into the Government's time, in order to have all seven of these remaining reports approved.
I think the House Leaders of both Parties have done a great service in terms of the process of reform. If there was ever an indication that there must be changes in this institution, it was evident in a poll that was brought forward some time ago. No matter what we may think of one another in the House, the process of reform is much too important to allow it to stumble over the feet of discord. I think that we now, at the end of this

session, have an opportunity to bring into place the work of the committee members who worked unanimously, by consensus, without a vote, every one of whom had the idea that this place is worth preserving, enhancing and enriching and that all of those things were badly needed.
It is in that spirit, ignoring whatever will be said personally, that I ask the House to concur today in the fifth report of the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedures, which is a simple, straightforward matter, to augment and round out what we did in the third report, under which the House is now operating.


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, in the first place, even if I indicated earlier, when I rose on a point of order, that 1 thought it was most unfortunate to have a situation where we are forced to debate the matter at this time, I am prepared to set aside those grievances for the time being and to address the substance of the question and at the same time take advantage of this opportunity to try and be as objective and fair as possible, and-without further reference to the attitude of the Hon. Member who just spoke-draw the attention of the House in all sincerity to the extraordinary work that has been accomplished by all members of the Special Committee on Parliamentary Reform during the last 18 months. I wish to stress the impartiality and good judgment of and the excellent work done by, the Chairman, the Member for Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle (Mr. Lefebvre) who managed to make the members of his Committee work on a sustained and regular basis, while at the same time being flexible enough to set aside differences of opinion in order to reach a consensus on matters that were often delicate and always very important. I think he has shown extraordinary ability and that his work is fully deserving of praise at this time.
I also want to congratulate in general the Members on both sides of the House who gave the Committee the benefit of their experience and expertise and who via common effort attempted to find the necessary means by which Parliament could be more progressive, could improve itself and reform its procedure.
Having said this, I would like to understand why, under the leadership of the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), certain Members of the Committee believe that now is the appropriate time for the immediate concurrence of the seven reports of the Committee although they have not yet been considered by the House of Commons. I am honestly trying to understand what rationale or explanation would justify-


An Hon. Member:: Because Parliament is going to be proroged!


Yvon Pinard: I do not believe that shouting or interrupting me can add anything significant to the debate. I am simply
Report of Special Committee
asking a question. Following your comments, Mr. Speaker, I did not interrupt the previous speaker and I would like the opportunitty to express my views because I am very much in favour of parliamentary reform and I would not want what happened yesterday and today to jeopardize in any way sooner or later the improvement of the Standing Orders of the House of Commons and the rules of the Canadian Parliament. On the contrary I believe that, these last few years, Members on this side, as well as across the way admittedly, have showed their willingness to bring about certain changes. We have made some in the past. We are now making some more and we shall continue to do so.
Where some might disagree is as to the way to proceed, and this is important. The third report deals with the changes we are now putting to the test. This report suggests a whole series of important changes to our rules. If it was felt necessary to have an experiment of at least one year before considering a permanent implementation of these changes, why should seven other reports be suddenly implemented at once as was suggested yesterday and earlier today? Should they be implemented without any preliminary experience, without waiting for the results of the experiment now being made even though many of the changes proposed in these seven reports are even more complex and would have more serious consequences than those we are now trying? 1 ask the question sincerely and honestly. If an experience of at least twelve months was required for a single important report, which was also the result of a consensus and which had received the unanimous agreement of the Committee, why, suddenly at this time, near the end of the debate on the Crow rate, are some members attempting to have us implement at once seven reports, without the benefit of experience?
I believe that this question should be answered. I should like to know the reasons for such a rush. I respectfully point out that these reports do not necessarily result from our present experience. One of them, the fourth, deals with the appointment of the Speaker of the House. The fifth would force the Government to establish the committees without delay. As for me, I have nothing against it but it must be considered in the larger context. In the other reports provision is made for the appointment of special legislative committees made up of 20 members in addition to the 20 or so existing committees, to deal specifically with bills following the second reading stage. Another report proposes the establishment of four additional committees to examine the fiscal framework, the spending habits of the Government and the use of Crown corporations. Another report provides for a change in the accountability of those in charge of administering public funds. We know that this is the Government's responsibility. It is proposed that Members of the Opposition attend the meetings of the Commissioners of Internal Economy and share in the administration of over $100 million a year of taxpayers' money and that,

Report of Special Committee
in case of a disagreement, the Chairman would have the deciding vote and thus lose his objectivity.
These are matters which can be considered and should be examined. They are matters on which about 20 Members of Parliament have agreed, but they must be analyzed in the larger context. First of all our experience is not yet completed. Should we agree permanently upon the principle of 25 committees, each made up of 10 members? Would it not be desirable, in view of the number of additional committees proposed by the Committee on Parliamentary Reform, to consider reducing the number of committees?


James Aloysius McGrath: Ten-Member committees were not on. [Translation]


