1983-06-01

HOUSE OF COMMONS DEBATES


[Stage Direction]
32 Elizabeth II

[Stage Direction]
Published under authority of the Speaker of the House of Commons by the Queen's Printer for Canada
Available from Canadian Government Publishing Centre, Supply and Services Canada, Hull, Quebec, Canada K1A 0S9.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, June 1, 1983


Mr. Gaston Gourde (Levis):: Madam Speaker, yesterday, on behalf of the Ministers of Supply and Services and National Defence (Messrs. Blais and Lamontagne), I announced that a contract had been awarded for refitting the Nipigon, a Canadian Forces destroyer. The contract is for $12.7 million, and work is to commence on or about June 27, 1983.
I am mentioning this announcement by the Canadian Government because recently, according to an article in the Globe and Mail, the Premier of Nova Scotia, Mr. Buchanan, declared that the tender by Halifax Industries was lower than that of Davie Shipbuilding Limited, and that in the circumstances, it would be unfair to award the contract to Davie. Madam Speaker, what the Premier of Nova Scotia said was entirely false. According to the figures published yesterday, the tender by Halifax Industries was for $19.5 million, while the Davie tender was for $12.7 million, a difference of 53.5 per cent. I would therefore ask Mr. Buchanan to retract what he said, if he does not want to lose his credibility, and I would also ask my Conservative colleagues to call one of their fellow Conservatives to order.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


Mr. Mel Gass (Malpeque):: Madam Speaker, I would like to pursue an issue which has been of concern to war veterans in my constituency, with regard to the War Veterans Allowance. The War Veterans Allowance is an income-tested allowance which permits a married veteran to earn up to $3,900, and a single veteran $3,100, before any income from employment is deducted from the allowance. Also deducted from the allowance is any family income such as the Canada Pension, family
allowance, old age security, et cetera, which exceeds $887.26 for married veterans and $532.14 for single veterans. Also deducted from the War Veterans Allowance is any income from interest on properties, stocks, deposits, et cetera, which exceeds $ 100.
I feel that there is an injustice being done to the war veterans who cannot work part time due to poor health or lack of jobs but still have the family income deducted from their War Veterans Allowance. They do not have the $3,900 or $3,100 extra that working veterans can make, and under some circumstances justly cannot find employment. I feel there should be some compensation made for those war veterans who cannot work but are not on disability pension and who have their Canada Pension or old age security deducted from their War Veterans Allowance. I urge the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Campbell) to take the necessary steps to correct this injustice.



HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Madam Speaker, three Canada Employment Centres in Newfoundland-St. John's West, Harbour Grace, and Clarenville-have urea formaldehyde foam insulation producing readings as high as 0.15. About 100 employees work in these offices, suffering from such health problems as eye and nose irritation, headaches, fatigue, throat dryness-problems that are believed to be related to the presence of UFFI. Women who are pregnant have been advised by their doctors that they should not work in these buildings because the long-range effects of UFFI are not yet known. I believe the Liberal federal Government must act immediately to protect the health of these workers by removing UFFI from these work locations or by transferring the employees to other work locations.
I also remind the Government that the Canada Employment and Immigration Union of the Public Service Alliance of Canada is unable to seek protection for these employees under the Canada Labour Code. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Caccia) must stop hesitating, and must introduce legislation in this House which will bring the Public Service under the protection of a strengthened Canada Labour Code.

June 1, 1983



REGULATORY REFORM


Mr. Jim Peterson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Economic Development and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Madam Speaker, I rise with what I can only imagine to be the pride of a new mother. Yesterday the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Gray) brought forth the Regulatory Agenda. The Regulatory Agenda is perhaps the single most important recommendation of the task force on regulatory reform. It provides notice of the regulatory initiatives of ten regulatory Departments and four regulatory agencies. It will be published twice a year, in May and November. It gives notice in a compact, accessible form to the private sector-business, labour, consumers and environmentalists-of pending Government initiatives. It outlines the problem, possible actions the Government might take, and, most important, the name, address and phone number of the responsible contact in Government.
The Agenda is an early warning system, provided through publication in The Canada Gazette of the Agenda. It is the key to better consultation and will lead to more cost effective regulations responding to the real needs of the private sector. It will utilize private sector knowledge and know-how. As one person said, the Regulatory Agenda is the most significant development in Government tracking since Hansard. The gestation period has been long. It has been worth it.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ACCELERATED OIL SANDS DEVELOPMENT ADVOCATED

Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Madam Speaker, it is generally acknowledged that the oil reserves contained in the Athabasca tar sands exceed those of the Middle East. I submit to this House that an accelerated program of oil sands development is essential to Canada's goal of self-sufficiency in oil, certainly by 1990 or by 1995. Canada should try to offset the risk of insecure foreign oil supplies and lessen the drain on its currency that results from foreign oil purchases.
Surely there should be serious consideration of encouragement to develop further the oil sands at Syncrude and Cold Lake, which are known to exist and to be producible. Royalty reductions and tax considerations help, but it is the enormous downside risk, if crude prices plunge, that requires special attention.
Perhaps one answer to foster these job-creating, energy security investments would be a maximum and minimum return on investment, with enough return on the upside to encourage real efficiencies, or there would, instead, be a guaranteed crude price during pay-out of investment.
Syncrude Canada produced about 7 per cent of Canada's domestic oil in 1982, and Syncrude's payments to Governments for PGRT and royalties are estimated to be about $450 million in 1983.


Madam Speaker:: Order.



RAILWAYS


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Madam Speaker, I want to think the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) for his prompt attention to my written question and I would also like to draw to his attention the answer which his office has provided. I had asked for the number of signatures the Minister had received supporting a change in the Crow rate. The answer given by his office was 69. I had also asked for the number of signatures the Minister had received supporting retention of the Crow rate. The answer given by his office was 38,713. For every person supporting Crow rate change, Madam Speaker, there are 561 people supporting Crow rate retention.
The Minister should drop the notion that opposition to Crow change is a position held only by the New Democratic Party and the National Farmers' Union. The number of Crow retention signatures he has received is three times the membership of the National Farmers' Union. The Minister should now realize that many of the groups with which he is negotiating do not represent the strongly held views of farmers and prairie communities. He should admit that his strategies of corporate consultation and negotiation have placed him in his present untenable position.
Finally, the Minister must enter into discussions on railway upgrading which include Crow retention as a serious alternative to the present Bill. He should split Bill C-155 so that the upgrading of railways can proceed immediately. For the Minister to continue along his present course is to foster western alienation, western separatism, and probably civil disobedience.



TERRY FOX


Mr. David Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, last weekend I wanted to take my seven year old son, Alex, to see the movie The Return of the Jedi but the line-ups proved impossible. Somewhat disappointed, we decided to go to see The Terry Fox Story instead, and we had no trouble getting in because the theatre was more or less empty.
Somewhat to my surprise, Madam Speaker, I was really impressed with this movie, and I am pretty severe critic. This
June 1, 1983

movie is Canadian. It was shot on locations from Vancouver to Newfoundland, but it is primarily about a brave young Canadian. Terry Fox stirred the emotions in all of us in an unbelieveable way with his run to raise millions to fight cancer. But the film does not portray him as a perfect hero. He comes across in a very human way. At times he is moody, unreasonable, and self-centred. However, in the end the total picture which emerges is one of a tenacious, proud, and determined young man who knew that he was dying but would not go down without a fight.
I make this statement to urge Canadians to see this film. Why has attendance been low? Is it because it is a Canadian film? Just because it is Canadian does not mean that it is second rate. This is a first class movie which helps to keep alive the message of Terry's Marathon of Hope. I urge all of my colleagues to go and see this film. They will not be disappointed.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



SUPPORT URGED OF BLOOD DONOR CLINICS

Mr. Doug Lewis (Simcoe North):: Madam Speaker, blood donations are sometimes referred to as the gift of life. Everyone who donates blood contributes in a very real way toward saving or sustaining the life of a fellow human being.
As the House will know, Father Sean O'Sullivan, a former Member of Parliament, is suffering from leukemia. Blood transfusions are used as part of the treatment of that disease. I take this opportunity, Madam Speaker, to urge Members, staff, visitors and members of the media to make a special effort to attend the House of Commons' blood donor clinics which will be held on Thursday and Friday of this week. I especially appeal to those people who have never given blood before to take this occasion to donate blood for the first time.



FISHERIES


Mr. Andre Maltais (Manicouagan):: Madam Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of the House to a conflict between the Canadian Government and the Province of Quebec concerning the fishing industry. At the request ot the Mouvement Desjardins and the Pecheurs-Unis du Quebec, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. De Bane) has done a great deal to help Quebec Fishermen to continue, and in some cases to start fishing. However, because of an administrative problem, the Quebec Government is opposed to a settlement that would benefit the fishermen, and today, senior officials of
Oral Questions
the Canadian and Quebec Governments are meeting to find a way to settle the Madelipeche issue and, especially, to provide employment for the fishermen.
However, if it turned out to be impossible to reach a settlement agreeable to both parties, I would agree, Madam Speaker, if the Canadian Minister of Fisheries and Oceans were to implement one of the major recommendations of the Kirby report, namely, that the federal Government should repatriate the entire Fisheries administration to the central government, for the benefit of all Fishermen in Eastern Quebec and Eastern Canada. I think we should support the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, who is trying to Find a settlement that is satisfactory to all parties, and not just to one of the parties, namely the Government of Quebec, which would be doing a disservice to the fishermen of Madelipeche and all Fishermen in Eastern Quebec.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for what appears to be one of the more beleaguered Ministers in Cabinet, the Minister of Transport. I know he has problems with Maislin, the Challenger, Canadair, Air Canada, and so on, but the urgency of the Government's position with respect to any further investment by Canadian National Railways in the Cast group compels me to put the question. Will the Minister tell the House and the people of Canada why the Government does not believe that debt of upwards of $200 million is inexcusable in terms of Canadian National's involvement, or that the Government will take some action to prevent CN from incurring five cents more debt in the Cast group?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, the decision as to the future of the CN-Cast alliance has not been taken yet by Cabinet so I am not in a position to comment either way. That decision will be taken soon, but it has not been taken yet. I understand that my hon. friend is afraid this might have an unfavourable influence on the Port of Halifax. I wrote to him publicly recently to explain that this was not going to be the case, because of geography, of freight rates, and a number of factors, Halifax and Montreal serving different markets.
I rejoice in the fact that in recent days three companies serving the East Coast have shown interest in moving to Halifax. I understand that one has already done so and another is about to do so. This demonstrates that the two ports serve different markets.

June 1, 1983
Oral Questions GOVERNMENT POSITION


J. Michael Forrestall: Madam Speaker, our concern not just for the Port of Halifax and East Coast ports but for all Canadians with respect to this investment is that it now appears that the Government is favourably considering allowing Canadian National Railways to pour between $32 million and $200 million additional debt, over and above the $62 million it has already plowed in when, in its own words, it has already acknowledged that this was a bad decision made seven years ago. Why is the Government now giving favourable consideration to allowing an even further indebtedness by Canadian National Railways, and hence the taxpayers of the country, in a company that is owned offshore, returns no profit, no taxes, and no jobs for Canadians? Why is that?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, we will not know before this decision is made if consideration was favourable or unfavourable. It is only when Cabinet says yes that we know the consideration was a favourable one.
With respect to the figures used by my hon. friend, I can only say that they do not correspond to the reality of the proposal before us.


J. Michael Forrestall: Madam Speaker, I am not certain of the figures, and that is why I say it is somewhere between $32 million and $200 million. Eleven capital ships cost somewhere around $200 million or $250 million.


INQUIRY RESPECTING CABINET DECISION ON PROPOSED MERGER
J. Michael Forrestall: Madam Speaker, for about three weeks now the Chamber and the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications have been held up in their examination of the annual report of Canadian National Railways at the request of the Government and CN in order to allow time for Canadian National to complete negotiations with Cast. Can the Minister tell us whether those negotiations are complete, whether submissions have been made in the due process to Cabinet for decision, and where that matter stands on the Cabinet and Treasury Board schedule? When will we know what the decision will be?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, my hon. friend will really have to wait to know the terms of the merger before he comments on it, and before I comment. I said that the proposals were before Cabinet, so consequently the negotiations between Cast and CN have been concluded.


INDUSTRY
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Last summer the federal Government guaranteed a $34 million loan to Maislin Transport. Is the Government considering an extension of further loan guarantees to Maislin Transport at the present time?


Hon. Ed Lumley (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: No,
Madam Speaker.


COMPANY LOSSES
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, rather than ask whether or not the decision has already been made, I would like to ask the Minister another question. During the first nine months of 1982, while they were negotiating this loan, the company lost $13.9 million. The final quarter figures have not been filed and the annual financial statements have not been filed. The Ontario Securities Commission has be-listed them. They are in default at the present time. My question through you, Madam Speaker, to the Minister is this: did the company lose more than $13.9 million last year, and does the Government have those financial statements yet?


Edward C. Lumley: Madam Speaker, as I have indicated several times in the House, I feel it is most inappropriate to take advantage of our immunity as parliamentarians to discuss commercial, confidential information of a Canadian company-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Edward C. Lumley: -particularly when the shares of a company are publicly traded and where there are hundreds of jobs in the company, as well as its affiliates and suppliers at stake.


DISARMAMENT
Miss Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. As he will recall, the Summit text on arms policy stated, and I quote:
In the area of INF, in particular, we call upon the Soviet Union to contribute constructively to the success of the negotiations.
This assumes that the U.S. is already contributing constructively to the success of the Geneva negotiations, since only the Soviet Union is mentioned. Is it the view of the Prime Minister that the U.S. is in fact contributing constructively to the
June 1, 1983

Geneva negotiations when the President says, as he did yesterday after the Summit, and I quote:
Frankly, my own opinion is that the negotiations won't really get down to brass tacks until they-
The Soviets.
-see that we are going forward with the scheduled deployment.
"-going forward with the scheduled deployment". Is it the Prime Minister's view that this is a constructive contribution to the success of the Geneva negotiations?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, my view is reflected in the final communique which was accepted by all participants. I believe that the Hon. Member will see that in that communique two messages were contained. One was to the Soviet Union to indicate that it had to take seriously NATO's decision of December, 1979, to deploy Euro missiles unless there was a solution to the problem of the S.S. 20's. The message is in there and I feel it is important that the Soviet Union understands that message. At the same time there is another message which is written throughout-that the NATO countries' decision, as supported by some countries at Williamsburg which are not members of NATO, is to the effect that we also want serious negotiations in the hopes that we will find an alternative answer to the deployment of the S.S. 20's other than full deployment of the Euro missile, which NATO contemplates. That is the message therein.
I should not be asked by the Hon. Member if I support every comment, made by any participant, around that communique. It is certain that the communique was as a result of a compromise, and that is the way it should be interpreted.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


STATEMENT MADE BY UNITED STATES PRESIDENT
Pauline Jewett: Madam Speaker, the quote which I just read to the Prime Minister was not in the Summit text. It was the comment of the President afterwards, in fact the next day afterwards. Again, President Reagan has said that, in his opinion, there should be deployment first, serious negotiations after, a one-track policy. Can the Prime Minister tell me, perhaps, whether he agrees with this or whether the other Summit leaders agreed with what is essentially now a one-track policy, as far as President Reagan is concerned? While he is standing, Madam Speaker, could he tell us whether the Summit leaders engaged at all in the discussion of merging the two talks, the INF and the START talks?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I would venture to say that President Reagan's statement as quoted by the Hon. Member is not an abandonment of the two-track policy. It is perhaps a view of the future that President Reagan and, I must say, some other participants at the Summit have, that the Soviets will not talk seriously
Oral Questions
until we begin deployment. That is a view held by some members of NATO and no doubt by others. It is not the view that was held by the consensus at NATO, nor by myself representing Canada. But it does not mean that President Reagan has abandoned the two-track policy. It means that he thinks that no matter how hard we try the Soviets will not agree and that we will have to deploy before they take us seriously. That is his view and it is shared by other participants. It is not mine, but I repeat it is not a contradiction of the two-track policy; it is more in the area of speculation.


