1983-10-28

STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21


Mr. Lee Clark (Brandon-Souris):: Madam Speaker, while farmers, particularly those in the West, are struggling just to survive, the federal Cabinet may actually approve a proposal which would serve to worsen the prairie producers' financial bind. As though it were not enough to propose huge increases in rail transportation costs over the next three years, the Government may now increase the cost of moving grain and other commodities along the St. Lawrence Seaway. Any such rate increase would be paid largely out of the pockets of prairie farmers. But these people absolutely cannot tolerate any further financial burdens.
Let me remind this House of the transportation costs western farmers already face. Collectively, farmers pay about $150 million each year to move their grain by rail. Under the Western Grain Transportation Act they will be compelled to pay an additional $219 million over the next three years. Add to that the $24 million which farmers currently contribute toward St. Lawrence Seaway tolls. Even a 5 per cent increase, which is within the Government's restraint guidelines, is asking too much. Indeed, Canadian farmers must be asking themselves where it will all end. Unfortunately for some of them it will end in bankruptcy, unless the Government wakes up to the serious financial problems facing Canada's farmers.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Roland de Corneille (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Madam Speaker, the fact is well known that Lebanon has for many years been a scene of civil war between warring factions. The fact that the heavily armed PLO has been implanted into Lebanon by the Syrians and Soviets is well known. That the PLO served as a force which finally destroyed any semblance of sovereignty and authority by the Government of Lebanon is also well known. That the PLO conducted a reign of terror over the people of Lebanon,
especially against the Christians and, armed with Soviet arms, used southern Lebanon as a base from which to conduct attacks against Israel is well known. That the PLO used Lebanon as a sanctuary and, under the pretense of the sovereign borders of Lebanon, used it as a shield from behind which to conduct its raids against Israel is well known.


Mr. Prud'homme:: What about Shamir?


Roland de Corneille: That the PLO and Syria have occupied and dominated Lebanon for years as occupying powers is well known. That Israel has tried to get protection, from the terrorist attacks, from the West is well known. That the presence of Israel in Lebanon is the only hope for a deal to eliminate foreign forces from Lebanon is well known.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Shamir is well known.


Roland de Corneille: Why then has our Department of External Affairs not moved in the past to condemn the presence of the parasite PLO in Lebanon and the Syrian invaders, and demanded the withdrawal of Syria and the PLO? Why is the double standard now once again applied against Israel? Condescending statements are made castigating Israel for its presence in Lebanon, and calling upon Israel to withdraw unilaterally from Lebanon. Madam Speaker, such an unfair, unrealistic, and bankrupt policy is a disgrace.


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Leeds-Grenville.


HOUSING
Mrs. Jennifer Cossitt (Leeds-Grenville):: Madam Speaker, contractors all across Canada are being solicited by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources to build and promote super energy efficient homes under the R-2000 Program. However, we have here yet another example of the blatant mismanagement of public funds in the operation of this Program.
The federal Government's official in Toronto who was assigned the duty of co-ordinating the R-2000 homes has provided very little of the agreed upon assistance for the builders despite their repeated attempts to get the Liberal Government to live up to its end of the contract. The assistance promised to them in promoting and selling the R-2000 homes has fallen far short of its goal. The advertising for the program was held up by the Minister himself up until two

October 28, 1983
weeks ago, and will not start appearing in local publications for yet another few weeks. These homes, built by persons more efficient than the Government officials running the program, have already been open for three or four weeks in some areas. Advertising and promotion assistance will be too late to enable those contractors to take full advantage of the Fall real estate market.
This Program, designed to spark new interest in energy efficiency, has instead degenerated into a bureaucratic nightmare for its participants and disappointment for Canadians who, once again, are the recipients of the Liberal Government's inefficiency. This is yet another example of why Canadians can no longer trust the Liberal Government, and substantiates the need for a general election.


NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Madam Speaker, when they hear the strange 1984 rhetoric of the arms race, intelligent people have great difficulty understanding what is happening. Today arms control is the new label used to sell the arms race. NATO plans to get rid of 1,400 old nuclear warheads at the same time as it is deploying new Pershing and Cruise missiles. In spite of rhetoric about arms control, this has nothing to do with disarmament. It is more like trading in a couple of old rust buckets for a new car. New missiles for old is not the path to peace and security.
[DOT] (mo)
Even though a majority of Canadians oppose testing the Cruise missile, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) agreed to the tests and suggested that somehow this would help the Geneva talks. In the United States, new chemical weapons and new missile systems are being justified in the name of arms control.
What our world needs for peace and security is not some phony kind of arms control, but genuine disarmament. No new weapons should be deployed by either NATO or Warsaw Pact countries. No new weapons should be tested by either side. Existing missiles on both sides should be dismantled. If the Prime Minister wants to give real leadership to world peace, let him begin by refusing the Cruise.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Andre Maltais (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Madam Speaker, I would like to take advantage of this opportunity to draw
the attention of the Minister of State for External Affairs to an adoption case. A year ago, Mr. Norman Richards, one of my constituents, was trying to adopt a young Haitian girl. After all kinds of bureaucratic delay at the Department of Employment and Immigration, the Immigration Appeal Board ruled that there was no objection to the girl being adopted by Mr. Richards of Blanc-Sablon. However, since July 27, the case has been sent back and forth by Department of Employment and Immigration, the Department of External Affairs and the Department of National Health and Welfare. Now, 90 days later, the girl is still in Haiti, at a time when the parents would have liked to have her in Canada so she could start the new school year.
I cannot imagine why our representative in Haiti cannot take steps to speed up the adoption proceedings. Since the Appeal Board had made its ruling, it seems to me that now, 90 days later, the bureaucracy should have been able to settle this matter. Madam Speaker, I am therefore appealing to the Minister of State for External Affairs for his help in ensuring that this matter will be settled by next week, because I find the present situation entirely unacceptable, both morally and emotionally.


WESTERN ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES CONFERENCE
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, at the Western Economic Opportunities Conference held in Calgary in 1973, Prime Minister Trudeau said, ". . . what the West wants is a fair deal-wider choice and opportunity within the West, and a fair chance to build a West which will be an integral part of a stronger and more prosperous Canada". Right on, Mr. Prime Minister! Why does he not practise what he preaches? Why is the Government handcuffing agriculture in the West with Bill C-155? Why are his actions not in conformity with his words?
The national energy policies all but destroyed our gas and oil industries. Bill C-155, if passed as is, will disadvantage almost every farmer in the West. Every producer will lose all freedom of choice. During the Prime Minister's tenure we have seen our hog, cattle and processing industries either reduced or moved East.
The recommendations in the Gilson Report gave us hope, but then the Government scrapped those recommendations. If the Prime Minister meant what he said in Calgary, he should amend Bill C-155 and turn to the Gilson proposals, or to the freedom of choice alternative suggested by the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski). He should not talk sweetly and then betray us.
October 28, 1983


EXCESSIVE PAYMENTS BY PROVINCES TO COMPANIES
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, it has now been confirmed by provincial Government spokesmen that provincial Governments and drug companies have arrangements which have resulted in the Provinces having paid out over $50 million in each of the last three years to the drug companies in excess of that which is necessary for the procurement of drugs for those who have received benefits through the drug programs of the Provinces. This has happened in each of the Provinces, with the exception of British Columbia and Saskatchewan.
I would like to suggest, Madam Speaker, that provincial Governments be more careful in the way they enter into those arrangements. We cannot afford to have this kind of overexpenditure take place continuously. In particular, we cannot afford to have it continue knowing that the Governments are fully aware that the expenditures are unnecessary. I would ask that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin), in any future negotiations with the various Provinces, keep this matter in mind, and attempt to negotiate a more satisfactory arrangement in order that we do not waste the dollars of the taxpayers of Canada.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (York-Peel):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to one of the Ministers of State dealing with external relations. Would the appropriate Minister explain to the House what the current situation is with respect to the Canadians who are still stranded on the island of Grenada, around whom there is now grave danger and whose lives may be in jeopardy?
Would the Minister indicate to the House why, 16 days after the overthrow of Prime Minister Bishop and ten days after this matter was first raised in the House, the Government has been so totally inept that it cannot arrange an airlift that is a shorter flight than from here to Toronto, about 35 to 40 minutes? What, in truth, is wrong?