Yvon Pinard: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. If the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) wants to ask a question, I am willing to give an answer. However, I am asking him an important question. I know he has studied seriously this matter, because together we attended a seminar on parliamentary procedure in Great Britain seven years ago, in 1976. I know his question is by no means futile, but I would like to direct a question to him, and after my comments he will have ten minutes for questions. Could he tell me whether the various committees recommended in the seven reports, in which concurrence is now requested, will be added to the twenty standing committees of the House and five joint committees of the House and Senate? We know that at present there are some 80 out of 284 members who make the committee system work. This is not new. It has been like that since 1 have been sitting here. No more than 80 members take part, in committee proceedings. There are 25 committees and we are asked to add ten or twelve depending on the number of bills passed on second reading. Is it realistic to think that 80 members who can hardly keep 25 committees going will be able to sit on 35 or 40 committees? Those are serious questions and if we want Parliament to operate effectively they deserve in-depth consideration.
Mr. Speaker, the point I want to make is that the Special Committee on Parliamentary Reform has considered the changes to be made in specific areas, but it is essential now to consider those reports and recommendations in the whole context of the parliamentary system and the reform process. As far as the reform process is concerned, several changes have been made since 1968. We have now made an experience which should normally end on December 21. A Senate committee is now working on Senate reform but major changes in the way of dealing with the estimates cannot be strictly considered for the House of Commons, if it is not known what will happen to Senate reform, because all those changes must be looked at as a whole and seriously considered so that once they are enforced they will become part of permanent reform.
DEBATES______________________October 14, 1983
But to rush through, under these circumstances would seem to me to be both ill-advised and ill-timed, to say the least. Members of the opposition may be trying to make political gains, while delaying the debate on a controversial bill, perhaps in the hope of embarrassing the government. There could not be any other motivation behind the position which some members of the Progressive Conservative Party have adopted. The fact that on the basis of only one report, they insist on our accepting the seven subsequent reports without debate, while the current experience has not yet been completed, seems to support sy argument.
As I was saying, Mr. Speaker-and we have had the opportunity to deal with this previously-there has been a constant and very real progress since 1968, although I wish it had been more rapid. Hon. members will remember that in 1968 the budget for each and everyone of our caucus research bureau was some $30,000 or $35,000. Now, it has increased considerably, so that we can carry out better our duties as Parliamentarians, which include preparing our bills better for introduction, discussion and debate in the House and, generally, assuming our responsibilities. I first quoted these figures in a speech which I delivered in the House on or about March 18 1982.
On or about March 18, 1982-what am I saying?-on November 29, 1982, I indicated that the funds provided for each caucus research bureau had been increased from the $35,000 level of the fiscal year 1969-70. For the fiscal year 1982-83, the funds provided to the caucus research bureaus are $601,000 in the case of the government party, $541,000 in the case of the official opposition party, and $285,000 for the NDP. Mr. Speaker, the funds provided to the caucus research bureaus have been increased, from $35,000 in the fiscal year 1969-70, to over half a million in the case of the two main political parties and to some $300,000 in the case of the NDP. Over and above that, the Leader of the Official Opposition was entitled to $87,500 in 1969-70 for the operation of his office. At this time, he is entitled in this regard to over one million dollars. The Hon. Member for Central Nova (Mr. Mulroney), the Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, is entitled today to over a million dollars per year to hire the personnel required to prepare the questions he directs to us on the few occasions he chooses to come to the House. This involves more than $1 million a year, whereas in 1968-69, that same office occupied by another Leader of the Opposition, nonetheless the same Official Opposition Leader's office was getting only $87,000.
Those are figures that relate to a significant area of our parliamentary system. There has been very significant trend, an openmindedness. The Liberal Government has provided Members of this House with more tools, and all this has happened since 1968-69. So much for the funds provided for Hon. Members to better perform their duties in this Parliament, and for the Leader of the Opposition.
October 14, 1983

In 1969, Mr. Speaker, by unanimous consent, and I repeat by unanimous consent of this House, a new procedure was adopted for dealing with the business of supply, the one we are now following. It will be remembered that at that time, the House of Commons was overloaded. It was then decided to refer to the Committees the estimates on an area basis, thus giving the House a chance to better deal with its own business, with other pieces of legislation. This is another major reform concerning the business of supply, and it was accepted in 1969 with the unanimous consent of the House.
Since then, we have introduced the television of the proceedings of the House, an other major reform. Since then we have held, in 1975-76 quite a number of meetings of the Committee for Procedure and Organization, which have led to numerous reports that have proved to be most useful to the Committee on Parliamentary Reform in the course of its meetings these last 18 months, and have inspired its members in making recommendations mainly in the third report, which have been put to the test here on the floor of the House for some months now. There are other reforms that have been brought about in the last 10, 12, 15 years, Mr. Speaker.
And, just recently, the Committee on Parliamentary Reform produced this third report which is now undergoing a running test and which hopefully will allow changes to become permanent practice and allow this institution to modernize and hopefully become more efficient.
Those seven additional reports will be useful, whathever the prorogation date may be. The Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) is indulging in chicanery. If he had been actively practicing law these last few years, he would easily understand that such chicanery, or procedural bickering will not alter the facts. If the Committee on Parliamentary Reform could refer to a report that had not even been tabled in the House, namely the report of the Committee on Procedural organization in 1975-76, in order that we could proceed with the current experiment, there can be no doubt that the House could next month or the month after, next year or the year after, make use of the reports submitted by that Committee. It will still be able to refer to any or a number of those seven reports to allow for the continuation of the parliamentary reform process. It is misleading and entirely unrealistic to claim that if we prorogue within a month or two, or three, these reports are going to die. That is just not true. The reports continue to exist, they are printed in the Votes and Proceedings, they have been tabled in the House and will always continue to exist. When are we going to apply them? Before or after proroguing Parliament ? That has nothing to do with parliamentary procedure. The reports have been prepared, and they will still be there. Some aspects of the reports will, 1 hope, be implemented very shortly, while others will be implemented later on, and others even later or perhaps never, but proroguing will not make any difference. Even if we were to prorogue this afternoon, there would be nothing to prevent Hon. Members who are in good faith from continuing negotiations to try and improve Parliament and taking these reports as the basis for such negotiations. That is the situation.
Report of Special Committee
I would say that trying to push through seven reports, without a trial period, before the end of the trial period based on Report No. 3, is more likely to be damaging for negotiations and for parliamentary reform in the short term, and 1 deplore it. But in spite of all that, the position of the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) is in open contradiction with that of the committee chairman whose remarks of yesterday I quoted on the floor of the House, or again with the views of other Members who intend to speak later today and who will refer to the gentleman's agreement in committee. I exclude the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) because he gives a subjective interpretation of that agreement.
I do not question his good faith. But the interpretation given by the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton is different and altogether inconsistent with that given by the Hon. Member for Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle (Mr. Lefebvre) and the other committee members who have spoken so far and who might take the floor later on.
Mr. Speaker, I see that my time has run out. I am prepared to answer questions, because I did ask a few in the course of my remarks. We want a thorough parliamentary reform, but why? How can we explain such a major reform as the one advocated in seven reports, a drastic and even more complex reform which is certainly more than an aftermath of the third report, why would anyone insist at this time, during the debate on the Crow rate, that they be implemented as a whole, without any experiment and even before the end of the first experiment on the third report, without considering the Senate reform and without allowing the Parliamentary Leaders, or at least those who act in good faith, to negotiate the implementation first, to complete the experiment we are now making, and to negotiate as well the consideration of those seven reports in the overall context of parliamentary reform?
We are in favour of parliamentary reform, Mr. Speaker, and we have proved that in the past. We will continue to work constructively in spite of this setback, in spite of this unfortunate incident. It will not prevent us from negotiating and trying to improve conditions in Parliament. We are doing that at all levels, whether it has to do with the Standing Orders, Members' allowances or Members' pension which are the object of a Bill I have prepared and introduced in the House. We are trying to improve the overall situation for Members of Parliament and for the Canadian public. I would not want this unfortunate incident to mark the end of our efforts. We will continue even if the seven reports are not implemented before the end of this session. They are under serious consideration by the Government and we will make sure that changes are made on a regular, reasonable and logical basis, so that once they have been implemented they will be permanent and lasting, enabling us indeed to update and humanize this institution and make it more efficient.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Are there any questions, comments or answers?