Pauline Jewett: I guess it depends on one's interpretation of the words "contribute constructively" to the success of the negotiations.


MEASUREMENT OF SUCCESS OF NEGOTIATIONS
Pauline Jewett: Madam Speaker, since the Prime Minister does not want to address the, I think, very important question of merging the intermediate and strategic talks and negotiations, then I will ask him concerning the success of the negotiations in Geneva. Since the Prime Minister and the Government now tie in the question of testing or not testing the Cruise very closely to the outcome of the Geneva negotiations, can the Prime Minister say what a successful outcome would be? What are the objective criteria for measuring the success of the Geneva negotiations?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I would want to reassure the Hon. Member that I was not attempting to avoid the last part of the previous question relating to merging of the two talks. I would have to say that there was not a great deal of discussion about it. It came up incidentally in the discussion, and I think it is fair to say that some participants think that, sooner or later, both talks will have to be merged and that we will be dealing with the INF and the START talks in the same series of meetings. However, that is once again conjecture about the future. There is an historic difference in that the INF decision was a NATO decision taken in December, 1979. It was taken by the previous Government and it has been supported by our Government. Therefore, we are proceeding with these talks now.
As to what will happen in the future, I personally think we should be giving greater encouragement to a conference on disarmament in Europe, an idea which has been canvassed at Madrid. I think it would be a very good thing if negotiations could take place in Europe, so that those people like the Hon. Member who do not think that the Americans are negotiating to her taste would at least have the reassurance that many of the Europeans do share President Reagan's view on the subject of her previous question.
As to the-


Pauline Jewett: Objective criteria.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As to the latter part, Madam Speaker, I cannot give any objective criteria. I think any negotiation

June 1, 1983
Oral Questions
which resulted in complete abandonment of the SS-20s would be ideal, but that is the zero option which does not seem realistic to us. I would hope, and the language of the communique addresses this question, that discussions will permit a level of deployment agreed to in the discussions, or of nondeployment agreed to in the discussions. The communique, I think, would be very unwise, and I would be very unwise, to put forward any figure at this particular time because it would be another step at a bargaining table where I am not present. I do not think it is necessary now even for the United States to put a specific figure on the table. I hope we will be hearing very specific proposals, rejected or accepted, before the end of December.


INDUSTRY
Hon. Erik Nielsen (Leader of the Opposition):: 1 have a question to ask the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce following that asked by the Opposition House Leader. The Minister cautioned the Opposition House Leader with respect to raising matters which might affect publicly traded shares of Maislin. He should perhaps look to his own Department and give that same caution to an official of his Department who is quoted in this morning's Gazette as saying:
-"unless something very extraordinary happens, they will run out (of money) in the near future"-"probably" in June.
"Receivership is a possibility"-
Is the Minister in possession of that kind of information, or is the official in his Department, who has been quoted in this morning's Gazette, talking through a hole in his hat?


Edward C. Lumley: I am
sure the Hon. Member, who is a former Minister, is quite conscious of the fact that we would all like to know about these unnamed officials or spokesmen who are always being quoted in the press. I just think it is more responsible for Hon. Members on both sides of the House not to discuss confidential commercial information. Also, to my knowledge, the reported statements have not yet been fully audited and sent to the shareholders. Thus, I think it is irresponsible for Hon. Members on either side of the House to comment on these alleged figures.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER DENY STATEMENTS
Erik Nielsen: It is very interesting, in view of the nature of the replies we have been receiving from the Minister in response to questions asked by Hon. Members on this side of the House-he appears to be
ducking, weaving, and evading any answers-to find that the article on Maislin today appears beside another referring to a "so-slippery customer", and that is what his answers appear to be.
Will the Minister deign to tell us whether the company will run out of money in the near future? Is that his view? Will he tell us whether it is his view that receivership is a possibility? Will he tell us whether his official was correct in saying that there would be a shortfall soon? Will he either confirm these statements or, for the benefit of the Maislin company which he purports to protect by his answers, will he make here today a public denial that any of these assertions attributed to his officials have any accuracy whatsoever? Surely he owes it to the Maislin Company he seeks to protect to clear the air, either by saying that his official is absolutely wrong or that there is some substance to those assertions.


Edward C. Lumley: First of all, Madam Speaker, the last people in the world whom I would be worry in about ducking or evading are those in the Official Opposition. Second, I will revert back to my original answer. It is not only the company but also there are 1,400 Canadian employees involved. There are shareholders involved. There are all kinds of sub-suppliers involved. I am surprised that the Leader of the Opposition, who claims to be a very responsible parliamentarian, would ask a question of such nature.


Mr. Jarvis:: Also involved are Canadian taxpayers who have $34 million at stake.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CONTINGENT LIABILITY OF TAXPAYERS
William Herbert Jarvis: I would like to ask the Minister one question. It has absolutely nothing to do with the trading of shares, or employees, or anything else, but, rather, concerns the taxpayer. A guarantee of $34 million of those loans means that the taxpayer may be called to pay, on the basis of the contingent liability, $34 million. How does the Minister, who is the Minister responsible, rate that contingent liability to the Canadian taxpayer-high risk, medium risk, or low risk?


Edward C. Lumley: Madam Speaker, when those financial statements are tabled before the shareholders and the Ontario Securities Commission-


William Herbert Jarvis: Just rate it, Ed.


Edward C. Lumley: -the Hon. Member will be able to make his own judgment in that regard.


Erik Nielsen: Slippery customer.
June 1, 1983_____________________COMMONS DEBATES______________________________25929
Oral Questions
HOUSE OF COMMONS	FINANCE


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF SPEAKER AND MEMBERS OF NORTHWEST TERRITORIES LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
Madam Speaker:: I would like to draw the attention of the House to the presence in our gallery of the Hon. Don Stewart, who is the Speaker of the House of the Northwest Territories.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: He is accompanied today by the Hon. Arnold McCallum, Minister of Economic Development and Tourism, the Hon. James Wah-Shee, Minister of Local Government, and some members of the Legislative Assembly.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Ian Watson (Chateauguay):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister.


Erik Nielsen: Of which you have given him notice.


Ian Watson: As the Prime Minister is aware, General Sharon is the former Israeli Defence Minister who possessed ultimate responsibility for Israel's obligation under the terms of the Geneva Convention to protect the inhabitants of occupied territories, the man whom an Israeli commission has labelled as having responsibility for the massacre of unarmed, innocent civilians, estimated independently as amounting to more than 2,500 men, women and children. This brave Israeli General will be at the Ritz-Carleton in Montreal tonight to sell Israel bonds.
Leaving aside the disgraceful lack of sensitivity of the organizations which invited Sharon to Canada, I wonder if the Prime Minister might care to offer any advice to those Canadians who may be thinking of purchasing Israel bonds which, in the light of present Israeli settlement policies on the West Bank, are a wonderful investment in world instability and Middle East disorder.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Refer them to Jim Fleming.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member is asking me for advice. I am afraid that, concerning this question of the Middle East, I would not be able to offer advise just at this particular point which would be satisfactory to both sides.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. McKinnon:: That has been the answer for 2,000 years.


WILLIAMSBURG SUMMIT COMMUNIQUE ON REDUCING GOVERNMENT DEFICITS
Miss Pat Carney (Vancouver Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Finance. The Minister represented Canada at the Williamsburg Summit where Canada and six other nations issued a joint communique which committed them to reducing budget deficits in order to reduce interest rates, and also to constrain Government spending. We welcome that, of course, because that is the position of the Conservative Party. However, can the Minister explain how he intends to carry out his Summit commitment when his own deficit will increase by 50 per cent this year over the last year's published estimates, and when his own Government expenditures are increasing at twice the rate of inflation?


Mr. Fisher:: Same question as yesterday, word for word.


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, I thank God the leaders of other countries have more foresight than the Conservative Party in Canada. None of the countries concerned is talking in terms of immediate reduction of their deficits. They have all agreed that, whether it is in the United States, or Canada, or other countries, this action would take time and would have to be done on a gradual basis in the medium term. Therefore there was unanimous agreement that we should take steps to reduce the Government deficits and, as the communique states, particularly through control of Government expenditures.
I indicated in my budget of April 19, a copy of which I will be very happy to send to the hon. lady, that the Government of Canada has indeed forecasted that the growth of Government expenditures would not exceed the trend growth of the GNP over the next few years. Therefore the Government deficit would gradually and steadily decline in proportion to GNP over the next four years. We will continue to address this issue seriously, but responsibly, and not in a savage way at the expense of the people in this country who need help and support at the present time.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Pat Carney: My supplementary question is also directed to the Minister of Finance. I find his words to be inconsistent with the track record of the Government, which has managed to double the accumulated net debt in the last three years, and plans to double it again in the next three.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pat Carney: Speaking for Canada, the Minister of Finance told the U.S. that it must reduce its budgetary deficit of about $200 billion in order to reduce interest rates. He warned that continuing high rates of interest could choke off economic recovery. Of course this is what we have been saying about his own budget deficit. Why is the Minister urging the U.S. to

June 1, 1983
Oral Questions
reduce its deficit while he is expanding his own deficit here in Canada? Why is he not willing to practise what he preaches?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member will be happy to learn that between 1975 and 1981 the Canadian Government, this Government, did reduce the share of the GNP taken by a budget deficit. We achieved a very good record of dealing with this issue on a gradual basis. With the recession which has developed in the last three years, contrary to many other countries, contrary to the advice from a number of Conservative spokesmen on the other side, we have not cut into the social security safety net in this country. We have maintained our help for those in need.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: This is what we have done. The deficit is high. We have indicated that it is high and it will come down only gradually over the next few years as recovery takes place.
Concerning the deficit, I have already indicated that we would cut the financial requirements of the Government, in terms of proportion to the Gross National Product, by half over the next four years. As I said, we will continue to address this issue responsibly.
As far as the United States is concerned, it is indeed facing a very serious problem because, not only is its deficit large, but the total amount of money required from the financial markets is huge, over $200 billion, in an economy which has a savings rate which is about half of our savings rate in Canada. I have had discussions this very morning with representatives of private bankers in the United States who are also stressing the importance of the sheer size and magnitude of the U.S. deficit.
We have not told the American authorities or the six other countries that the deficit was not important in Canada. We said we should act together in parallel. 1 am very happy that we will have the full support and co-operation of all the participants in the Summit in that regard. It has been a very remarkable Summit indeed.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Right Hon. Prime Minister. After reading and listening to his comments just prior to the Summit, during, and following the Summit, I am sure many Canadians were disappointed when the Prime Minister really failed to mention those people who were suffering the most as a result of the recession, namely, the two million unemployed in Canada. Does the Prime Minister believe that two million unemployed in Canada constitute the cost of the recovery process that we simply must accept as a fact?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Madam Speaker. If the Hon. Member were to look at the budget and co-operate in its adoption, he would be very happy to see that the $2.4 billion in particular that the Minister of Finance has set aside for immediate job creation through the building of infrastructure in Canada is a very sizable sum which will create jobs in the immediate future. I am informed that the spending of the $2.4 billion has already been allotted and announced. That is creating jobs now.
In the medium term there is another $2.4 billion as an incentive to the private sector to create more lasting jobs-


Marc Lalonde: And the Crow.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The Minister of Finance also reminds me that there is some $3.4 billion we have allocated if we can get the Crow legislation adopted by the House, which would create jobs throughout the whole country and, in particular, modernize the infrastructure of transportation in the West.


EFFECT ON ECONOMY
Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I want to say to the Prime Minister that, in spite of the sums of money that he has mentioned, there are many of us in the House who feel that those sums are inadequate to deal effectively with the problem. Many of us feel that the problem is much more severe than is being admitted today.
Does the Prime Minister believe that economic recovery in Canada can take place with the albatross of two million jobless around the neck of the economy? Is it possible with two million unemployed?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the question seems to be somewhat tautological to me. If we had an improvement of the economic situation, and the signs are there, we will obviously be reducing the number unemployed. The Minister of Finance has made it quite clear that this will take time. Therefore the question does not seem very meaningful to me. Of course we can have recovery with a million and a half unemployed. It is happening now. But the answer to whether we will be happy with that measure of recovery is no. We would now want a recovery which would also eventually create jobs for this million and a half unemployed.


FISHERIES
Mrs. Eva Cote (Rimouski-Temiscouata):: Madam Speaker,
I am not so sure whether I should ask this question because it is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans who ... has now arrived in the House! We all know that the Quebec
June 1, 1983

Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries has seized six fishing vessels and sold them to a Quebec Crown Corporation for a nominal price, and that he has also placed under trusteeship the Madelipeche fish processing plant, which is owned by Magdalen Islands fishermen. Could the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans inform the House whether the provincial Government has now agreed to make available to Magdalen Islands fishermen the six boats they need now if they are to use the fishing permits granted by his Department?


Hon. Pierre De Bane (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Madam Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank the Hon. Member for her question, and second, perhaps I may be allowed to recapitulate the facts. It was the end of April, and the fishing season was already well underway, when the Quebec Government first took action against the Pecheurs-Unis by seizing one of their assets. Needless to say, as soon as one creditor demands his due, the others will follow suit the next day, and it is because of this negative and, I should perhaps say, uncharitable action that the Government of Canada intervened the very next day by asking creditors for an extension. The only action the Government of Quebec took against the Pecheurs-Unis was to seize assets, although as a creditor it was carrying not more than 5 per cent of the unpaid debts of Madelipeche. I am very pleased to be able to inform the House that all other plants that could be reopened, were reopened with the help of the Canadian Government alone. We still have the case of Madelipeche, and as soon as I have made sure that once action is taken, none of the other plants will close down, the problem will be settled. I have to consider all the problems of the Pecheurs-Unis and not just a single creditor who wants to seize assets. I am therefore pleased to inform the Hon. Member that negotiations are proceeding, and I hope that very shortly, we shall find a solution to the Madelipeche problem that will not be a threat to all the other plants that are still open. Many people tend to forget that all-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton South):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. It again concerns the Williamsburg Summit.
Given that a new Gallup Poll shows that 53 per cent of Canadians believe that present Soviet-American tensions may lead to world war, can the Prime Minister state what the Canadian Government will do to fulfil a key sentence in the Williamsburg communique:
We commit ourselves to devote our full political resources to reducing the threat of war.
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I think the role that the Canadian delegation played at Williamsburg, in trying to convey to the Soviet Union and the industrial democracies the notion that we wanted serious negotiations, was the beginning of playing that role. If there are any other ways in which we can play that role, I would be happy to entertain suggestions from the Hon. Member.