Hon. Gerald Regan (Minister of State (International Trade)):: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member covers a broad period of time with his series of questions. I will try to deal with them very briefly.
First, for a period of the time covered by the Hon. Member's question there was no desire expressed on the part of Canadians to leave the island. Then there was a period of time
Oral Questions
when the airport was closed during the chaos and it was not possible to do so. Canadian officials went into the island and contacted our nationals, and for those who indicated they wished to leave, arrangements were being made last weekend. At that time permission was received from the Grenadian authorities for Canadian aircraft or another aircraft to carry out the Canadians. Charter arrangements were made for a 48-seat aircraft to do that. That would have happened last Monday if there had not been last minute interventions by some of the countries that owned the airline which, in the confusion of the time, believed that they did not want their aircraft going into Grenada.
When that was straightened out by Prime Minister Charles of Dominica with her helpful intervention, it was too late into the day on Monday for the flight and the rescue attempt to take place. The invasion intervened, making it impossible to take place on the following morning, and American military authorities, who have been in charge of the airport since that time, have not been able to facilitate the combination of a time when the Canadian Hercules would be allowed to land and a time when it would be safe to escort the Canadians to the airport.
My position is that 1 want every opportunity for the Canadians to be removed as long as that can be done safely. But 1 have very firmly said that 1 do not want any attempt to bring the Canadians to the airport if that cannot be done safely, and if their lives would be endangered in doing so.
After consultation with the Americans during last night, we arranged that the Hercules went in this morning and landed at 7.10 to drop off two Canadians officials, Mr. Michael Daniel and Mr. David Brisco, whose task it is today and tomorrow, if necessary, to find and contact the Canadians who are on the island, who wish to leave, and attempt to have them brought safely to the airport.
1 can say further that most of the group who had been at the Ross Point Inn have dispersed to other locations, making it more difficult. I am not aware of the premise of the Hon. Member that any of the Canadians are in any danger. The state of military operations on the island is such that there is little danger unless one seeks to move on the open highway. That is the situation. It is a matter of sniper activity from settled areas on high ground. We are in the position-


Madam Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Minister might have another chance to answer other questions.


NOTIFICATION OF CANADIAN CITIZENS
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. Would he indicate to the House why the Government did not simply alert the Canadians that the Hercules aircraft was landing this morning and that, if they would be available at the airport, they could be brought back to Barbados? Second, now that he has referred to the sniper fire in which Canadians

October 28, 1983
Oral Questions
have been caught, will the Minister assure the House that none of the Canadians were injured?


Gerald Augustine Regan: Madam Speaker, I am not aware of any Canadians being caught in sniper fire. I also want to say the attitude of the Hon. Member in suggesting we should have contacted the Canadians during the night to tell them to be at the airport this morning is a relatively naive appreciation of the situation on the island with respect to communications. There is chaos, and there is not a regularly operating telephone system.


Mr. McDermid:: You were warned about it.


Gerald Augustine Regan: There are many difficulties in even getting straight answers from the American authorities at the airport, who are preoccupied with matters other than the evacuation.


Mr. Lawrence:: Welcome to the club.


Gerald Augustine Regan: I want to say that once the Hercules went in this morning we could not have it wait to take the Canadians out because there is no parking room on the apron available to be assigned to this Canadian aircraft. The Americans instead have given us blanket approval to take the Hercules back in at any time, or on successive occasions, when groups of Canadians have been safely conveyed to the airport.
That is the situation. If the Hon. Member has ever had any connection with or any knowledge of a military operation, only then perhaps would he have an appreciation of the degree of confusion at the airport.