October 14, 1983
Report of Special Committee


Mr. Terry Sargeant (Selkirk-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, 1 welcome the opportunity to rise today and speak in support of this motion moved by the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker). Given that it is the wish of the Members on this side of the House to pursue this report, and indeed all seven reports, as expeditiously as possible with little or no debate, I will make my comments very brief.
First, I would like to second the comments made by the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton in his expression of thanks to the staff members who worked very, very hard and did a very good job in the year and a half life of the special committee. I must say I joined this committee rather late in its life. I became part of it in the winter, in February of this year. In some ways it was like arriving at a party late in the evening to find that everyone else was well into enjoying the evening's events and it was rather impossible to catch up. However, it was quite an experience for me. I was quickly impressed by the special dynamics of this committee in that Members of all three parties in the House worked together and worked together very well. It was said this afternoon and also in debate on the third report some months ago, that we set aside partisan differences for the common goal, the common goal being to make this House work better, indeed, to make the House more relevant to the Canadian public. We cannot easily ignore the recent Gallup poll which indicated that almost two-thirds of Canadians are not too sure of the relevance of this House of Commons.
There was no doubt the committee worked long and hard. 1 think the results are excellent. The results have been accepted and were well received by the public, at least the public that is aware of what we are doing, and it has been well received by Members of the House on all sides. Notably, I think the results have been well received by observers of the House of Commons, the professional media who work here, academics, business groups and indeed any number of groups who are con-cerend with how the House of Commons works.
I think it was a remarkable day last fall when the House of Commons accepted the third report through which it was accepted that the House try out the recommendations in that report for a one-year period. From my observation, this trial period has been well received and received positively by the Members of the House. I admit there is some room for some fine tuning of the changes under which we have been operating during the last year, but I doubt very much whether we would find very much call in this House to return to the rules that were in effect before the beginning of this year.
Having said that, and recognizing that the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedures has tabled seven more reports, all of which, as has been pointed out by my friend, the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton, were adopted unanimously without there ever having been a vote in committee and all of which were designed to improve the operations of this House, I must say I am somewhat disappointed that the House has yet to adopt these reports. I am disappointed and somewhat surprised at the reaction of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) today. He has said he is indeed committed to reform of the House of Commons, and yet he asked why we want to bring in our recommendations so quickly. I think a number of us on the committee have some very particular fears that all of the work we did over the last year and a half, which included dozens and dozens of meetings and dozens and dozens of testimonials and presentations by witnesses, a lot of work by Members of the House, a lot of work by staff people, might all go for nought. How will the public view us, Mr. Speaker, if all of this work and all of the attendant costs for this work, were thrown into the dustbin? I think we might find that more than 64 per cent will view us as being irrelevant.
The President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) asked why the Opposition was concerned with getting agreement on the remaining seven reports so quickly. If he believes that we need parliamentary reform, and given that the reports have been tabled, does it not make sense to bring them in as soon as possible? Does it not make sense to reform this institution as soon as we can and carry on from there? The sooner we have a better House of Commons in which to operate, the better it is for this place and for the people of Canada.
He also said that the Government wanted to look at all these reports in the general context of the operations of the House of Commons. Does he not think that the committee did that? Does he not think that the committee looked at these changes in the over-all context of the operations of Parliament? 1 remind him that the majority of members on that committee were Members of the Government Party. They agreed with Members of the Opposition Parties that these changes were for the good of Parliament. They viewed them in the general context of the operations of the House of Commons.
Speaking specifically to the fifth report, I do not think there is much call for debate. The Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton in introducing it pointed out that it stemmed from some of the specific recommendations of the third report. In particular, it allows for independent references to committee by four members of the committee. I cannot see that there would be any argument in the House of Commons. Just to repeat myself, it was agreed to by all members of the committee. It is a simple, straightforward proposition. I cannot see any opposition to its approval today.
I really do not have much more to say. I think the reports should be accepted as soon as possible. For my part and on behalf of my Party, we would be more than willing to adopt the remaining seven reports very quickly with little or even no debate. We believe that this place needs to be reformed. We believe in the reports tabled by the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure. Having said that, I urge the House to adopt the fifth report today. Also I urge it to adopt very soon the remaining reports which have yet to be looked at.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Questions, comments? Debate.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, the issue before us today
October 14, 1983

goes much deeper than just the reports. The issue raised by the Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen), to which the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) and the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) referred, is fundamental. At the time the committee was meeting, there was an agreement that no motion for concurrence would be put.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, you have already ruled that out of order once.


John Leslie Evans: With regard to the fifth report, the fact of the matter is that the notices are there. Motions can be put, and certainly they have been put. The question is: What was the agreement? Whether or not it was proper, in my mind-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. 1 knew at the beginning that Hon. Members wanted to ventilate the subject to some degree as to what agreement had been made between various members of the committee. 1 then asked Hon. Members if they could resist that temptation and address themselves to the motion, and I have to do the same with the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Evans).


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I address myself to the fifth report. The fifth report of the committee deals with the matter. While the committee was in process, there was some disagreement. With regard to every report brought down by the committee and tabled in the House, there were members of the committee who had disagreements.