Douglas Roche: I will take up the Prime Minister's offer.


PALME COMMISSION REPORT
Douglas Roche: Madam Speaker, in its arms discussions did the Williamsburg Summit consider the very important Palme Commission Report as a basis for nuclear arms compromise? As the Prime Minister knows, the Palme Commission's Report was signed by representatives of the Soviet Union, the United States, and Third World countries. Did the Summit consider in particular that section which urged Soviet-American agreement on rough parity in medium range nuclear forces at a level which means that NATO will forgo the introduction of new medium range missiles in Europe?
Finally, will the Prime Minister accept the invitation conveyed to him recently by Secretary Andropov to visit Moscow, and use that opportunity to convey to the USSR administration the united front adopted by the Economic Summit at Williamsburg?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, as far as getting that message to Secretary Andropov is concerned, I think it is a fair assumption to make that he must have been informed of the message written at Williamsburg. However, if more assurances were needed, I think it is known that Chancellor Kohl of the Federal Republic of Germany will be visiting Secretary Andropov on July 5. I am sure if any emphasis were needed of the seriousness of our intent, Chancellor Kohl would be able to speak for the events which took place at Williamsburg.
Returning to the earlier part of the suggestion as to political determination, no doubt the Hon. Member heard me, in answer to an earlier question, saying for one thing I express the hope that the conference on disarmament in Europe, which is being promoted at the Madrid conference, is something we may see taking place even before December, and perhaps as early as November, but of course that will depend upon the participants at Madrid.


EDUCATION
Mr. Walter McLean (Waterloo):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State. On Friday,

June 1, 1983
Oral Questions
March 18, the Minister announced that the Government was going to make changes to the Canada Student Loans Act. These changes would finally provide guaranteed loans to needy part-time students, implement an interest relief plan for unemployed graduates, and increase weekly student loan limits from $56.25 to $100. At that time the Minister said he hoped to introduce legislation shortly for quick passage. When will this legislation be presented to the House?


Hon. Serge Joyal (Secretary of State):: Madam Speaker, 1 thank the Hon. Member for his question. The legislation is now ready. We have already discussed it with the ten provincial Ministers of Education, who indicated their agreement in a telegram sent to me in April, a copy of which was sent to all Hon. Members. I have told the Government House Leader and my colleagues opposite that we are now ready to proceed, and I understand that the Government House Leader is now discussing the matter with the other leaders to determine when this legislation should be introduced so that we may dispose of it before the House adjourns at the end of June.


NECESSITY TO DEAL EXPEDITIOUSLY WITH AMENDING LEGISLATION
Walter Franklin McLean: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Government House Leader. The Secretary of State indicated that the groundwork has been completed for the legislation to amend the Canada Student Loans Act, and the Minister also indicated the urgency the Provinces give to this legislation in terms of planning for the Fall. Also, a number of student bodies across the country are concerned because students wish to make plans, and need the increased capacity for funding for the Fall.
When will we have this legislation before the House, in light of the commitment of the Secretary of State that the amendments will be tabled at the first opportunity and the House seems prepared to receive the amendments and to deal with them speedily?


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, I had a House Leaders' meeting earlier today. On the one hand the House Leader of the NDP told me that he was very receptive to that kind of Bill and that it would receive very quick passage if it were introduced. In so far as the House Leader of the Conservative Party was concerned, he also had a very positive reaction but needed to consult. That is normal. I suppose that is what he will be doing very shortly. If I have two answers that would make it possible for that kind of legislation to be dealt with in the maximum of one day, I will very seriously consider dealing with the Bill before the end of June.


STATUS OF WOMEN
Mrs. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for the Status of Women. The federal Government should be sure that its own house is in order before the Minister claims to be leading on equal pay for work of equal value. Last year the wage gap in the federal Public Service increased by 12 per cent and federal employees had to launch their own personal complaints with the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Obviously the system itself must be changed.
What federal Government resources have been assigned to review job and pay classifications so that equal pay for work of equal value is a reality for all women public servants, and not just a paper promise?


Hon. Judy Erola (Minister of State (Mines)):: Madam Speaker, indeed it is not a paper promise. If the Hon. Member were to review some of the most recent settlements, she would know that the federal Government has put its money where its mouth is. In fact the last settlement was something like $17 million. I would suggest to the Hon. Member that that is not a paper promise; it is big money.
Also I would suggest to her that this sort of legislation to which I refer must take place in all Provinces, if we are to see that wage gap reduced. At the federal level, I would point out that that wage gap is far less than what it is for average wages of women across the country. That is where we must make the change.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: I think the Minister has missed the point. It is a systemic change that is needed.


DELAY IN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION DECISIONS
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question on the same issue is directed to the Minister of Justice. When equal pay complaints are lodged with the Canadian Human Rights Commission, months, and sometimes years, pass before women are compensated. A complaint on behalf of 7,400 Bell Canada telephone operators was filed in June, 1981, and is still in progress. Will the Minister of Justice agree that the understaffing and underbudgeting of the Canadian Human Rights Commission are responsible for this hold-up and that justice delayed is justice denied? What will he do to change this?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, I will take notice of the question. The Minister of Justice was talking to a colleague in the House just behind the Hon. Member, so he will give an answer later.
June 1, 1983


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. Several comments about the economic recovery of the seven leading industrialized countries have been emerging from the Williamsburg Summit meeting. I understand there is an internal American report which indicates that Canada's economic recovery is second only to that of the United States. In light of this, would the Prime Minister comment on one television news report which indicated that, with the exception of Canada and France, the economies of the industrialized nations represented at Williamsburg appeared to be on the road to recovery? Would the Prime Minister also comment on the downward trend of inflation and the comparative financial stability of the seven most industrialized countries?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member asks me to comment. I could only say that, if indeed there was a report of that nature, it is very seriously misrepresenting the truth and the facts. As everyone at Williamsburg and, I would say, anywhere else, realizes, the recovery in the United States is taking hold and it is taking hold in Canada, but there are some countries in Europe where that is not as certain. I think it is fair to say that most of the participants would be rather envious of Canada's economic performance in the recent half-year.


CROWN CORPORATIONS
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for social development who replies for Canadair and other companies of that nature. The Minister will know that in the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs on November 16 the Hon. Member for La Prairie received an answer from the chief executive officer of Canadair Limited with respect to the Lycoming matter. He said:
We are very happy with the Lycoming engine and the performance of the company on deliveries.
If that statement is the truth, why is the Government of Canada financing a law suit for over $100 million against Avco Corporation of Greenwich, Connecticut?


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of National Revenue):: Madam Speaker, I find the question superfluous. First, I cannot answer for the person who made that statement before the Standing Committee; second, I have not seen any such statement, and third, after due consideration, Canadair autorities have decided to take legal proceedings against the
Business of the House
manufacturer of these engines, and I imagine that if they made that decision, they had very good reasons to do so.


PRESIDENT'S PENSION BENEFITS
Donald Alex Blenkarn: Madam Speaker, I take it from the Minister's answer that Mr. Frederick Kearns, President and chief executive office of Canadair Limited, lied to the parliamentary committee. May I point out to the Minister that he not only repeated that statement to myself but to the Hon. Member for York-Peel. He repeated that misinformation or lie three times. He did what St. Peter did. Would he tell us how Frederick Kearns is allowed to retire early and receive pension benefits of over $100,000 per year, with that performance and that representation to the House of Commons?


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, if the Hon. Member wants to make charges against certain people, he may do so, but he will then have to live with it. On the other hand, the Hon. Member is well aware that the Standing Committees of the House will have the oportunity next week to consider estimates, at which time Hon. Members will be able to summon certain witnesses to appear. The Hon. Member may then summon this particular individual to appear in order to question him and ask him to explain his statements.


PETITIONS
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions presented by Hon. Members on Tuesday, May 31, 1983, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order having to do with House business. I would advise the Government House Leader that I have had an opportunity to consult with the Hon. Member for Waterloo (Mr. McLean). The Government House Leader may have inadvertently disclosed something that came up in the House Leaders' meeting; I do not suggest he did it deliberately. However, if the Government will introduce the Act to handle student loans, and extension of it, we will be able to compare it with the draft Act. Once that

June 1, 1983
Petitions
is done, I am sure we can have a speedy decision on the actual Act.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, we will consider tabling that Bill very soon in light of the first reaction, which seems to be positive. It was not by inadvertence that I referred to this discussion since the question was asked of me by a Member of the Hon. Member's caucus. I took it for granted that they had talked together and that I was free to refer to the discussion. Otherwise, I would not have expected a question to be asked by one of his colleagues on this matter.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition from a large number of women in Delta who form an auxiliary to the fishermens' association that the Government of Canada and the Chief Electoral Officer place within the Canada Elections Act an absentee balloting procedure so that people are not disenfranchised during the federal election voting period.


Mr. Doug Anguish (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Madam Speaker, I have the duty and honour to present a petition this afternoon from people mostly in the Province of Alberta who have asked me to present it to the Honourable the House of Commons in Ottawa in Parliament assembled.
The petition of the undersigned residents of the Province of Alberta who now exercise the right to present a grievance humbly sheweth that the removal of the Crow rate will see its replacement by rates that will impose higher freight costs of five times the present Crow rate and higher by 1990. Such increases are being imposed at a time when prices for producers' grain are now at 1974 levels and detailed calculations show that a rate of 5.1 times the Crow rate would cost the community of St. Paul, Alberta some $1,197,200 per year by 1990 in payments for grain freight that would otherwise have stayed in that community based on the actual deliveries in the 1980-81 crop year.
Wherefore, the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to maintain the Crow rate in perpetuity as presently guaranteed by statute, and as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.
[ Translation]


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition from residents of Hull who humbly declare that 28-year-old Haitian Roseline Vincent entered Canada in 1977, that shortly after she filed a request for permanent resident status with the Department of Employment and Immigration, which has yet to reply, that this women is now being threatened with deportation, that her return to Haiti would be to her prejudice.
Wherefore your petitioners humbly pray and call upon the Parliament of Canada to grant her the status of landed immigrant.
In duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to present a petition on behalf of a number of individuals in the Kamloops-Shuswap constituency concerned about the First Choice Pay Television pornography showing. They encourage the House of Commons to consider a Bill that would add the word "sex" to Section 3 of the Broadcasting Act in an effort to remove pornographic and sexually violent films from television programming.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Madam Speaker, I have a petition which I would like to present to the House this afternoon from residents of the community of St. Walburg in my constituency to the Honourable House of Commons of Ottawa in Parliament assembled.
The petition of the undersigned residents of the Province of Saskatchewan, who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right thus to present a grievance common to your petitioners in the certain assurance that Your Honourable House will therefore provide a remedy, humbly sheweth that the Cruise missile is designed to carry a nuclear warhead, that the Cruise is a first-strike weapon rather than a defensive one, that there can be no winners in a nuclear war. Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to press for compliance with the Prime Minister's strategy of suffocation as set out in the United Nations special session on disarmament-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I must remind the Hon. Member that he should read solely the title of the petition. He is not allowed to expand on the petition, nor to argue it. This is the second petition he has presented today. Both presentations were much, much too long, more than the Speaker can accept.
June 1, 1983


Douglas Keith Anguish: Madam Speaker, in the past I believe that your ruling on presentation of petitions was that they must be within a period of one minute. I certainly have not taken anywhere near a minute.


Madam Speaker:: I will then have to rule on the number of words that can be included, because some Members are really taking advantage of the time that should be allotted to petitions. I think I will consider that for next week.


Douglas Keith Anguish: -thus retaining and fortifying Canada's role in the world as a peacemaker rather than an aggressor. We, your petitioners, are indignant over the Prime Minister's agreement to allow American testing a weapons at Canadian locations, believing that, rather than being a stabilizing factor, this will tend to further destabilize an already precarious balance of nuclear terror between the superpowers.


Madam Speaker:: Order. I would invite the Hon. Member to file the rest with the Clerk. Is the Hon. Member rising on a new petition?


Douglas Keith Anguish: Yes, Madam Speaker.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Madam Speaker, I have a petition I would like to present this afternoon. Incidentally, all members of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool have signed this petition. They ask that western farmers not pay anywhere beyond the statutory Crow rate. I would like to present this petition on behalf of the petitioners. Wherefore, the undersigned your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to maintain the statutory Crow rate.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 4,770, 4,819 and 4,875.


Mr. Malone: 1.	Are railway companies allowed to depreciate grain hopper cars for tax purposes?
2.	Are the companies allowed to depreciate grain hopper cars for tax purposes that were purchased by (a) the federal Government (b) provincial Governments?
3.	Are the companies allowed to depreciate costs incurred in the rehabilitation of railways?
4.	Are the companies allowed to depreciate costs incurred of rehabilitating railways that were paid by the Government?


Pierre Bussières: 1.
Yes.
2.	Not if the grain hopper cars are owned by the federal or provincial Governments. However, if the railway companies
Order Paper Questions
received a grant for the purchase of grain hopper cars the amount of the grant would reduce the capital cost of the property that may be depreciated by the railway companies.
3.	Yes, to the extent that the costs incurred by the railway companies relating to the acquisition of depreciable assets are not reduced by government grants.
4.	No.


Mr. MacKay: 1.	With reference to the recent increases in travel allowances for the Public Service, what was the amount paid for flights to the Central Travel Service for the period ending June 1982, minus the 1 per cent commission which has been agreed upon, for Air Canada and CP Air?
2.	How is the 1 per cent commission allocated after it is deducted by the Department of Supply and Services and does it go back to general revenue?
3.	Is there any difference in the arrangements made with CP Air as opposed to the arrangements made with Air Canada?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: 1. For
our first accounting period (April 9 to June 29, 1982) the amount paid for flights after deduction of the 1 per cent collection fee was $24,752,634. Of this amount Air Canada received $21,308,073 and CP Air received $3,444,561.
2.	The 1 per cent service fee covers the collection and payment services rendered by the Central Payment Services of DSS. As such, it remains in the Supply Revolving Fund which is an account in the Consolidated Revenue Fund.
3.	No.


Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	Is there a Canadian Business and Industry International Advisory Committee and, if so (a) who are the members (b) what is the (i) background or expertise (ii) term of appointment of each member (c) what remuneration, such as salary or travel expenses, do the members receive and, for the length of each appointment to date, what amount did each member receive (d) what other funding, if any, is provided by the Government?
2.	(a) What are the terms of reference of the Committee (b) what matters did it consider in the fiscal year 1982-83 (c) how often did it meet and how often is it required to meet (d) what reports and/or recommendations did the Committee publish in the fiscal year 1982-83?
Hon. Gerald Regan (Minister of State (International
Trade)): The Canadian Business and Industry International Advisory Council (CBIIAC) is a voluntary private sector organization which does not receive direct or indirect funding from the federal Government. Questions pertaining to the terms of reference, composition and activities of the Advisory Council would, therefore, be most appropriately directed to the organization itself for reply.