Erik Nielsen: You were not even there.


John Leslie Evans: They would say that they did not necessarily agree but that, if it was the consensus of the committee and since no concurrence would be moved, they would let it go ahead.
One interesting report is the one dealing with the new committees for financial accountability. That is in the report. The proposition put before us at one point earlier with regard to all the motions was that all reports would be adopted without debate. However, there are serious reservations in the minds of people who understand the concept of financial accountability and responsibility in Government with regard to the implementation and the actual operations of these additional committees which will be set up by the reports.
Effectively, if we vote concurrence now, we are saying that Hon. Members of the House should adopt these reports as House orders to change dramatically and immediately the rules of the House. I say without equivocation that 95 per cent of Members of the House have not fully digested or do not fully understand at this time the contents of the reports.


Erik Nielsen: Why not?


John Leslie Evans: That is the reason-


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think the Parliamentary Secretary owes the House the favour of being relevant to the issue, to the motion.
Report of Special Committee
The motion is with respect to the fifth report only. It has nothing to do with the sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth or tenth reports. Because of the exalted position he holds in the House, being Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council, 1 would ask him to direct his attention to, and give the Government's position with respect to, that single report.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. On the matter that this is a point of order, I have to reply that it is not a point of order. On the matter that relevance be required, I do not think Hon. Members would necessarily have to restrict themselves only to the single motion now before the House without being able to refer to other motions which may be connected. I do not think it is irrelevant for Hon. Members to include considerations concerning the other motions.


Erik Nielsen: The rule of relevancy is gone.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Unfortunately the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) mentions that we no longer have the relevancy rule. He well knows that it is a particularly difficult one to apply. 1 am doing the best 1 can.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, 1 thank you for your ruling and 1 completely concur with it. We are talking about parliamentary reform. 1 ask Hon. Members opposite if they can show me one report, including the fifth, which does not have ramifications running through the whole question of the operations of Parliament. The final report of the committee changes the operations of the third report which are now in implementation in the House until December 21.
A question arose in committee as to whether or not it should try to refine the third report, whether or not it should try to correct the anomalies everyone in the House recognizes exist in the third report and the temporary rules under which we are now operating. Of course it was said that we would not re-evaluate our work, that it would be negotiated among House Leaders. That negotiation was supposed to take place among House Leaders to refine the rules and to find ways of implementing each successive report and the new changes to come forward. That was supposed to be done over a period of time. It was not supposed to be done by coming in and saying that, by unanimous consent, there would be no debate and suddenly implementing the entire series of reports in the House of Commons before 95 per cent of our colleagues have even read them. That is unacceptable. If we are to have parliamentary reform, it has to be done in a reasoned, rational and phased evolutionary way, not in a revolutionary way by snapping the fingers and adopting seven or eight reports of a committee which just reported within the last month.
May I call it one o'clock Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: 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.

October 14, 1983
Report of Special Committee AFTER RECESS
The House resumed at 2 p.m.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, when the House rose for lunch I was speaking about the nature of parliamentary reform in our system and the situation in which the House finds itself regarding some of the suggestions put forward about how we should proceed with the outstanding reports tabled by the special committee, and the suggestion that we not debate these items but, by unanimous consent, adopt all the reports.
We are dealing with one report today. I am concerned that Members of the House have not given full attention to the matters that have been brought before it in those reports. It is quite clear that there have been preliminary discussions in each caucus with regard to parliamentary reform and what we should do when the current temporary rules expire on December 21. That has been the basic context of the discussion. In addition, there has been preliminary discussion on the proposals brought forward in the outstanding reports.
After talking to Members on both sides of the House, Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that there has not been thorough discussion on the contents of each report and the implications of each of them. The fifth report that we are debating today is probably the most innocuous. It deals with issues that all of us could probably agree with most readily.
There are other reports outstanding. I will not get into the argument about whether concurrence was agreed to have been moved or not moved. Certainly Members on this side of the House who were involved in the committee were under the distinct impression that a consensual report would be tabled in the House, that a notice of motion would not be put, and that concurrence in those reports would not be asked for. As a result, they went along with some recommendations in the reports that, had they been voted in the committee or had there been a decision that concurrence would be moved once the report had been tabled, they would not have agreed to.
Of all the reports, the most contentious would be the so-called Huntington-Lachance report. It was an excellent report which dealt with a fundamental change in the nature of the way Parliament does business. It might not be an improvement but the recommedations went to the very heart of the way Parliament operates. I would defy any Member of the House to say that the full ramifications of those proposals are understood by Members of the House. They are not. The whole question of financial accountability in Parliament is well understood by a few Members. The Hon. Member for Capila-no (Mr. Huntington) has that understanding and has spoken eloquently in the House in the past about fiscal responsibility, financial management, and the accountability of Government and the bureacracy to Parliament. I suggest that the recommendations that were largely a part of the Huntington-Lachance report-where they understand the nature of those recommendations and where they understand clearly what it is they are trying to achieve-are not understood by the vast
majority of Members. That is not to say that Members of Parliament are not interested; it is simply to say that this is a very complex area.


Mr. Malone:: Shame!


John Leslie Evans: I suggest that regardless of whether it is five, six or seven Members of the House who clearly have a grasp of the question of fiscal responsibility and accountability and say that this is what the House should do, it is so fundamental that it is something that all Members of the House should clearly understand en masse. It is not something that should be adopted holus-bolus by unanimous consent at the drop of a hat. It is too important. If we are to make such a change, we would be in a difficult position to make further changes in that area. For a long time we would be saddled with something that not many Members understand fully.
Parliament, by its very nature, is an evolutionary institution. That is why we go through three readings of Bills and report stage, why we send them to the Senate for three readings, why we have public hearings-we want to make sure that we get it right.
The kind of procedure we are engaged in today and would be engaged in under some of the proposals for adopting these reports holus-bolus, is not an evolutionary procedure, it is a revolutionary procedure. Some may say that Parliament may be revolutionized. I would not agree. I think my colleagues would agree that I have been very supportive of the notion of reform, the need for change, the need to make us more accountable, to make us seem more relevant to our constituents and the country. This cannot be overlooked, but it cannot be satisfied by a revolutionary change that institutes new policies and procedures in the House of Commons that are not fully understood by Members who will have to live under them. That is why I say, Mr. Speaker, that we should be taking the parliamentary reform process in a regular step by step way.
The Hon. Member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) asked me about the third report. Yes, Mr. Speaker, the third report is in place. We have had experience with that for 12 months. But there are parts of the third report, parts of the procedures and rules under which we are now living, that Hon. Members in the House today, if they had an opportunity, would say need to be changed. For example, Mr. Speaker, we have the whole day on Wednesday devoted to Private Members' Business. As a result, it breaks the week. Hon. Members have said this. Those Private Members' days, being the sole business of Wednesday, break up the week, but it has led, quite frankly, Mr. Speaker-and you know it as well as I do- to the problem of attendance in the House at times, and that should be changed. Recommendations have been put forward from many circles as to how we should change it. Perhaps we should have Private Members' Business on Monday, or perhaps on Monday evening. Perhaps we should do it in some other way. Certainly there are issues with which we are now