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

June 1, 1983
Narcotic Control Act


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, I would ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


Madam Speaker:: Shall the remaining notices of motions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-PUBLIC BILLS

['Order, please. Pursuant to Standing Order 24(2), it is my duty to interrupt the\nproceedings. There being no other item on the order of business for today, the Elouse stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).\nAt 5.38 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.', 'Thursday, June 2, 1983']
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. Shall all orders listed under Private Members' Public Bills preceding order No. 484 be allowed to stand by unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



Hon. Walter Baker (Nepean-Carleton) moved: that Bill C-684, an Act to amend the Narcotic Control Act (therapeutic use of heroin), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I would first like to express my thanks to the authorities of the House who arrange Private Members' Business for allowing my Bill to come forward today. This Bill received first reading in the House on April 29, 1983 and its purpose is as set forth in its title. It is to amend the Narcotic Control Act to allow for the therapeutic use of heroin by designated physicians, particularly those in cancer clinics, to alleviate pain for those who are terminally ill and suffering from cancer.
I do not think there has been another Bill like this introduced in the House of Commons. There has been legislation
introduced in other jurisdictions, but it is this jurisdiction which has the right to deal with the matter.
For historical purposes, because of a treaty, undertaking or agreement through the World Health Organization in 1954, heroin, which had been previously used as a prescriptive drug by physicians, was denied to those physicians for any purpose. Recently, there has been a strong feeling growing within the public of Canada and within some segments of the medical profession that those who fight against cancer should have every possible armament and every possible arrow in their quiver to relieve the anguish and the pain of the terminally ill.
If I may, I want to pay tribute to Dr. Kenneth Walker of Niagara Falls who, in a column under the pen name of Gifford-Jones, has raised the issue of the therapeutic use of heroin. Indeed, he has a petition which, at last count, was signed by 15,000 Canadians that he knows of who have indicated their support. I want to pay tribute to him for keeping this issue in the forefront of our minds.
I also want to pay tribute to another group of people. I became interested in the subject of the therapeutic use of heroin for a very personal reason. My wife has beaten cancer twice. During her fight with cancer, I came to know and to meet and to talk to many people who were suffering from cancer in the real sense of the word. Fortunately, we are thankful that my wife was not in that position. I talked to these people and their families, to members of the medical profession, members of the nursing profession, and to many other Canadians. 1 believe that confession is a good thing from time to time, and 1 confess to the House that this is what raised my interest in this subject.
In 1982 I sent out a questionnaire to some 40,000 homes in my riding, the constituency of Nepean-Carleton, which is the same as any other constituency. The return on that questionnaire was unprecedented. Of the 40,000 questionnaires sent, there were 10,000 responses. That means that 25 per cent of the families in my constituency responded. Of those 10,000 responses, 92 per cent-I repeat, 92 per cent-of the people agreed with the proposition that physicians should be armed with every possible weapon in the fight against cancer.
I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that letters I received from people who were then suffering the anguish of cancer, people who were watching loved ones suffer the anguish of cancer, hardened my resolve to bring this matter before the House of Commons at some time because I believe that when these questions are asked and responses given, one has a duty to the people who responded. I had frankly hoped that this session of Parliament would be over and we would be into a new session, and perhaps that will be the case, I do not know; but I could not wait any longer to bring this Bill forward.
Opinions in the country are divided on the subject of the therapeutic use of heroin. There are divisions of opinion in the medical profession, but the very fact that there are divisions of opinion indicates that in the medical profession and the nursing profession there are those who professionally feel that heroin is a help to the terminally ill, and there are certainly members of the public who share those feelings. In a few
June 1, 1983

moments I will tell the House about some of the things that people have written to me about that indicate the depth of feeling there is in at least one constituency, and I now believe that that depth of feeling would be the same across the country.
I want to pay tribute to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) who I believe has within her a broad streak of humanity. A year or so ago, the Minister of National Health and Welfare commissioned an in-house inquiry into the whole serious question of the methods available for the alleviation of pain. She consulted with Dr. Kenneth Walker who came to Ottawa, and she has no doubt consulted privately with the Department. Just recently she made an announcement in the House that, at long last, there is sufficient doubt about the position of the law in Canada at the moment and there is indeed sufficient evidence to permit a period of experimentation with respect to testing the appropriateness of the use of heroin, not with all patients but at least with some patients, to alleviate the horrible anguish that has been described to me and seen by other Members of the House of Commons, and indeed by almost every family in Canada who has had a friend or relative affected by this disease. That experimentation will now be carried out and will be worth while. It is because of the people who have responded to me, because of the work of Dr. Kenneth Walker and because of the interest and concern shown by many people inside and outside of the House of Commons that the Minister has exhibited her broad streak of humanity.
Medical opinions on either side of the question could be quoted until they come out of our ears. I do not intend to do that, although I have those opinions in my files. I want to read to you, Mr. Speaker, in capsule if I may, a letter that I received from a physician in my constituency which I think is exemplary of the situation that exists. It is a letter from Dr. Colin D. B. Cunningham on the letterhead of the Queensway-Carleton Hospital in the City of Nepean. He wrote:
I am a physician and trained in Edinburgh, Scotland qualifying in 1966. Since then I have done various residencies and practiced in medicine, surgery, obstetrics and general practice. More recently I trained in diagnostic radiology and since coming to Canada in 1973, this has been my specialty.
However, prior to training in radiology in the other branches of medicine in which I have practiced I had many occasions in which I could and did use heroin. As you know this is available as a prescription drug in the United Kingdom-
By the way, it is available in about 37 other countries in the world.
-and we used it not infrequently for patients in severe pain either by itself or in conjunction with other drugs in a wonderful concoction known as the Brompton Cocktail, the patients most being in need of course being the late or terminal cancer patients. As I am sure you are aware the extreme pain that some cancer patients have to endure has to be seen to be believed.
Quite frankly it was with some horror when I immigrated to Canada that 1 discovered that this drug was not available here. I do find it totally incomprehensible that such a valuable drug should be unavailable for those who need it so badly in so many cases of painful illness and my opinion is that its availability or not as a prescription drug does not make the slightest difference to its availability on the streets in the case of drug rings and pushers. I would suggest that its availability as a prescription drug would not in any significant way increase the
Narcotic Control Act
number of heroin addicts due to misuse of the drug and even if so I would question the morality of not having the drug available for those that need it in order to attempt to reduce the number of drug addicts on the street or elsewhere.
There is no other drug quite like heroin or is as effective as heroin in suppressing pain and discomfort and 1 feel most strongly that it should be available as a prescription drug to alleviate the terrible pain and suffering of some late or terminal cancer patients and others.
1 would be prepared to support privately and publicly any move or legislation to permit the use of this drug in this country on a prescription basis.
I have had letters from professors, universities and physicians who have said that this is a medical problem. I have written back to say yes, it is a medical problem, but it is also a social problem. Whether we are talking about the medical profession or the legal profession, the public has the right to look into the operation of those professions and to have something to say about the way they are practised and what government policy is. That is an opinion that I advance to the House in the few minutes I have with respect to the positive use of this drug.
I want to read another letter from a man in my constituency who died painfully from cancer. He wrote:
I wish that every person negatively involved would feel the excruciating pain a terminal cancer patient has to go through until he or she dies.
He goes on to say:
Where are all our MPs and MLAs who send out monthly form letters telling us all the good things they are doing for us? When asked to take a stand on this issue, all they give are evasive statements.
Are the politicians and the CMA afraid that a terminal cancer patient will become addicted to heroin? And if so, what's the difference: 99.9 per cent are going to die shortly anyway.
That man died shortly after the letter appeared in the newspaper. Mr. Speaker, I cannot quote all the letters but I am prepared to show them to any Member of the House. The replies are typical of the responses that accompanied the questionnaire. I have letters from nurses and nursing assistants. The night after the Bill was introduced in the House a nurse came to me at a community association dance in Barr-haven, grabbed me by the arm and said; "Mr. Baker, that is a good Bill. It is necessary and I hope that Parliament will deal with it. I see them day after day. I stay with them night after night. Regardless of what people say I have seen that the existing therapy is not always effective. More should be done." If there were one, two or three people who could have their pain alleviated where it could not be alleviated in other ways, then I think this is worth while.
In answer to the question whether this should happen, a registered nurse wrote as follows:
Most definitely!! Hurry up about it! The agony suffered by many is inhumane-If morphine, cocaine, demerol are considered narcotics do give the physicians the opportunity to offer relief in pain control if the others are ineffective. Cancer is the disease of the 80s. We have to fight it on all sides.
To the question "Do you agree with the use of heroin?", another nurse replied:
Quite aggressively so. I am a nurse and see many patients in pain-our health care dollar doesn't go very far and we should get the best we can for it.
Another nurse replied:
As 1 work in the health care field, any medication that will alleviate the suffering of cancer patients must be allowed.

June 1, 1983
Narcotic Control Act
The word "must" is underlined, Mr. Speaker. And here is a letter from a person who, when she wrote it on June 1, 1982, was facing death from cancer. She wrote:
I unfortunately am a cancer patient-bone cancer. I'm 54 years of age. At the present time the chemotherapy is doing its job but one thought that continually is in the back of my mind and that is the fear of any agony at the end. I'm not afraid to die-it's how that frightens me.
I know that life today would be much less stressful if this thought was erased.
If you can do anything to change the law to permit the use of any drug which would help terminally ill cancer patients I and many others would be grateful.
There is a host of letters. Here is another one from a nurse:
As an R.N. who has cared for many patients with cancer, and seen the indescribable anguish the patient and his family go through, I must strongly agree with authorizing physicians to prescribe heroin for cancer patients, as needed. I hope this matter will swiftly get the attention it deserves from the public and our lawmakers.
This is the opportunity for the House of Commons, Mr. Speaker. If there are some in the House who would argue that there is a problem with respect to control of the drug, that it might be diverted into wrong hands, I agree. But that does not speak to the principle of whether physicians should be armed with every weapon to look after every case to the extent that is possible. That is the principle of this Bill. What the problem of diversion speaks to is care and control.
If Hon. Members will examine the Bill they will see that this is not a drug that can be prescribed and delivered out of a drug store. It may not even be available in the ordinary pharmacy of the hospital, I do not know. It is within the control of the Government to prescribe the regulations. With this Bill, which is the first word on the subject here, there is scope for any motion by committee as to its adequacy with respec to control.
Physicians in 36 countries have that arrow in their quiver. Is there any reason why we ought not to have it here? Is there any reason why this whole issue ought not to be examined publicly? Is there any reason why we ought to fear the right of a committee of this House of Commons, which would have the right if the Bill were approved or if we sent the subject matter of the Bill to committee, to begin the public examination pending the outcome of that experiment that has been initiated, thank God, by a humanitarian as a Minister of National Health and Welfare?
I think that is the issue for the House of Commons, Mr. Speaker. I think it is time that the House faced it. I think it is time the medical profession faced it. I think it is time the cancer societies in the country faced it. I think it is time the public faced it. I ask the House of Commons to support this Bill today so that the public examination can begin.
I want to thank my friend, the Hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday), a very distinguished family physician, for supporting and seconding this Bill on its introduction for debate.


Mr. Marcel Roy (Laval):: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to thank my colleagues who made it possible for me to take part in the debate at this time, since I should be on my way to another meeting. However, I preferred to remain in the House, because I saw it as my duty to speak very briefly not as a medical expert but as the former Chairman of the Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, which I led for three years, and above all-and I think that is the main reason- anyone who has ever seen one of his dear ones in the terminal stages of cancer, in almost indescribable pain, will realize that it was very difficult for me to ignore this afternoon's topic and leave the House to attend another meeting.
I want to congratulate the Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) for his patience when he spoke in the House and also for the representations he made to the Minister and to his colleagues in order to make them more aware of a situation existing in hundreds of hospitals across Canada, and unfortunately involving thousands of patients who are waiting for a positive answer from our colleagues.
We all know it is a very delicate situation, and when I questioned the Minister on May 18 of this year, her answer was very hopeful for the patients concerned. She mentioned to us the importance of control and said that she was willing to authorize a number of experiments across Canada next fall, that she was going to organize clinical trials in palliative care units for terminal patients in various locations throughout the country, which would last for between twelve and eighteen months and would be carried out according to a standard scientific protocol that was now being prepared. I think this was a very hopeful response from the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mrs. Begin) and I want to thank her.
Following the question I raised in the House, the Member for Nepean-Carleton spoke once again. I think we are making progress. For instance, Friday, May 20, when I was talking to a group of senior citizens in Laval West, two of them came to tell me how important the amendment was, one referring to her mother who was a terminal patient in St. Jude Hospital and the other to someone who was not a relation but was in exactly the same situation. I realized how serious-
Of course I am not a physician, but when I raised the subject on May 18 of this year, the Member for Hull (Mr. Isabelle) who is a doctor, told me how urgent it was to help these patients in order to improve care and relieve their pain.
Consequently, I could not ignore this request, and when I discussed the matter with a doctor on the weekend, he asked me why I took an interest in this problem, and he said: "I suppose one of your close relatives has cancer, and that is probably the reason or one of the reasons you are working on this particular problem."
June 1, 1983

Well, I am interested in this for two reasons. Firstly as Chairman of our Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, I have received a great many representations and requests for an amendment to the Narcotic Control Act; secondly, as I said earlier, some of my loved ones are suffering from this condition.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to conclude my remarks by congratulating the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton for showing us once again just how patient he can be with the Hon. other Members of the House, as well as the Hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare, for this first step and that ray of hope that some day might lead to a lessening of the excruciating pain these patients are enduring. And in doing so we are not unique in the world. In fact there are already 36 countries, including England, where heroin is being used as a pain-killer. Which does not mean that we have never used it ourselves, but since 1955, we had discontinued using it at the request of the World Health Organization. I suggest it is about time we put an end to the suffering of the patients of today and those of tommorrow. I fully support the request of the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton and I urge other Hon. Members to do likewise.


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, in beginning my remarks this afternoon on Bill C-684, a Bill to legalize the therapeutic use of heroin, I would first like to congratulate the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) for having the political courage to put before us this kind of Private Member's Bill, and also for having the personal courage to put before all of us an issue which involves a great deal of personal anxiety on the part of anyone who has ever had to deal with a terminal illness, and which has to do with the whole process and reality of human death.
I believe that this is one of the reasons these kinds of questions tend to be put off, not just because of the difficult political questions which attend them, but also because of a natural tendency on the part of everyone not to want to have to deal with these questions. I congratulate the Hon. Member, therefore, for having forced the House, really, to contend with this issue, and I believe Hon. Members are showing good qualities in being able to debate this subject reasonably and being able to dwell on their own personal experiences. I doubt that there is anyone in this House who has not had some personal experience with cancer in the family and who has not had to consider this question.
I do hope that this Bill will go to committee. I certainly intend to support its being passed and going to committee so that further discussion can take place. However, I feel that the fact that this Bill is before us is part of a general trend, and a welcome one I might say, in society today where we are asking ourselves how we can better address the problem of terminal illness, how we can make life more comfortable and more human for people who are faced with a terminal illness.
The question of the therapeutic use of heroin is a part of that larger movement, in which we might also introduce things like hospices for the dying, where attempts are made to create a less institutionalized and less alienated environment for
Narcotic Control Act
people who are suffering from terminal illness. I see this as all part of what 1 would call a very welcome trend in trying to humanize the health care system, particularly as it pertains to the treatment of those with terminal illnesses.
As I said before and as everyone knows, the purpose of this Bill is to amend the Narcotic Control Act, thus permitting designated physicians, particularly in cancer clinics, to prescribe heroin as a pain killer for terminally ill cancer patients. The Hon. Member's Bill, which received first reading on April 29, has been, as Members have pointed out, subsequently upstaged to a degree by the announcement of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) two weeks after first reading of this Bill that the health department had authorized use of the narcotic heroin as a pain killer in clinical trials to begin this Fall. But we all know that the approval came after a long and controversial media campaign by Dr. Kenneth Walker under the pseudonym of Dr. Gifford-Jones to legalize heroin for this purpose after a formal advisory committee was struck, and which however remained largely inactive. Nevertheless, the Committe on the Medical Management of Severe Pain was struck early this year and directed by the Minister to draw up a guide for Canadian doctors on treating severe pain and to discuss within this document the optimal clinical use of various analgesic drugs, including the medical need for heroin for the treatment of pain associated with pre-terminal malignant disease. Yet as I understand it, Dr. Walker has contended the choice of members of this committee has "loaded the dice" against heroin, and this led him to establish his Gifford-Jones Foundation and to present petitions signed by some 15,000 people last summer in support of his stand.
Perhaps a little historical background would be helpful on this issue, Mr. Speaker. Despite its apparently effective use in other countries, most notably the United Kingdom, legitimate medical use of heroin has not been allowed in Canada since 1955, and since 1924 in the U.S. The UN World Health Organization recommended in 1947 that member countries ban medical use of heroin as a measure to fight increasing illicit use of and addiction to the drug. The WHO's rationale was that such a move would limit the availability to junkies. There was a widespread belief that a synthetic drug of equivalent potency was just around the corner. Neither prediction has come true some 30 years later. The illicit import and use of heroin in Canada is a multimillion dollars business on an annual basis, in spite of the fact that many terminally ill cancer patients have not had the use of this drug available to them over the years. And there is nothing found in nature, with the arguable exception of morphine, or in test tubes that comes close to heroin as an analgesic.
The arguments for and against the therapeutic use of heroin are many and they have been hotly debated. I do not pretend to be an expert on all the matters pertaining to the various arguments, but I would just like to go over a few of them. The

June 1, 1983
Narcotic Control Act
arguments in favour are those such as have been presented by a Mr. William T. Beaver, Prefessor of Pharmacology at the Georgetown University Vince Lombardi Cancer Research Institute in Washington, D.C. He reported in 1981 that heroin is two and a half times more potent than morphine. Heroin is also known to be more soluble than morphine and that, coupled with its greater potency, means that smaller amounts are needed for injection. Therefore the injection itself is less painful for emaciated patients who often have little tissue left for a hypodermic needle.
It has also been argued that no two pain killers are entirely identical, and that a cancer patient who may have an adverse reaction to one drug may yet be able to tolerate another. So the doctors, as the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton has said, should have every possible arrow in their quiver available to them when treating particular patients on an individual basis.
It has also been argued that heroin has been used effectively by English doctors for over 80 years, and if the use of the drug is so questionable, why do over 30 other countries use it?
Now, one of the arguments against the use of heroin over the years, Mr. Speaker, is that there is no supportive evidence that heroin provides unique properties in the relief of cancer pain and that other drugs currently available are sufficient if administered properly. But there is no evidence to support that contention either. At least, you can find a scientist to advocate either side of the argument.
It has also been argued that more people may be harmed than helped if it were made more readily available because of its street value as an illicit drug. Supporters of legalization, however, respond to this, as others have already done, by saying that it is a law enforcement problem, not a medical problem, and I agree that this is not a good reason for prohibiting the use of heroin for therapeutic purposes.
It has also been argued that the publicity surrounding legalization may raise public expectations and that it is not a panacea for cancer pain.
The final argument, of course, is that dying patients could become addicted. I think this is the most ridiculous argument of all. That argument first stimulated my interest in this issue when I was a student chaplain at Sunnybrook Medical Centre in Toronto. I was on a ward which contained a great many patients who were dying of cancer. I always remember bringing this matter up with my supervising chaplain and asking why could this not be made available to the patients. He said: "Well, you will not believe this but some of those people that you visited today will not be alive in two weeks and yet the hospital is worried that they will become addicted to heroin". Ever since then this issue has been in the back of my mind and I am glad the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton has put it before the House.
I think the House should pass this Bill into committee so that there can be more open public and parliamentary discussion about this issue. I think there is absolutely no reason why the Government should not allow this to happen.


Mr. Stanley Hudecki (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I must first of all congratulate the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) for proposing this amendment to the Narcotic Control Act. The fact that he was able to get 9,000 responses out of 40,000 questionnaires is indeed a remarkable achievement. I also was moved by the personal involvement he had and the sensitivity he expressed to his constituent and her family in the course of her suffering from cancer and his desire to be of some considerable help to her. However, in the few minutes I have, I have to bring before the Hon. Member and this House some of the facts dealing with the use of heroin as a therapeutic agent in the treatment of people with incurable illnesses.
The proposed amendment poses the right question but, unfortunately, it suggests the wrong answer. To think that the problems of people with terminal illness could be completely dealt with through drugs is an entirely wrong concept, one which has to be eradicated. Time and again the complaints which have been put forward are really those of improper attention by medical attendants. As far as the junior chaplain is concerned, it was probably the lack of attention he gave to that person's spiritual needs rather than the dependence on a single drug.
People who have incurable illnesses have considerably more problems than pain. Currently in the medical profession there are numerous drugs and procedures by which to control pain. I do not like to use the term "terminal cancer" or "terminal illness" because it is such an inhuman and depressing assessment of a person. These people are persons. The impression that is left with the public, and very frequently we see it through the television media, is one of people surrounded by various life-supporting gadgets, by pain and by complete isolation. That is not so. These people are individuals, Mr. Speaker, the same as you and I. They know of the problems facing them and they are looking forward, through those last few days, to enjoying the company of their relatives and friends. They want to be back home. They want to be doing the things that they enjoy. That is the concept or approach which is not currently present, and that is the need that they express.
Therefore, rather than focusing attention and spending the time of the House and the money on a variety of researches, it is more important that the money be spent on education of medical students and in assisting doctors to upgrade their knowledge and techniques of controlling pain.
There is a need for the public, for the family, to gather around the person who is incurably ill and to give him the suport that he particularly needs.


Mr. Halliday:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologize to my hon. friend and professional colleague for interrupting him, but the nature and purpose of the Bill which we are discussing today, as stated on page 1(a), is as follows:
The purpose of this Bill is to permit designated physicians, particularly in cancer clinics, to prescribe heroin to alleviate pain.
June 1, 1983

We are discussing the issue of whether or not we want to alleviate pain. I am sure that the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) would not dispute the fact that it is necessary to provide many other ancillary types of care to someone with cancer. However, there is no question but that one of the pre-eminent problems is pain. The purpose of the bill is purely to address the question of pain.


Mr. Benjamin:: He's reading stuff that the Department of Health sent over. Quit reading what the Department sent you.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: All Hon. Members are aware that the most difficult problem of the Chair is always the question of relevance. I have had some concern with the Parliamentary Secretary's remarks because I cannot quite follow the thread of the argument which he presents in terms of the Bill. However, I always have, and every occupant of the Chair always has, the difficulty that we must wait a long time to ensure that the Hon. Member in question is being relevant. Second, if we begin to apply very rigid rules of relevance, then we must apply them equally across the House.
I think I have done what I should have done, that is to say that there is some question in my mind as to whether or not the Parliamentary Secretary is being as closely relevant to the Bill as he might. Therefore, perhaps with that thought in mind he may wish to address himself accordingly.


Stanley Hudecki: Mr. Speaker, actually the point that I was reaching was to address myself directly to the subject of heroin. The first question that I raise is with regard to the authority on which so many of the current statements are based. The various people who have signed these letters have made a decision on the basis of information submitted to them from a variety of sources. Actually, heroin in Canada has not been used since 1955.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: At least legally, that is.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: 1 just said that.


Stanley Hudecki: Neither has it been used in the United States. It is not in the pharmacopoeia. Doctors have had really no experience with the use of it, except those who practised before the year 1955.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: How could they, if it has been illegal?


Stanley Hudecki: The information comes from book learning, from reading, or it comes from people who have had experience with heroin for non-medical purposes, or from what must be a tremendous number of physicians and people who have come from the United Kingdom. Therefore, the first point is that people are speaking on this subject with apparent authority but they have had no exposure to heroin whatsoever.
I graduated from the University of Toronto in 1940 and practised from 1940 until 1955, at a time when heroin was available to the pharmacopoeia. I feel that I am in a position to speak on this subject with authority.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Did you prescribe it?
Business of the House


Stanley Hudecki: It was possible to use it as a junior intern and as a resident in surgery. I have had an opportunity to use it while practising general surgery. My impressions are not taken from text books or from opinions handed down from people who are writing on the subject. Indeed, in the Medical Post it was indicated that one of the principal promoters of the drug, namely Dr. Walker himself, had never used it professionally.
My impression of the drug is that it is a potent analgesic but that it is a very dangerous drug. During my time in the hospitals it was used quite widely for obstetrical patients in labour. At that time labour was very often prolonged. I might point out that many of the babies were born completely blue and required a considerable amount of resuscitation.
Again, the drug was used for surgical patients and there were numerous post-operative complications. These were related to the side effects of the drug which cause a depression of respiration and of the cough reflex. As a result, many patients developed bronchial pneumonia and died needlessly. Again, I bring this point forward because that is exactly the type of patient with which we are dealing.


Yvon Pinard: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I want to apologize to my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hudecki), for interrupting him in the midst of his speech, but we have been negotiating between House Leaders and it seems that we have reached an agreement. I must attend an important meeting which is being held now. I would appreciate receiving the unanimous consent of the House to read our agreement at this time. If there is unanimous consent to permit me the time, I will speak for perhaps five minutes or less, so that the Parliamentary Secretary is not penalized.


Walter David Baker: It is my Private Member's Bill which is being discussed. I appreciate the offer of the extra time. I certainly think that that is a reasonable condition and I am agreeable to it.


Yvon Pinard: I thank the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton for his usual courtesy and I will try not to abuse the privilege.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Yvon Pinard: We have been carrying on consultations in relation to Bill C-151. In my view, whereas the Progressive Conservative and New Democratic Members desire that an amount of borrowing authority not exceeding $10.7 billion be granted by Bill C-151, while the Government desires that if any further request be made for not more than an additional $4 billion borrowing authority within the present fiscal year, such request shall not require more than three days of debate, the following order, concerning which I seek unanimous consent, shall take effect immediately:

Business of the House
That with regard to Bill C-151, an Act to provide supplementary borrowing authority, when the said Bill has been read a second time, it shall be referred to a Committee of the Whole;
That at the appropriate time in Committee of the Whole stage of the said Bill, a Minister of the Crown shall propose an amendment to delete, in line 14 at page one of the said Bill, the word "fourteen", and to substitute therefor the word "ten";
That at 3 p.m. on Thursday, June 2, the said Bill shall be called and, without further debate, all questions necessary to dispose of all remaining stages of the said Bill shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment, except as provided in this order;
That, if necessary for the execution of this order, the House may sit beyond the ordinary time of adjournment;
That the Standing Orders be amended by adding immediately after Standing Order 79 the following:
"(a) If, at any time before March 31, 1984, a Minister of the Crown introduces a Bill to provide additional supplementary borrowing authority of not more than $4 billion, the said Bill shall, after receiving second reading, be considered in a Committee of the Whole and not later than 15 minutes before the expiry of the time appointed for the consideration of Government business on the third day that the said Bill is debated, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted and all questions necessary for the disposal of all remaining stages of the said Bill shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment, and provided that the said Standing Order 79(a) shall expire when any Bill mentioned therein has been finally disposed of'.
Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent for this House order. It seems that, after consultation, Your Honour will obtain it.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, indeed there were meetings to discuss this matter. I want to point out that our speeches during the debate consistently insisted that all the Government required was $10 billion. We have consistently suggested in all of our speeches on this side that $4 billion was not required by the Government and we insisted upon an amendment coming forward to reduce the amount to what the Government actually required in accordance with its own financial statements.
Yesterday afternoon, our Mewmbers debated at length. From lunch hour to the time of adjournment there was only one NDP Member who came forward to assist us in this debate. We are, however, prepared to give unanimous consent in our Party because this agreement complies with an agreement we made earlier this session. For those reasons we are in agreement. As I have indicated to the Government House Leader, we do not agree with the preamble but we agree with the wording of the House order.


Mr. Deans:: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to enter into a nit-picking discussion with the Opposition House leader, but if he could count he would have been able to see that there were four NDP speakers yesterday. We took our turn and we told the Government that we were very much opposed to what it was doing. We continue to be opposed to it. We worked on an arrangement that seemed to satisfy the needs of everyone.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, it seems there is agreement on the House order. Everyone has stated their views. The Government is satisfied with a three-day debate to get the full amount of $14.7 billion if needed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The House has heard the proposal made by the President of the Privy Council. Is there unanimous agreement that the proposal be made an Order of the House?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Agreed and so ordered.
The Chair will recognize the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence in pursuit of his intervention. As proposed earlier by the President of the Privy Council, the amount of time given by the President of the Privy Council will not be deducted from the time allowed to the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary.