October 14, 1983
living under the new revised procedures which need to be dealt with. It seems to me only logical that we would refine and perfect that under which we are now operating before we add additional major changes to the system which would not only compound the newness and uncertainty under which Hon. Members in the House are operating, but would also compound the problem of the existing rules. Some of the parts of the final report, for example, modify procedures with which we are now living. There are at least two recommendations in the final report of the committee which would change the provisional rules under which we are now living and under which we are supposed to be living until December 21.
I believe we must consider what has to happen if a House order were passed today with regard to the fifth report. Presumably tomorrow we would be operating under different rules. That would mean that the Standing Orders of the House would have to be changed, because Hon. Members would not know what rules they were operating under, and they certainly would not understand the changes to the rules themselves. There is a logical time for us to make these changes, Mr. Speaker, and that is when we go into a recess, for example, the Christmas recess, as we did last year. On December 22 we passed the House order which said that when we come back on January 17, the new rules will take effect. It is not appropriate, to my mind, to change the rules overnight in the middle of a session. Hon. Members would come back on Monday morning and be told, "Well, the rules are changed now. The rules are not the same as they used to be." I believe there has to be an orderly process to parliamentary reform. In addition, it has to be an evolutionary process, not a revolutionary process.
I believe the time is inappropriate and, quite frankly, I feel it is unfortunate that the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton moved concurrence in this report today, not only for the reasons which will be raised very clearly by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen) later, but also because I feel that if we are going to implement parliamentary reform, it must be done in a way which continues the consensual process under which the special committee operated. That consensual process would have to involve negotiation among the House leaders, discussion with the caucuses to ensure the Members were in agreement and understood, and agreement that the process could carry on in an evolutionary fashion, not the kind of revolutionary fashion which would be the case if we were to concur in this report today.
The process which has been started by the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton, I feel, is regrettable. We were making progress. There was a feeling that we could negotiate some kind of changes with regard to the reports. However, that attitude and that good will has been largely damaged by the action which has been taken in this House today by the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are there Hon. Members rising to make comments or ask questions? The rules at this point provide for a ten minute period of questions and answers. If there are no Hon. Members seeking to be recognized, the
Report of Special Committee Chair will recognize the Hon. Member for Burin-St. George's (Mr. Simmons).


Hon. Roger Simmons (Burin-St. George's):: The subject of this particular motion is the report of the special committee which grew out of a recognized need for some change. The House determined 16 months ago that 20 or so Members of this Chamber ought to devote their time to the question of what is wrong with the rules of the House and how they could be changed to better facilitate the purpose for which we have been sent here by the people of Canada. For 16 months those Hon. Members, representing all three Parties, of whom I was pleased to be one, worked long and hard, week in, week out, month in, month out. We asked ourselves the question, what changes are required to better facilitate the work of the House of Commons? I can tell you that there were many disagreements. Many proposals came across the table about which at first hearing I could not get very excited as a member of that committee. However, hearing the rationale of the proposer of a particular change, be it an Hon. Member from the New Democratic Party, the Conservative Party or my own Party, I found myself, along with 18 or 19 other people, seeing the wisdom of some fairly far-reaching proposals for change. As I said, I was pretty dubious about these changes when I first heard them. If one becomes accustomed to a status quo, a set of rules which has served us reasonably well over the years- with some glaring exceptions-one wants to hear a very good reason why they ought to be changed. At the beginning, there was no very clear consensus among the Members on the committee as to what rules needed to be changed, although there was consensus on the length of speeches. That has already been addressed in the third report, under which rules we are operating in this Chamber today. Aside from two or three very obvious areas, such as the length of speeches and the old Standing Order 43 procedure immediately preceding Question Period, and apart from the two or three areas which were very glaring in terms of their need for change, there were Members on the committee, I can say without misrepresenting anyone on that committee, who wanted particular changes to which I was opposed. I wanted changes to which other Members were opposed. That is the nature of the exercise. That is the reason why we needed a committee in the first place.
Those Hon. Members from all parties who spearheaded the effort to strike a committee long before the committee was ever established, recognized that you cannot ask a committee of 282 Members to focus on this issue. They recognized, in their wisdom, the need to delegate this matter to a smaller group of people with a particular interest in the issue who could focus on it day in and day out. This they did. The result is the fifth report which is before us, and several other reports which await the decision of the House.
Why, Mr. Speaker, have these reports not been concurred is in weeks, in some cases in months, after they came to the floor of this House? That is the easy question. Of course, the easy answer, the flippant, partisan answer, the answer that would

Report of Special Committee
destroy the very noble initiative taken by the House in establishing the committee in the first place, the destructive answer to that question, is that somebody is sitting on the reports. Somebody does not want something in those reports to go forward. I have news for you, Mr. Speaker, and for everyone in this Chamber, especially for my colleagues on that committee. I am one of the people who would be just as happy if certain things in those reports never saw the light of day. Why do I say that? Do I betray everything I stood for as a Member of that committee? No, I articulate what must be common knowledge and common sense for every person in this Chamber.
As a member of that committee I can say that there were items 1 disagreed with but to which I gave my support. I swallowed my disagreement in the interests of getting a compromise around that particular table. I did nothing any more laudable than anyone else around that table. We all did that kind of swallowing to achieve through compromise a set of initiatives to be agreed upon and then to be brought before the larger committee, the committee of 282, the entire membership of this House.
Now, Mr. Speaker, if as a member of that committee, focusing on a fairly continuing basis on the ramifications of the proposed changes, I can stand in my place today and say that I have some reservations, the operative question is, then, how many more reservations and how much deeper are they in this Chamber of men and women who, on the one hand, will have to be governed by whatever new rules we introduce and agree to here, and, on the other hand, have only had a passing glance at the substance of those other reports which have yet to be concurred in? What I have just said is not a brief for non-concurrence, Mr. Speaker. It is not an argument to undo the work of that all-Party committee. It is not a cloaked suggestion that we ought to go back to square one. But is a plea that we recall why this exercise was started in the first place. That was in part because the rules, or some of them, were not serving us in the best possible way. Also, because partisanship in this House was getting the upper hand. I think you know my views on partisanship, Mr. Speaker. It is a very healthy phenomenon, and the day some Member tells you he is not partisan, he is lying to you. But when partisanship becomes the objective, when it becomes the end in itself, it is time to rein in the rules to see if we cannot have the rules dictate rather than partisanship. That is what brought the House to a determination that it was time to rewrite some of the rules.
That was a fairly hefty exercise. It has taken a committee of 20 people some 16 months to lay the groundwork. What are we doing today? I hope I am wrong in what I am going to say next-


Mr. Taylor:: Probably you are.


Mr. Heap:: Usually you are.


Roger Simmons: I believe what we are doing today is running the risk of undoing the very excellent groundwork laid by that
October 14, 1983
committee. You see, Mr. Speaker, I find a certain contradiction in some of the things being said today.


Mr. McLean:: So do I as I listen.


Roger Simmons: I hear the gentleman, my good friend, the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker), Vice-Chairman of the committee, a man who has made a marvellous contribution to this House and a remarkable contribution to the committee's work.


Walter Franklin McLean: There is more to say.


Roger Simmons: I hear him say in effect, these are not his words but in essence he said that we ought not to allow this effort to founder on the rocks of partisanship. I heard him say that.


Walter David Baker: I said, "Stumble over the feet of discord".


Roger Simmons: I agree he said it more eloquently, as he always does, but I think that was the substance of what he said. We ought not to allow this effort to founder on the rocks of partisanship. I agree with him. I believe that he believes that with all that is in him. He has put a lot of work into this, as have we all. It ought not now to come apart at the seams because of undue haste. That is where I hear the contradiction.
I say to my good friend from Nepean-Carleton that if this was worth waiting 16 months for, the wait from now will not be long. We are not talking about another 16 months.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Two years.


Roger Simmons: He knows, as I know and as the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) knows, that an earlier House order dictates, de facto, that we have to address this problem before December 21.
What are we fighting over today, Mr. Speaker? After all the good will, the good intentions, after all the hours or work which have gone into this for 16 months, what are we bickering over today? We are bickering over whether we should rush headlong into adopting the fifth report, and maybe tomorrow or on Monday there will be a similar motion, because there are several on the Order Paper. We are bickering about whether we should rush headlong into it today and in the process invite, rightly so, the disapproval of the various private Members in this House who do not yet, I say with respect, understand the full implications of these reports.
Let me tell you by way of example one of the things I object to in the committee's findings and recommendations. It might be my good friend, the gentleman who sits in this Chamber as an independent Member from Edmonton. It might be a Member in the Official Opposition, in the NDP or in this Party. It might be any other Member who in the future might choose to sit as an independent or be elected to this House outside the umbrella of a particular Party. But I object to such a Member not having the opportunity to respond under the ministerial statement procedure. If one would check the report,
October 14, 1983

one would find no provision for that. It is not an earthshaking situation, but it does have ramifications for the first-class versus the second-class status of private Members in this particular Chamber. I say it ought to be addressed. I made an effort and was given full opportunity to address it in committee. 1 lost my point in committee. If it is only I who feel very strongly on that issue


Walter David Baker: You argued it eloquently.


Roger Simmons: -that is fair ball. However, there may be other Hon. Members in the House who, in their respective caucuses, might want to latch on to that particular issue. I say that 1, as a private Member, want to have the same opportunity to respond to ministerial statements as I were the official spokesman for my Party on the subject under discussion in that particular statement on that given day. I do not introduce that as a matter of substance now but as a matter of example only to show that if individual Members of the House were to scrutinize those reports, they would find a number of items about which they would understandably have some reservations.
What is the solution? Is the solution to wait until I can have my way on every point? Is the solution to wait until every Hon. Member in this Chamber can have his or her way on every point? We know the answer to that. The answer is no. However, the answer, equally, must be that we must wait a reasonable amount of time until either every Member of the House or a healthy majority of the House comes to the realization that the proposed set of rule changes, though not perfection of themselves, are an improvement on the previous set of rules. I yielded on my objections, as cited in the example a moment ago, not because I am happy about what the committee is doing on that particular point, but because I recognize that, in the over-all, the committee was proposing to the House a package of rule changes which would create a situation eminently better than what is now or what was before we adopted the third report some months ago. That is the point.
Why the headlong rush? What is it we are bickering about? We are bickering today. Those of us who say in one mouthful, "Let us not allow it to founder on partisanship", are saying in the next mouthful that there are people in this Chamber who are procrastinating and filibustering. Those people who make that charge know full well that that is not the issue. The issue is not even whether we had an agreement in committee or what kind of an agreement it was. I can tell Hon. Members what agreement we had, and my good friend, the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans), reflected very accurately what the agreement was. However, that is besides the point. Suppose he is dead wrong. Suppose 1 am dead wrong on that issue. That is the mechanic. That is a bit of semantics.
The real issue is whether we want this experiment to work and whether we are prepared to put our money where our mouth is, whether we are prepared to take what action is
Report of Special Committee
necessary to have these reports or the substance of these reports, adopted by this Chamber.
As one member of the committee, I am prepared to go that route. If it takes being the brunt of some name-calling, if it takes a little healthy partisanship in this House, that is fair ball. We are not babes in the wood. We have had that before. However, let us not lose sight of the objective. Let us keep our eye on the ball. Surely the ball, the objective, is to get as much of the substance of those reports embodied in a set of future rules of this House as possible.
Now, how to do that? Let me set up two possibilities. One can use the old railroad approach. One can say to 282 Members of the House, ''You can have this now whether your like it or lump it. We will ram it down your throats". So, Hon. Members have not read the report. We happened to get a few reports in the House. I must admit that I have not yet read all the reports that have been tabled. I would say that there are Hon. Members in the Chamber who have not yet memorized the several reports from this committee. I would venture to say that. Therefore, we have two choices. Shall we use the old railroad approach and ram it down their throats, let them like it or lump it, or shall we say, "Let us take what reasonable steps are necessary to have these reports become the consensus of the three caucuses represented in this Chamber"? I advocate the latter.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I hesitate to interrupt the Hon. Member, but the time allotted to him has expired. He may continue with unanimous consent of the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Continue.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There does not appear to be unanimous consent.