NARCOTIC CONTROL ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton) that Bill C-684, an Act to amend the Narcotic Control Act (therapeutic use of heroin), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
Stanley Hudecki: Mr. Speaker, before the intervention by the Government House Leader (Mr. Pinard), I was discussing the side effects of the use of heroin in the treatment of people with incurable illnesses. These side effects include very severe respiratory depression and some difficulty in controlling the cough reflex which would result in a greater susceptibility to pneumonia. These side effects which these people experience in the hospital will also show themselves at a time when they want cerebral lucidity and to enjoy the company of their friends. It is at that time that many of their normal bodily functions are impaired.
There was a time when a so-called cocktail was prepared using heroin. These were given to the patients so they could take them at will. While this would frequently control the pain, the patient would be extremely constipated, have very poor insight as to what was happening and a sense of euphoria inconsistent with the situation. This would be at the very time these people would want to communicate and understand what has happening while in the company of their immediate friends and relatives.
Currently there are a great number of alternative methods of controlling pain. These methods include morphine which, if properly used, is most active. There are a variety of antidepressants which are useful since most of these people do not only complain of pain but are emotionally distressed and upset. Many of them benefit much more from appropriate anti-depressants.
There are also a number of physical means by which pain can be controlled, such as stimulation through the skin. Neurosurgeons can use a variety of injections. It is not necessary to rely on heroin in order to control pain.
June 1, 1983

There is the view that a considerable amount of experience in this field in the United Kingdom suggests that heroin has great merit. I would like to quote a statement by a world authority on palliative medicine. That is medicine dealing with people who have incurable diseases. It is a statement by Dr. Robert Twycross who, until recently, was in practice at St. Christopher's Hospital in England. He is an acclaimed authority on the subject. In the last few years a majority of palliative care centres in the United Kingdom have substituted morphine for heroine because clinical trials conducted by one of the most experienced palliative care physicians in the United Kingdom, Dr. Twycross, indicated that there was no difference between the pain-relieving properties and mood-modifying effects of heroin and morphine.
Heroin is a drug which comes from the opium family. Its synthetic relatives are methadone and demerol. It has a quicker action than morphine. The euphoria assoociated with it is so short lived that it is not useful from a psychological point of view. In addition it has the profound constipating effect and respiratory depression.
Once heroin passes through the liver, which is very soon after its absorption, about 85 per cent of the heroin is converted into morphine. As heroin is introduced it is quickly broken down and actually becomes a product of morphine. It is the morphine compound which continues to have an effect.
I want to reiterate the concept of the so-called terminal patient. A preferable term to use is a person with an incurable disease. Many of these patients are classified as terminal on the basis of the assessment of the doctor. There are verying degrees of terminally ill patients. No two patients have exactly the same response to illness.
Therefore it is very difficult to accept a norm and to act on the basis of this norm. Each one has to be considered as an individual and each one has to be studied. The individual needs have to be considered and each of the particular needs has to be dealt with as required. For that reason adequate treatment can only be given if adequate assessments have been made and adequate studies of the needs have been conducted. Rather than legalizing drugs such as heroin, we need special skills and training for our medical students and physicians to provide emotional and environmental support so that people can enjoy their remaining days in comfort and with the security of their loved ones.
What is the feeling of other prefessionals in the health care field? In a meeting with Mr. A. C. Scales, past president of the Canadian Pharmaceutical Association, its policy was expressed by the Drug Advisory Committee of the College of Pharmacy of British Columbia as follows:
Effective pain management is best achieved with a regimen which provides an adequate dosage of currently available analgesics administered at regular intervals rather than as a required basis. The relief of pain achieved with morphine appears to be significantly more sustained than that obtained with heroin.
Business of the House
I believe my time is up.


Mr. Gilles Marceau (Jonquiere):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am grateful for this opportunity to express my views on such an important subject. Anyone who examines the Bill introduced by my colleague is inclined to react favourably, because he made it clear in his very short remarks that he was motivated by something which happened in his riding. From a human standpoint, I should think that any solution likely to help a sick person must be carefully and seriously considered. Aware as we are of the parliamentary experience of our colleague, and keeping in mind the example he gave us, we can only feel compassion when we are faced with such tragic, incomprehensible and, for some of us, unacceptable incidents as we are given to witness in our society.
Having read the text of the Bill introduced by my colleague,
I must conclude that the wording is not unduly restrictive. He is suggesting, and I quote:
Notwithstanding subsection (1)-
-which is an interdiction against the use of narcotics. Here is how the whole section reads:
Notwithstanding subsection (1), any person may, under the supervision of a designated physician, have diacetylmorphine (heroin) in his possession for therapeutic purposes.
Again, there is no need to say that I understand the aims of my colleague the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) because, in principle, I agree with those aims and motives.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. As I have just indicated when I signalled the Hon. Member, I apologize for interrupting him, but the time allotted for this debate has ended.
Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 24(2), it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings.

Before I proceed to the next order of business, I understand the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Smith) has a point of order.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
David P. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter to which the Government House Leader omitted to make reference when he intervened a few moments ago with the business for tomorrow. It flows from discussions which have been held this afternoon between the Parties. Accordingly, I would like to designate tomorrow as an Opposition day.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question on behalf of the Opposition House Leader. Is this a matter which was discussed and agreed among House Leaders?

June 1, 1983
Criminal Code


David P. Smith: Designation of Opposition days is not the subject of agreement, but they are advised in advance and depend upon the outcome of the House order which was just agreed to. This was one possibility of which they were advised yesterday and it was confirmed earlier this afternoon.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I want only to be certain. It may be my memory, but I thought the President of the Privy Council referred to other matters for tomorrow. For the sake of the record, the Parliamentary Secretary has indicated that tomorrow is an Opposition day.


David P. Smith: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I am referring to Friday.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Parliamentary Secretary is fortunate that both my ears are working at the moment. In any event, the matter is settled. The Opposition day to which the Parliamentary Secretary referred is Friday, not tomorrow.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My friend cleared up the confusion and then added to it. We now understand that Friday is an allotted day. Certain announcements have been made; we have been informed of the business for tomorrow, Thursday. Have there been any changes in the Government's mind with respect to the business for tomorrow?


David P. Smith: No, other than the fact that the House order which was approved a few moments ago calls for a vote at three o'clock. Apart from the vote, the business will be as stated earlier by the Government House Leader.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Shall all items listed under Private Members' Public Bills preceding No. 424 be allowed to stand by unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Raymond Dupont (Chambly) moved: that Bill C-624, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (Greyhound Races) be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Mr. Sargeant:: Mr. Speaker, I did not quite understand the procedure which you were carrying on. I assumed that the mover of the Bill would be getting up to speak. I would welcome an opportunity to speak on this piece of legislation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: That unfortunately I am not able to do. I realize what has happened and that it has come as a surprise to some Hon. Members-and I might add to the Chair-that the motion put forward by the Hon. Member for Chambly (Mr. Dupont) has now been referred to committee. That is what the House has decided. I suppose it was with and by unanimous consent. If the House wants to undo what it has done, it may be able to do that. Otherwise, unanimous consent was granted to refer the Bill to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Shall I hear further points of order on this matter? The House has already declared itself. That matter is decided.
Shall all orders listed under Private Members' Public Bills preceding Order No. 442 be allowed to stand by unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: You really have Parliament working well. It is an absolute disgrace.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: At this point I am obviously in the hands of the House. Short of that I will either look to any further item on the Order Paper or we will have an early Wednesday. I think I should first recognize the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor)


Mr. Taylor:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if you should put the question that we do agree to undo what we did by unanimous consent and go back to discussing Bill C-624. It was done very rapidly. Everybody was expecting the mover of the Bill to get up and speak. I would suggest that you put the motion and see if there is unanimous consent to go back. Surely the Bill is worth discussing.


David P. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I notice the Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) left the Chamber in righteous wrath, suspecting some conspiracy or plot.


Donald W. Munro: Of course there was.


David P. Smith: That is absolute rubbish.


Donald W. Munro: You have done it once before.


David P. Smith: That is absolute rubbish. What in fact happened was that Members were caught off guard. I was not aware of discussions that may or may not have been held between these two Hon. Members.
June 1, 1983


Donald W. Munro: What kind of Members are they?


David P. Smith: Hon. Members, and they are polite, which is more than I can say for you.
I think what happened was there was some confusion. I think the House would best be served if we did undo this and allowed this Bill to be addressed. The Hon. Member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger) is not here simply because he would have been advised that his Bill would have been called at five o'clock. We would like to accommodate him. Any suggestion which any Member may have made that there was some sort of trickery going on here is absolutely outrageous and contemptuous.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, trickery has occurred in this House before, on July 12, 1982, and it could happen again. It was done on that side. I think the manner in which this debate has been conducted is absolutely disgraceful.
I do hope that somehow or other arrangements will be made for the Hon. Member for Wetaskiwin to speak to his Bill, and also if there are other Members of the House who wish to discuss the Bill that is now before us before we reach the Bill of the Hon. Member for Wetaskiwin, that they have an opportunity to do so.


Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: Mr. Speaker, I think where some of the confusion may have arisen, at least on my part, was when you read the number of the Bill. I believe if you check the record you will see that you said C-684. I was under the impression that it was C-624. I think if you check-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order. Before I listen to further points of order, the House has its own capacity to handle matters as it sees fit. I do not think we need to go on with points of order which are really related to motivation rather than to actual procedure. To clear up on matter, I read the motion, and I read it in French. I will repeat it.

That Bill C-624, that is what I said, not 684-

That is not an argument I would accept to intervene or interfere with the proceeding. 1 have explained to the House that there is a very simple proceeding at this point. I have indicated that it apparently has surprised some Hon. Members that this motion has been referred to a committee for second reading. It certainly surprised the Chair as well. However, the House can undo what it has done very simply. It will, however, require unanimous consent. If some Hon. Member chooses to withhold unanimous consent, then the Chair has no choice in this matter. This Bill will be referred to the committee.
I will recognize further points of order if it is necessary, but I would point out to Hon. Members that the easiest and most successful way to resolve the problem is to permit me to put
Criminal Code
the question to the House as to whether or not there is unanimous consent to this order.

-I am first going to put the question.


David P. Smith: Mr. Speaker, to accommodate everyone, I am prepared to move that we undo what in fact occurred and we do now discuss this Bill standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Chambly (Mr. Dupont).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Now, I would like to be perfectly clear-

It is now moved by the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Smith):
That Bill C-624 be by unanimous consent not yet sent to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
In brackets, I may say subject to debate for the remainder of the period of one hour. I will now put the motion of the Parliamentary Secretary to the House. If I hear a lack of unanimous consent, once again I repeat that the Bill will go to committee.

Is there unanimous consent, as I explained?

Is there unanimous consent to continue the debate on this Bill before sending it or not sending it to committee?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: There is not unanimous consent. The Bill is therefore sent to committee.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Who said no?


Raymond Dupont: I said no.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame.


Raymond Dupont: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Hon. Member for Chambly (Mr. Dupont), on a point of order.


Raymond Dupont: Mr. Speaker, if I understand correctly, my colleagues opposite may be unhappy about this, but they were probably asleep in their seats and were not paying attention to the procedure. Nevertheless, like myself, they have been sitting in the House for many years, and they know perfectly well they will have another opportunity in Committee, since the Bill has been referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. As far as you are concerned, it is not my fault, my dear colleague, but personally, I am very pleased.

Criminal Code


Gordon Edward Taylor: If anybody was asleep it was the Hon. Member. He should have been up on his feet discussing his own Bill. What are you afraid of? Are you ashamed of it?


Donald W. Munro: Of course he is.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Chair is obligated to recognize Hon. Members on points of orders, but I did take very considerable pain and time to explain the procedure that we were using. I do not think it would be proper for Hon. Members to comment on the decision that the House has just made or upon the decision that the Chair has just made.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, may I first say to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader that we appreciate the effort he made. Arrangements are made in consultation with the Clerks re Private Members' Day every Wednesday as to which Members' Bills will be called for debate.
What happened today was that the Hon. Member for Chambly (Mr. Dupont) seemed to obtain a reference of the content of his Bill to the standing committee. All Members on all sides of the House want that to happen to their Bills. I suspect we will have a problem on succeeding Wednesdays. If an Hon. Member is prepared to have his Bill presented for second reading debate, other Members who wish to participate in it should be provided with that alternative, unless there is previous agreement that there will be no debate and there is agreement on all sides to refer the subject matter thereof to the appropriate standing committee. That has occurred a number of times. I was fortunate to have it happen a couple of times with my Bills. But unless there is some agreement beforehand to refer by unanimous consent or to refer without debate-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The direction-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, this has to do with the order of the House, not with the Bill-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Exactly. It has to do with the order of the House, as the Hon. Member says. The direction his argument takes is that somehow there must be, in addition to the existing Standing Orders, a further Standing Order which refers to an agreement among Parties. The Chair has no knowledge of any such invisible and imaginary Standing Order. The function of the Chair is to apply the Standing Orders as they are, not to suggest that there are other Orders that the Chair ought to apply without those Orders being in force.
The Chair suggests that the House move on to the next order of business. I will recognize points of order but I do not think it is advisable to continue this debate now.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, on a further point of order, it now becomes a case of all of us serving notice on one another. On the one day that is available for Private Members' Business
June 1, 1983
and for which there is agreement, the Member sponsoring the Bill himself says to the Clerk who calls his office: "Oh, yes, I am ready to speak to my Bill today," and then other Members on all sides are notified of that when it comes out on a sheet of paper. It that does not happen, then we will have to be much more formal. There will have to be a formal motion moved for every Private Members' Bill every Wednesday. If that is the way they want to play the game, that is the way we will play it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. Order. The difficulty I have is that the Hon. Member is not really arguing a point of order. If he wants to argue a point of privilege as to the manner in which the House operates, that may be a question he can raise, although I would like to indicate in advance that I have some doubts about that. We have gone through a very careful process to assure all Hon. Members of the possibility that they might overturn a decision by unanimous consent. There was not unanimous consent to do that. In all fairness, I do not think that I can entertain further points of order on a decision the House has already made.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege. There is a great deal of substance in what the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) has said. The only one that I know of who refused to-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order. Order, please. The Hon. Member is well aware that the Standing Orders phohibit questioning the motivations of Hon. Members for the manner in which they carry out their votes. I could not begin to accept that as the subject matter of a point of order.
Shall all orders listed under Private Members'-


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege and I believe that the Chair should at least hear it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I will hear the Hon. Member who claims he rises on a point of privilege but I will not permit him to question the motivations of Hon. Members.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, before one of these Bills is put on the Order Paper, a Member must agree that he wants it debated when it is called. Obviously debate does not continue until that Member stands up and makes his speech. This all happened so quickly. When the Member himself is the only one in the House who refuses unanimous consent, that is a point of privilege affecting the rest of us. We have rights too.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please.


Gordon Edward Taylor: The Member ran away from the House before we had time to say boo. He was afraid to debate his Bill. Whether the Chair agrees with me or not, it is a point of privilege to my mind.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Hon. Member for Bow River knows that I respect his views. Unfortunately, it is my responsibility to make a decision in that regard and I hope
June 1, 1983

that he will respect my views since I must find some way to apply them.


David P. Smith: Mr. Speaker, simply to state our position on the record, as have the other Parties, I agree that the Chair has simply enforced the rules. What has happened has been unfortunate. I as one Member tried to undo a misunderstanding, but I think it is important for the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) to realize that we on this side of the House do not attempt to enforce Party discipline during Private Members' Hour. We will familiarize Members with what the Government position is, but we cannot interfere with the rights of any private Member. One Member has chosen to exercise his rights in a way which I regret, but he has that right and the Chair has enforced that right. That is all there is to it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I think that we should terminate this discussion. Leaving aside any references to Parties whatsoever, it is certainly the responsibility of the Chair to recognize and to enforce individual Member's rights in the House. That is one of the primary functions of the Chair. One Hon. Member refused unanimous consent. I ask the House to understand that there is nothing that can be done if unanimous consent is refused by an Hon. Member. That terminates the issue, and I ask Hon. Members to move on to the next item of business.


Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make one further point. When you called the question, you correctly pointed out that you said it in French. The translator, at least over the ear plug that I have, said Bill C-684. I did not know that she was talking about the same Bill.