Walter David Baker: There is.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is unanimous consent? There is unanimous consent for the Hon. Member to continue.


Walter David Baker: Certainly.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, I shall finish in a moment or so.
I thank the House.


Mr. Benjamin:: Don't do that. Take as long as you want.


Roger Simmons: I become suspicious when I get support from such quarters. However, I am grateful.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: It might never happen again.


Roger Simmons: I am grateful for it, anyway, it being such a unique occasion.
Mr. Speaker, I advocate the latter course. I believe we ought to take some time, not a lot of time. I believe the earlier House

October 14, 1983
Report of Special Committee
order to which I referred has, in effect, boxed us into a time frame, in any event. I am not advocating that we ought to wait until the midnight hour, until December 21. However, we are bickering over whether we will do it on October 14 or some time subsequent, but before December 21. That is what we are arguing over.
After putting 16 months into this exercise, we are now here for a full day bickering about whether we should do it today, next week, or maybe the week after, or sometime, hopefully, very soon. We must do it, in conscience. If we believe what we instructed the committee to do in the first place 16 months ago, in conscience we must have something to supplant, to take over, when the interim arrangement runs out on December 21. That is common sense. It would be a betrayal of the House if we did not do something, put in place an adequate replacement for the interim rules that are now operative in this Chamber.
Therefore, I make a plea to those who support the motion, because I can support the spirit of the motion. I can support it in the sense that we would like to have the concurrence of this House in this report. I would seek the indulgence of those who say it must be done today. I would ask them to stand back a moment and think about what damage they may be doing to the over-all process, because surely the over-all process, the over-all objective, is to get as much as possible of the package which the committee has produced over 16 months embodied in the new rules of the House.
I say to Your Honour that the most hopeful way, the best way of doing that, is to allow Members of the House an opportunity to deliberate on the implication, not an unduly long opportunity. However, when I hear Hon. Members of the House who are not members of the committee standing in their place and pleading with the House, in effect, "Give us a little time so we know what it is we are getting ourselves into",
I think that is a fair request and one which ought to be heard.


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


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I ask the unanimous consent of this House so that the debate on this motion be merely adjourned-


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Yvon Pinard: -and that we proceed to the Orders of the Day so that we can resume debate forthwith on Bill C-155. I can assure Your Honour that you will receive this consent from the Government side of the House.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, when this business began today, I was quite frankly hoping that the Government would have reflected on its rejection last night, yesterday, of the reports. Now we are dealing with this particular report, it would reflect upon the rejection of this simple report. We are not prepared to consent to a process that would eliminate the possibility of agreement today with respect to this very small but very important adjunct to the third report of the committee. That is why it is there. Therefore, the simple
answer to my friend s request is no, there is no unanimous consent.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, normally I would say that I am pleased to participate in a debate, but I would be less than honest if I made that particular statement today because I frankly feel that this debate is inappropriate at this particular time, given the approximately 16 months of splendid work done by the special committee which was established by this House in order to find ways in which we can make Parliament more relevant and the work of the individual Member of Parliament more relevant.
I wish to join with the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) in paying tribute to the Chairman of that committee, the Hon. Member for Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle (Mr. Lefebvre). I am sure all Hon. Members agree that he handled his assignments in an able, direct and non-partisan fashion. We also saw fit to name two vice-chairmen, one of whom is the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton. When he was called upon to fulfil that particular responsibility, he worked admirably and in a way as commendable as that of the Hon. Member for Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle.
The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans), who is the House Leader for the New Democratic Party, was also named as a vice-chairman. Due to the fact that there are few of them and the other responsibilities given to that Member, I understand that that task was subsequently taken over from time to time by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) and the Hon. Member for Selkirk-Interlake (Mr. Sargeant), particularly during the latter portion of the committee hearings when they saw fit to attend each and every meeting. This shows that there was a positive response not only from every Member on the committee but every Party in the House on a strictly non-partisan basis.
This was an enjoyable committee because our work was worth-while. Our hearings were conducted in a wonderful atmosphere. Let me give an example of the importance we gave to the committee and the sense of humour which made it enjoyable. We had a rather long debate about whether we should go to Mont Ste.-Marie for a day or two to work full-time on a particular report, to Montebello or to remain here in Ottawa. The feeling was that Mont Ste.-Marie would be the choice. Unfortunately, one of the members of the committee left the meeting before we finally made our decision, although he was the one who emphasized that if we were going to Mont Ste.-Marie we should be there to begin work at 9:30. When it came to 9:30, this particular Member did not show up. As a matter of fact he did not show up until approximately one o'clock in the afternoon. We had determined that instead of leaving for Mont Ste.-Marie he had gone to Montebello and therefore had to find his way to Mont Ste.-Marie from there. We will not mention his name because it is with a sense of humour that we are not letting that individual forget that he went to the wrong place. We certainly
October 14, 1983

chided him for missing four valuable hours of debate in the committee.
1 am one who has spent almost 15 years in this place but it did not take me long to learn from the Member for Winnipeg-North Centre (Mr. Knowles) or a former Member, Max Saltzman, that rule changes can only properly be made if they are made with the consent of Members of Parliament from both sides of the House. Mr. Saltzman said that one can make all the rules in the world, but if an individual or a Party feels it is being shortchanged, all those rules will not make Parliament more productive or relevant and certainly not make the individual Member of Parliament feel more important in his particular role. There must be consensus and agreement from all sides.
I stated that I am disappointed in this particular debate because our previous experience with the third report shows that we can agree. Our third report was adopted unanimously after each committee member from each Party took this report to his respective caucus saying that it had to go through as a complete package or not at all. We were able to convince our individual caucuses that we could make this work by experimenting on a temporary basis to see how it worked. 1 believe that precedent showed that this procedure works and can be completed in a very short period of time.
It was my hope that the reports subsequent to the third report could be dealt with in exactly the same way and, according to my understanding of the mechanics, that is precisely what we were supposed to do. It was on that basis that our chairman, who happens to be a Member of our Party, in co-operation with those of us on the Liberal side, demanded and received a full caucus hearing at which we would discuss solely the rule changes contained in the reports of that particular committee. I hope that I am not betraying the confidence of the caucus, but that meeting was to take place next Wednesday when we would go over each report to try to point out the strengths and weaknesses and arrive at a consensus. We would then put our submission to the House Leader who could meet with the House Leaders of the other Parties.
It has worked before. We presently have temporary rules in place which, I submit, are working very well. We did that on the basis of consensus. Unfortunately, I think the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton has moved out of the consensus arena and into the political arena. Frankly, I feel that 1 am not talking to Members of Parliament but to the public, because we now seem to be trying to make a political point. The Opposition Party says that it is prepared to adopt all of these reports without any debate. However, there are some flaws in some of these reports. For instance, the Huntington-Lachance report was made by a Member of the Conservative Party and a Member of the Liberal Party. That report which dealt with accountability was debated during several long committee hearings. We felt that the accountability concept was good but the procedure for setting up all of the committees would, in effect, work to the detriment of accountability because we would not be able to get people who were prepared to serve on committees such as the Public Accounts Committee on a
Report of Special Committee
full-time basis. We felt that that system was too cumbersome and needed improvement. However, we put that in the report because it highlighted one of the concerns of all Members of Parliament, which is accountability.
One of our reports deals with the Commission of internal economy and we discussed how that might better be handled other than by a Privy Councillor or former Privy Councillors as was suggested. There is enough of them around now on both sides of the House.
In any event, we felt that the backbenchers should have some opportunity to have a final say on such things as whether we should have committee rooms, particularly for those important committees meeting on a constant basis.
I hear some people saying "filibuster". I worked 16 months on this particular committee and I feel very strongly about this issue. I was angry today and lost my temper when criticizing the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton, but those who know me realize that that is not my usual demeanor. However, I felt let down today and yesterday as a result of these particular motions. I am afraid it will do irreparable damage to the splendid work that we did over that 16 months.
The Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) was making the point that it was agreed that we could move, after we finished our final report, in any direction we wished. It would be acceptable to move concurrence, and this was discussed at the last meeting. The last meeting was specifically set up to give final approval to the report. I know that because I was unable to attend the last meeting and I asked for a copy of the report a day in advance. I sent it back to one of the staff on the committee indicating that I thought it was a splendid report and a great summary. That was the sole reason for that particular meeting.
Let me substantiate my position. If we had not agreed on a consensus and not moved concurrence, the Government, with its majority on the committee, would then have been in a position to prevent the proposal of several suggestions because we would vote against it with the knowledge that there might be several Members who felt very strongly that it should not take place. Therefore, the consensus was there, and no vote was required. We were essentially trying to raise issues that were of concern to backbenchers. We were not necessarily agreeing with how it was dealt with. The response to the Lachance-Huntington report is an example. I personally feel it is too cumbersome. I think something like that can be done.
The Hon. Member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) was here earlier. He said "Yes, hammer it through like 1969." 1 agree with him. I think 1969 was a mistake. As it turned out we had 112 new Members when I came here in 1968. We had come from the business community, from farms and from various sectors of the community and we were anxious to get on with the business. We were fed up with the slow pace of things taking place. I remember the first speech I ever made in the House of Commons. I said "Let's get out from behind our newspapers. Let's get down to work and let s make this

October 14, 1983
Report of Special Committee
chamber more relevant to the people out there." That was the sum and substance of what I was endeavouring to get across, as was everyone else back in 1968.
We moved too quickly. What happened? I have forgotten the numbers, but I think the rule was No. 17A, B and C, or something like that. There were flaws in it because we moved too quickly. Subsequently we had to move an amendment and we ended up with what is today Standing Order 75a, B, and C. 1 think it is a better rule, but if we had spent a bit more time we could have done an even better job.
There are areas in these reports, this one included, although it is a fairly minor one, that are favourable, or something the Opposition would like. Some of these rules we rather like, and there are some that every Member in the House feels are necessary. The Commissioners of Economy is, I think, a case in point. We have rules in place on a temporary basis now. I think most of us agree that replacing Standing Order 43 with Standing Order 21 was a good idea. I think the semester system is a good idea, as well as the 20 minute speeches with a ten-minute response. At least when a Member is making a speech he knows he may be asked questions. I think he will be a little bit more careful about what he has to say.
There are some who feel, and I happen to be one, that dealing with Private Members' Business on one day does split up the week. Maybe some changes could be made, but they will be made only with co-operation. Not all of these rules will be adopted by either side. In fact, I am fairly well satisfied that the Opposition had tongue in cheek, knowing that no government could automatically say yes, we are going to accept all of these without looking to the ramifications.
In the interests of getting back some degree of co-operation and negotiation, I move:
That the House do now proceed to the Orders of the Day.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: All those opposed please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Call in the Members.
[And the division bells having stopped at 4.59 p.m.)


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. On the word of the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), it is now five o'clock. That being the case, the motion now before the House has lapsed. Under the provisions of Standing Order 8(1), therefore, the House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
I am told that I am in the habit of wishing Hon. Members a good weekend. I would not want to break my own habit, so I wish Hon. Members a good weekend.
At 5.01 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, October 17, 1983