An Hon. Member:: That is not true.


Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: It is true if you listen to the corrections.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: That issue is very readily resolvable. It is not an issue of essence. Certainly the recordings of the House of Commons will bear out the Hon. Member or will bear out the Chair. Perhaps I made a mistake, but even if I did, I would not regard that as an essential matter. I would say that the will of the House must proceed despite a mispronunciation, and I am satisfied to say that as far as I know, I did not misread it either in English or in French.
Shall all orders listed under Private Members' Public Bills preceding order No. 424 be allowed to stand by unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


PUBLIC PETITIONS TO PARLIAMENT
Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin) moved: that Bill C-642, an Act respecting the presentation of petitions to Parliament, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
Petitions to Parliament
He said: Mr. Speaker, I take pleasure in presenting this Bill to the House for debate today. The presentation of petitions has gained some notoriety in the last week or so, but petitions are a very significant method by which ordinary citizens of the country who do not have the opportunity that I have to speak in the House of Commons can bring to the attention of this institution through their signature a grievance that they may have or a suggestion as to how something may be changed so that their lives may be bettered.
The practice of putting petitions to a legislative body is not new. It has been happening for hundreds of years. We have brought from the mother Parliament in Great Britain to this institution the practice of presenting petitions to Parliament. From the beginning, the presentation of petitions was allowed by Parliament as a means for ordinary citizens to bring their grievance to the attention of the House of Commons. The practice have been used over, and it is only in recent years that nothing has happened to petitions. Petitions are brought to the House by the Member of Parliament, are read to the Speaker and the Clerk who then deal with those petitions, and the next day they are either found to be in order or not. They then disappear in a room somewhere in the House of Commons. That is not entirely the case, but it is pretty close.
I would like to indicate to the Chair and the Members of the House of Commons that in Great Britain, the procedure followed is slightly different and, I think, better than the procedure we have adopted in Canada. Public petitions were first adopted as an innovation of Edward I and were presented as a method of seeking redress from the king by virtue of his power of prerogative where none could be sought through the ordinary course of the law. That is still the case now.
For example, on the issue of capital punishment, many citizens of the nation, believe that this institution is not representing the wishes of the majority of the nation, and their only means of bringing that to the attention of the House is through the presentation of petitions or Private Members' Bills. Neither of those two methods has been very successful in bringing about a change in the past, but at least the opportunity is there to bring the grievance forward.
In Great Britain when petitions were first introduced, it was permitted that they be debated in the House. This went on into 1842 when the practice of using petitions became so widespread that very little time was left for Members of Parliament to debate Government Bills, so it was decided that the change should be made to the rules. Until 1843 when the rules were changed in the House of Commons in Great Britain this method was used. At that time, 33,000 petitions per year were presented, so there was difficulty in having them all debated. After the rules were changed the petitions could be read, as they are now. If the petition conformed to the rules of the House it could then be put before a committee. Debate was not

June 1, 1983
Petitions to Parliament
permitted, but at least the Bill could be moved to a committee of petitions and dealt with by Members of Parliament.
If petitions related to personal grievances they could then be deemed to be of urgent necessity.In this case they could be debated immediately in the House. That has not occurred very often in Great Britain since the rule change in 1843; in fact, it has happened only once. All Bills did not have to go to committee, and there was still the opportunity to debate a Bill in the House of Commons if it was considered urgent.
The report of the Committee on Public Petitions was printed. It stated the subject of the petition, the number of signatures, and was headed by the prayer of the petition. The Committee had the power to send for persons, papers, records and was entitled to make special reports on any matter it thought the House should know about. On the other hand, the Committee had no power to investigate or report on the merits of any petition or interrogate representatives of Government Departments or person as to possible remedial action.
The Committee dealt with every public petition presented to the House until 1974 when the practice was discontinued. They now follow a practice which I think this Parliament should seriously consider and which is the subject of my Bill- that all petitions shall be printed by the Clerk of the House after the normal procedure transmits those petitions to the Minister of the Crown. The Minister of the Crown must then make a recommendation or an observation on the Bill before the House of Commons, and that is tabled and printed.
That is some of the history of the procedure now used in Great Britain and which we have copied to a great extent in Canada.
There was an occasion on which debate on a petition took place after the rule change. That was in June, 1944. The urgent part of the petition concerned the fact that letters had been opened secretly by the Post Office. That was considered to be an invasion of privacy, so the petition was debated immediately. That opportunity still exists in this Parliament.
We are all very familiar with the practice of presenting petitions to this House, Mr. Speaker. A petition can be presented by any Member, who may not make a speech but has the opportunity to make a brief statement about the author of the petition, the number of signatures and the allegation it contains. The Member may also read what is called the "prayer".
The petition is then automatically referred to the Clerk of Petitions, and next day he reports back to the House on whether it meets the requirements of the Standing Order. The Speaker reports on the petition, which is tabled. It is then read to the House by the Clerk, and if it is in proper form it may, with unanimous consent, be read by the Clerk and, again with unanimous consent, it may be sent to committee; otherwise, no debate is permitted and the petition does not go to any committee.
The only exception to this is when a petition complains of some present personal grievance requiring an immediate
remedy, in which case the matter may be discussed immediately. There has never been an occasion when the subject matter of a petition has been ruled to be of such urgency as to require discussion in the House.
The rules also say that the petitions must meet certain requirements. They must relate to a matter over which Parliament has control. Petitions may not ask for the expenditure of money and may not pray for exemptions from any import or export duties.
In Canada we have used the urgency provision twice, which is more often than it has been used in Great Britain. On one occasion it was used by a colleague, Donald Maclnnis, whose petition requested an improved early retirement benefit for former coal miners of the Cape Breton Development Corporation. With the unanimous consent of the House, that petition was allowed to move to committee.
In 1962 the petition of Mr. McNally, then a Member of Parliament, requested Parliament to allow admission to Parliament of the Press Gallery Association. This petition was also allowed to go to committee. So we have some examples of that usage, but we have very few examples of petitions being debated in the House or in committee and remedial action being taken.
I think many citizens of Canada want to see something happen as a result of their petition. When they ask a Member of Parliament what they can do about certain issues, what procedures they can take, we can answer that they can lobby Members of Parliament with a grievance and ask that it be discussed. If there is no possibility of doing that through Question Period of Private Members' Hour or Government legislation, one of the few options is the petition. We can tell our constituents that they may present a grievance to Parliament through a petition, but then the obvious question is, what happens to that petition? That is when I have some difficulty, Mr. Speaker, because nothing really happens to the petition. Through the procedures I have just outlined, it is read but then disappears. The only response a constituent may see is a few lines in Hansard to show that his Member of Parliament did present the petition.
That is why I am asking the House to look at the Bill which asks that after presentation of a petition to the Senate or the House of Commons in accordance with the rules, a Minister or a Member of Parliament should respond in the House within two weeks. The petition could then be referred to a committee of the House without debate.
Under the new rules the committee would have the option of taking up the subject matter or not, but at least the petitioners would have the opportunity to see that the petition was dealth with by a Minister of the Crown who would then be compelled to respond in the House within two weeks of the tabling of the petition.
I looked at this to see whether our neighbour, the United States, had anything similar to this request that I am making to the House today, and they do. In the House of Representatives in the United States, after a petition is presented to the House by a Member, he can request that that petition be
June 1, 1983

referred to a committee. If he does request that that petition be referred, then the subject matter may be taken up by that committee. That is under Clause 6, Rule 22. In the Senate, a petition may be introduced. No debate is allowed except by unanimous consent. If there is unanimous consent, then debate is allowed on a petition. A Senator cannot be interrupted during his debate to introduce a petition. However, it is only in the House of Representatives that in fact a petition can proceed to a committee of the House. So they have a similar opportunity in the United States to the one which I am encouraging this House to deal with.
In Great Britain there is the opportunity for a Minister to respond. He must respond to a petition. We have neither of those requirements as compulsory actions for the presentation of our petitions. It is left to the will of the Minister to respond, and most often he does not do so. As I said, only twice in our history have petitions been allowed to go to a standing committee for discussion.
Therefore I feel that if we are going to give adequate redress to complaints of the citizens of this nation, we ought to develop a procedure which will allow the petitions to have some meaning. This is the only way which I can see that we can in fact do that.
I would like to sum up my address to the House by reading a brief passage from a writer on parliamentary procedure. He was writing on public petitions. I am sorry, I do not have his name. He said the following:
These rulings have accumulated in the House over the years and are now as firmly entrenched as the standing orders. These rulings and the procedure surrounding the reception of petitions have acted, in recent years in particular, to discourage petitioning. At many times the House has shown itself willing to waive its rules, however strict, to allow the introduction or the passage of a measure it desires, but it has consistently refused to do the same with petitions. Not only is the possible subject-matter limited today, but the forms are strictly observed. The examination by the Clerk of Petitions ensures that many petitions will never be received by the House. Even if they are drafted properly and deal with a proper subject, the petitions cause little stir in the House; the Speaker informs the House that they may be received and they disappear from sight without comment. At best a member may present a petition in person and read the prayer; his fellow members nod agreeably and the petition disappears; there is no debate. The result of these restrictions and this procedure is that petitions are of little use today.
That has been confirmed. I have not seen the numbers for Canada as to what has happened with petitions, but 1 do have the figures for Great Britain. I know from my ten years in the House that it is only recently when the economy is in trouble and people are disturbed that we find, all of a sudden, a number of petitions coming to us as Members of Parliament, and then to the House of Commons. They have started to increase in numbers. Therefore, the people of this nation are in fact using that procedure, particularly now, much more so than two or three years ago when I noticed that very few petitions were ever presented to the House. This year almost every day petitions are presented to the House of Commons.
It is obvious that citizens of this nation are asking for redress of their grievances through that practice and they are getting nothing in return. I urge, therefore, Hon. Members of the House seriously to consider the subject matter of this Bill.
Petitions to Parliament
We could certainly, in committee, call witnesses from the two countries I mentioned to tell us how their procedures have in fact allowed citizens of their nations to present their grievances to the House. I feel that we as Members of the House of Commons would be doing our country and our constituents a great service in allowing them some response to the petitions which they ask us to deliver to this institution.


Mr. Paul E. McRae (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker,
I rise to give some support to the Hon. Member for Wetaski-win (Mr. Schellenberger) in his desire to have petitions recognized more seriously by this House. I have& a problem with some of the details of the Bill, but I particularly like the idea that we might have a committee which would be designated to deal with petitions. I feel the subject, though, is a broader one and I would like to set aside the petition idea and speak about how we extend democracy, which is what the Hon. Member is attempting to do.
We have lived for a long time, and probably quite successfully until the last perhaps ten or 12 or 15 years, with representative democracy, as when you elect a Member of Parliament and one way or another he belongs to a political Party and he then functions through that Party, either as part of the Government or as part of the Opposition. One assumes that every four or five years, when he comes up for re-election, people will say, "Well, you have done a good job, you listened to me, and you got something done", or they reject him; one or the other. It seems to me, however, that in a society where the average person today has 11 or 12 years of successful schooling, and a large portion of our population have university degrees, when things become very complex it is not good enough to pass judgment on a Member of Parliament every four or five years and say, "Well, you have done a good job", and so on. I feel that there must be other ways in which people can make their views known to the country and to this Parliament so that action can be taken.
Very often people will say, "Well, I felt very strongly about that issue. Government did the wrong thing. On the other hand, generally speaking, I am fairly satisfied", but the issue is still there and it is a burning one. Capital punishment was mentioned as one of those issues which bothers a lot of people. I do not share, perhaps, the same view as a lot of Hon. Members on this subject, but I can understand the fact that it does bother people and that for some reason or other they do not feel they are being heard. It seems to me that democracy does not work at all, basically, if more and more people get the feeling that they are not being heard, that for some reason or other the Government of the day is doing the opposite to what they think should be done. It is very difficult for people to understand that there are other people who feel the very opposite to them, that they want something very opposite, and that the Government must compromise somewhere along the line. I feel that one of the answers has to be that people must get a better chance to be heard. But we must also hear the other side.

June 1, 1983
Petitions to Parliament
The other day in Thunder Bay a discussion occurred between two groups of people on two different sides of the abortion issue. There were some demonstrations, and so on. The suggestion was made that maybe it is time that these two groups of people sat down and tried to understand each other. With a committee on petitions we can, perhaps, bring some of those opposing forces together on this subject or on other subjects.
I agree with this particular step, but I feel there should be more steps and broader steps to allow for that kind of thing to happen. I feel that one of the problems which creates petitions, and this kind of strife, is within the nature of large Government bureaucracies. I am not talking about this Government or any other Government particularly. It is just in the nature of the whole business of Government Departments. We have been talking about the Crow rate, for instance, and a lot of people are concerned about Government Departments. They tend to say that what is good for transportation or what is good for the railroads is good for the country, because that is what they are busy doing. That is the outlook they have. They may well be wrong about the railroads, as well as about the rest of the country, but the point is that there is a tendency to build up a whole series of things which are good for a small sector of society but may not be good for Canadians generally or any particular region of this country. Then you get people, such as a very large number of grain farmers in the West, who say, "This does not suit me at all. This is something which is part of the history of the West, I believe in it, and this group is taking it away". One can understand that, but the point is that there is not a good outlet at the present time for people who feel very strongly that the traditions they have grown up with are being trampled upon by this particular bureaucracy.
I happen to have a lot of contact with the peace movement in this country. It consists of a network right across the country from coast to coast. There is a real concern about where we are going with nuclear armaments and a very real concern about a war that could destroy us all. But there is no way for that large group of people to make their views heard in this Parliament. I have thousands of names on petitions because a lot of the letters that go to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) or other Members come to me because of my concern about this issue. And some way or other that issue, and the Crow issue and others, have to be addressed. These people are getting more and more frustrated. This is not a situation where an issue comes up, everyone gets upset, and a week later it is all over. That is not what is happening. Petitions may be the route to go, but it is not now. We all agree, I think, that it is not effective at this stage of the game. As the Hon. Member for Wetaskiwin has said, petitions come in, they are read out, accepted as being correct by the Speaker, and then they are dead. It is not an exercise in total futility because at least it gets to the floor, but it is nothing more than a show. There is no debate afterwards.
I want to find some way, Mr Speaker, where the feelings of people on the Crow and those who are very concerned about testing the Cruise and who put their names on petitions and
write letters can at least be strongly expressed. Perhaps it should be in a committee where people who have opposite views can come forward, and then they will begin to understand what Governments and we in Parliament have to face. I am sure all of us have received petitions with opposite positions on the same issue. We have to deal with that. I have in my office a lot of letters and several petitions from people in the City of Thunder Bay and the surrounding area who are very concerned about the National Film Board closing down its offices in my community. It is supposed to happen in September. I checked this and I find there are seven or eight other communities and the Members who represent those communities also have a bunch of petitions on the same subject. The Cities of Saskatoon, Thunder Bay, Hamilton, Chicoutimi, Sydney, and Kingston are all going to lose their NFB offices this fall if something is not done. The Film Board will save something like $200,000. The offices will be replaced by a Zenith telephone number, which is costly, ineffective, impersonal and so on.
I have discussed this with the Minister concerned and I think we are going to prevent that particular situation from happening. Those communities are not going to lose those offices. But the point is that it would be very effective if all the petitions dealing with that particular subject could be brought together at one particular point. In that way we could focus on the problem facing these communities. It may make sense from the point of view of the NFB to do this, but it may not make sense at all from the point of view of those communities or the country, certainly the Government, to have this happen. I know it does not.
It just happens that I have the names of those eight cities and I talked to about five of the members concerned, and I will get to the rest of them in the next few days. If those petitions went to one place, it would have a very significant effect in the sense that when they came to the particular committee, we could all go there and say we all feel strongly about this and we would be able to put the pressure on.
I would like to say in conclusion that I find this to be a very interesting Bill and I tend to support it because I can see a lot of good things happening. It seems to me that as our society becomes more complex-and nobody denies that is what is happening-and as the people in our society become more knowledgeable, given better education and so on, they begin to be much more cynical and they say "I want and demand" so and so. We in a representative democracy have to learn how we can bring those viewpoints together at some particular point. This is not the only way; there must be all kinds of things that we can think about. I hope the committee which is looking at changes of House rules will look very carefully at this kind of approach and others which would make the people in our country feel their Government is something that belongs to them and works for them. I welcome this kind of approach.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the Hon. Member's Bill C-642. I want to deal with it in the context of the history of a parliamentary democracy and
June 1, 1983	_______________COMMONS DEBATES_______________________25951
the operation of Parliament itself and the rights of citizens. The thrust of the Bill of the hon. gentleman is to see to it that something happens with a petition and a response is made to a petition of any one or more citizens of this country.
I suppose this is a matter which distresses all Hon. Members. It has been a rare occasion when Parliament has in fact dealt with or responded to a petition. I believe the Hon. Member cited a couple of occasions. 1 can recall one that had a massive impact on Members on all sides and which resulted in Government action. The Government chose to cite the petition as one of the reasons for its action. Many years ago, Hon. Members from the CCF Party presented a petition with respect to old age pensions, comprising approximately 150,000 to 200,000 signatures. The Government of the day, in subsequent months and years, in bringing about legislation concerning old age pensions, albeit inadequate, chose to cite the petition as being one of the reasons for doing it. That would be one of the rare examples where something resulted from the presentation of a petition.
[DOT] (mo)
Therefore, the question is: What is done with those petitions? I have been finding some interesting reading on the subject since I noticed the Hon. Member's Bill. I refer to "The People and the Constitution" by C.F. Emden, the second edition, at page 75, which states: "In December, 1679, Shaftesbury was astute enough to realize that petitions could be effectively used as a weapon in party warfare; and his Green Ribbon Club organized a vast campaign for the collection of signatures to petitions in favour of'-would Hon. Members believe it?-"the assembly of Parliament." This relates to some remarks made by the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. McRae). Of course, when there is an extra-large or a controversial issue before the nation, there will, of course, be an upsurge in petitions-I also say this for the benefit of the Chair, and of the Table Officers-there will be such an upsurge that it may well annoy the Chair or the Table Officers. It may well annoy the Government. It may well annoy the whole House of Commons. It may well annoy most of the country. However, in line with the hon. gentleman's Bill, I submit that the right to have some response to that petition is inviolable and is in place under Routine Proceedings in this Parliament and under our rules.
When Shaftesbury twigged on to this use of petitions as a weapon of warfare between Parties, on a political issue, it was in 1679. The next year, however, in spite of the annoyance and the massive upsurge in petitions about an assembly of Parliament, that same Parliament resolved the following:
-it is and ever hath been the undoubted right of the subjects of England to petition the King for the calling and sitting of Parliaments and the redressing of grievances.
C. F. Emden went on to state:
The Bill of Rights of 1688 maintained that "it is the right of subjects to petition the King, and all commitments and prosecutions for such petitioning are illegal". But it was still necessary to provide against disorder in the manner of presentation of petitions;-
Petitions to Parliament
The House of Commons, as far back as 1689 and 1699, presented a method of order in the presentation of petitions.
We have a method of order for the presentation of petitions under the Routine Proceedings of this Parliament. In fact, there is a method of order which is not included in our routine orders. Chambers Encyclopedia states this at pages 628 and 629:
Petition is a supplication preferred to one capable of granting it. The right of the British subject to petition the sovereign or either house of parliament for the redress of grievances is a fundamental principle of the British constitution and has been exercised from very early times.
By the way, a Canadian citizen is included in the term "British subject". It continues to read:
The practice of petitioning the house of commons first became frequent in the reign of Henry IV.
The following is what should perhaps be included in our Routine Proceedings:
A member of the House of Commons, having orally presented a petition, deposits it by placing it in a bag kept for the purpose at the back of the Speaker's chair. Petitions may be informally presented by members by placing them in this
bag.
If you look behind your Chair, Mr. Speaker, you will notice that there is no place for a bag in which to deposit petitions. In the present practice, we only go through the motions of petitioning, the right to petition, with the rare exceptions cited by the Hon. Member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger) and the one which I have cited. Even on those rare occasions when something has resulted from the presentation of a petition, the Government then cites those petitions because it suits its case, because it happens to suit the policy of the Government of the day. That is fair ball. I am not objecting to that.
That being the case and the practice, then I ask: What about answering petitions which do not agree with either the Government policy or the opinion of the House? What happens to them after they are presented? Concerning the automatic referral of a petition to an appropriate standing committee, first, as the Hon. Member proposes in his Bill, there would be a response of some kind from the Government within two weeks. The Government has the perfect right to accept or reject a petition of grievance or a request for redress, whether it conforms with or is opposed to Government policy. Actually, any Government of any Party would hasten to cite a petition in support of its case if it agreed with its policy. The question is, what is done with a petition if it does not agree with the policy of the Government or the views of the House? The petitioners are entitled to have something done with their petitions and to receive or reply to it. Even if they do not like the reply, they are entitled to it.
I would like to speak of the occurrence of several days ago and those others which have occurred from time to time when dealing with the Criminal Code amendments and other matters. From 1968 through to 1970, I remember our colleagues from le Ralliement des Creditistes rising in their places day after day with petitions on Criminal Code amendment respecting abortions. The House patiently heard them out. There were also such occasions during the time of the War

June 1, 1983
Petitions to Parliament
Measures Act, before and after, and there have been other occasions. They do not happen all that often. We have another one at the moment with regard to the statutory grain rates. No doubt there will be others with regard to the Cruise missile and other issues, such as capital punishment, gun control-you name it. On those occasions, even if there was a surplus of petitions, hundreds and thousands of pages, tens and hundreds of thousands of names, I have never seen or heard the accusation that citizens of our country or of Great Britain are abusing their right to petition. When they do it in massive volume, it is because of an issue of such extreme urgency and importance that thousands of individuals will collect the signatures of hundreds of thousands of others to petition Parliament. There is no room for the Chair, the Table Officers, the Government of the day or the House of Commons to interfere with the presentation of petitions under Routine Proceedings, however voluminous or numerous. We owe it to those who exercise their right to petition, even if it is only one citizen, that their petitions go to Parliament and are considered worthy of a response. They are worthy of a response even if it is only in the form of a letter to the petitioner from the appropriate Cabinet Minister, from the Government, or from the House of Commons. More particularly, it should be a response from a committee of the House of Commons. If nothing else, surely that is a matter of common courtesy.
Citizens do not lightly petition Parliament. We are all aware of how difficult it is to have citizens take a more continued interest in their own affairs and in their own Parliament. It is not likely that petitions will flood into Parliament, but they will on certain occasions.
It seems to me that this legislation not only enhances that historic right to petition Parliament but enlarges the responsibility of the Government of the day to respond to the petitioners with either an acceptance or a rejection in part or in whole. At least a response shows that those petitions were acted upon and did not lie on the shelves in the basement of this building or in a bag behind the Speaker's chair. Surely that would embellish that sacred right to petition the Crown through Parliament.
There will be those of shallow mind and intellect who will write editorials about obstructing Parliament. If the day ever comes that Parliament would construe the presentation of petitions by one or one million and one citizens, rightly or wrongly, as an obstruction of Parliament, the parliamentary democracy is in even greater jeopardy. I invite the House, the Chair and the Table Officers not only to reconsider the process of the presentation of petitions but to act upon referring the subject matter of the Hon. Member's Bill in the last minute of this Private Members' Hour to the appropriate standing committee. That committee can report back to the House with recommendations for changes to our Routine Proceedings, our rules and treatment of petitions. I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that this will enhance this ancient and honourable right as well as enhance this Parliament.


Mr. Maurice Harquail (Restigouche):: Mr. Speaker, I want to join other Members in congratulating the Hon. Member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger) for introducing Private Members Bill C-642 in the House. I can also understand and share in the raison d'etre for bringing this Bill forward this afternoon. It is linked to the word frustration. From time to time Hon. Members will raise matters in the House and appear not to receive the information that is deemed to be duly required. There is no question that the matter of petitions is very much at the heart of the operation of this institution. Indeed, petitions are referred to in the Orders of the Day and the Business of the House. When one reads the agenda, it includes Routine Business, Reports from Special or Standing Committees, Tabling of Documents, Statements by Ministers, and Petitions, followed by the balance of the agenda dealing with Government business.
There are other avenues open to Members, such as the daily Question Period, in order to make inquiries about matters relating to petitions in an attempt to elicit direct and specific responses from Ministers who are responsible for an issue relating to their Department. As well, there is the tabling of questions on the Order Paper, which is available to all Members. Members who are concerned about a specific matter may also use the proceedings on adjournment when they feel they may have not been successful in obtaining a full answer to a question dealing with a petition. They can raise that subject matter in the House at that time as provided for within our rules and procedures.
The purpose of the Hon. Member's Bill is to have this matter referred to the committee so that some teeth can be put into the procedures of bringing forward petitions. This is why I congratulated the Hon. Member for introducing the Bill. As other Members have mentioned, this legislation could provide a mechanism through which a direct response could be given to a petition in the House of Commons. I support that and applaud it. However, I feel there are other existing avenues which have been available to all Members with respect to the current special committee which is studying all aspects of the operations of the House of Commons. It is the Special Committee on Parliamentary Reform which is reviewing the operation, rules and procedures of the House of Commons.
Based on the effort that has gone into the preparation of Private Members' Bill C-642, it has been suggested that the Hon. Member should be encouraged to present his proposition to this Committee at the earliest opportunity so that it could be made aware of his concerns and his recommendations. He could attempt to convince the Committee to include the very items in his Bill in their recommendations to the House. Perhaps the Committee will agree with some of the provisions of the Bill, an Act respecting the presentation of petitions, such as Clause 4 which states:
When answer to a petition is made, the Member presenting the petition may, forthwith and without further debate, move that the subject matter of the petition stand refered to any committee of the Senate, House of Commons or both Houses of Parliament that may be established to study and report upon petitions.
June 1, 1983

Clause 5 states:
Every petition and answer shall be printed as an appendix or supplement to the Votes and Proceedings of the day on which it is presented or made.
Clause 3 states:
Within two weeks of the presentation of the petition to either House of Parliament, a statement in answer to it shall be made in the House by a Member of Her Majesty's Privy Council or by a Member of Parliament acting for him.
Part of this is already in place and can be done. As I said, the opportunity is provided in Question Period when a Minister responsible for a particular area can be questioned very closely for a response to what has been done about a specific request contained in a petition.
As previous speakers have stated this afternoon, I agree that there is no question we have all experienced frustrations and have directly suffered from the system. While Parliament is a great institution and our system is the best in the free world, they can always be improved. We are dedicated to working toward adopting acceptable improvements which will bring us into the 1980s so that we will be truly representative of the people and carry out the work they have entrusted us to do. There is no doubt that we must be ever conscious and aware of our responsibilities in this regard and take every opportunity to improve the process so that we have a more efficient and smoother system in terms of our parliamentary duties and activities.
1 have enumerated some of the opportunities which are already in place. They can be used by each and every Member of Parliament. Certainly these avenues can be utilized with respect to petitions. Of course there is always a need to give a word of caution. Whenever we are discussing topics such as the one relating to petitions, we know that there will always be abuse in our system. We have witnessed to date abuses in the House with respect to the motivations of petitions, the manner in which they have been obtained and the manner in which they have been presented to the House.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Be careful, or I will have a question of privilege.


Maurice James Harquail: I hear the Hon. Member commenting on what I have said. 1 did not interrupt him when he expressed his views. The Hon. Member will recall that he made reference to grain rates in his speech. Not long ago the New Democratic Party attempted to trample over the proceedings of the House, showing complete disrespect for the Speaker and for the rules of the House, by bringing in Crow petitions and acting totally contrary to the rules.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: The Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) is rising on a point of order.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a question of privilege, let alone a point of order. The Chair ruled several
Petitions to Parliament
days ago that Hon. Members in this corner of the House were perfectly entitled to present whatever number of petitions they had. I take exception to the Hon. Member calling that trampling on the rules or abusing the House of Commons. We did nothing more than exercise our rights, and this was confirmed by the Speaker. I would like the Hon. Member to recognize that and say so.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Did the Hon. Member rise on a question of privilege or a point of order?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I said both, just to be on the safe side.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: The matter he raised would be more aptly described as a point of order. Hon. Members, in referring to their other colleagues in the House, should be very careful not to impute motive or to suggest the same. Of course it would be against honourable parliamentary practice to proceed in that fashion. Therefore 1 caution all Hon. Members to be very careful in their choice of words in that respect.


Maurice James Harquail: Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with your remarks. I was not imputing anything and I never would. I was expressing an opinion. When the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) used his time in this democratic institution, I did not interrupt him. There is a possibility from time to time that interest groups will sign petitions, for whatever reason. We are free to judge their motives for bringing in petitions and drafting them. Who signs them and whether they are properly signed is left for us to judge.
Returning to my argument with regard to abuse, I must say that I invite the Hon. Member to participate in the debate. That is what this place is all about. If I give my view and the Hon. Member does not like it, he can debate it with me. I welcome that. It is exactly what we are supposed to do here. Let me remind the Hon. Member that the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) brought in a large obstacle; I do not know how to describe it. It was a painted crow.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: A piece of plywood.


Maurice James Harquail: He is an experienced Member of the House. He knew the rules. These were not his first days in the House of Commons, but I suggest with respect to petitions regarding grain rates, that he was, in whatever terminology one wants to use, trampling on, interfering with and abusing the rules of the House of Commons.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The Speaker dealt with that.


Maurice James Harquail: We cannot condone that; we cannot agree to it and allow it to happen. With all due respect to the New Democratic Party and with all due regard for its rights, we cannot go that far and allow its Members to do that. In our daily duties we have to be steadfast and be on watch to defend

June 1, 1983
Petitions to Parliament
and support the Chair so that this type of thing does not go on. This is what I meant when I said that we must be careful of the latitude we allow in the name of petitions.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. Pursuant to Standing Order 24(2), it is my duty to interrupt the
proceedings. There being no other item on the order of business for today, the Elouse stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 5.38 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, June 2, 1983