REQUEST THAT STANDING COMMITTEE BE CONVENED
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, in view of the continuing answers that we are getting from the Government demonstrating its ineptitude, may I put my question to the Chairman of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence? Would the Chairman immediately convene that Committee with a view to framing the Committee's own reference to look into the situation in Grenada and to find out why this airlift has been so ineptly handled and, second, why was Canada shut out of any meaningful knowledge of what has now transpired, bearing in mind that if the Government did not know about the entry in Grenada, even the Sunday Times last Sunday headlined it for the people of Britain to see? Would the Chairman respond to those two requests?


Marcel Prud'homme: Madam Speaker, it is well known when the Official Opposition and the third Party in this House express wishes as to other references for my Committee, I always consider their requests very seriously. I, therefore, intend very strongly to consider the possibility of at least calling the Steering Commitee to see what should be our next order of reference.
The Hon. Member for York-Peel, the critic for Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, knows very well that since the last days of June 1 already had an order of reference prepared. 1 was waiting for the end of this session so that in the very early days of the next session I could call my colleague from the Official Opposition and my colleague in the New Democratic Party to consider having as an order of reference a subject that is very apropos when we consider what the future will be in Grenada, namely, the peace-keeping operation, and more particularly, our role in Cyprus. I will, therefore, consider that for the weekend and advise, according to the rules of the House, my colleagues in both Parties in the Opposition.


OFFER OF PEACE-KEEPING CONTINGENT
Mr. John Bosley (Don Valley West):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible at the moment for the Grenadian affair. In view of the proposals made yesterday in this House by the Prime Minister, has Canada to date made a formal offer to participate in a peace-keeping force in Grenada? If so, when, and to whom was that proposal made?
Hon. Gerald Regan (Minister of State (International
Trade)): Madam Speaker, subsequent to the Prime Minister's statement yesterday that Canada would be prepared to participate under appropriate conditions in a Commonwealth force that might have a post-hostility role in the island of Grenada, on the instructions of the Prime Minister I spoke with Mr. Ramphal, Secretary General of the Commonwealth, who had originally called for a possible role for the Commonwealth. I indicated to him that Canada approved of his initiative and that, if such a force is found to be useful and is constituted, Canada would be prepared to participate and that Canada would be prepared to be of assistance in consultation with other Commonwealth countries, if the Secretary General so desired.


John William Bosley: Madam Speaker, 1 thank the Minister for his answer.


PROVISION OF MEDICAL SUPPLIES
John William Bosley: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister. Is Canada giving any consideration at the moment to what other assistance it might provide to Grenada, for instance, medical supplies? In fact, would such arrangements be made by the Government potentially through NGOs like Red Cross? Has Canada asked the Americans to deliver such supplies to the island on our behalf, since we are so inept at managing aircraft with regard to Grenada?
Hon. Gerald Regan (Minister of State (International
Trade)): Madam Speaker, if I may start with the last part of the Hon. Member's question first, I suggest that we have not been inept but have placed aircraft at the nearest position where they can be helpful. It is not we but the Americans who are in control of the airstrip. We also feel that only when
October 28, 1983

people can be safely conveyed is it wise to have them airlifted from Grenada.


Mr. Forrestall:: Use a boat.


Gerald Augustine Regan: In relation to emergency assistance, once hostilities cease we would very sympathetically examine any requirements for emergency assistance. The fact that Canada is now and has been at all relevant times represented on the ground by a representative of Cl DA, and now by other officials of our High Commission in Barbados, we are in a good position to appraise the type of assistance which might be required and how it could best be delivered.


INFORMATION PROVIDED BY PRIME MINISTER OF BARBADOS- TRANSMITTAL TO OTTAWA
Mr. Terry Sargeant (Selkirk-Interlake):: Madam Speaker, I, too, would like to direct a question to the Minister of State for International Trade who acknowledged in the House yesterday that on last Friday evening at about eight o'clock, three and a half days before the Grenadian invasion, the Canadian High Commissioner to Barbados, Noble Power, met with Prime Minister Adams of Barbados to seek his assessment of the Caribbean situation. At that meeting Prime Minister Adams told Mr. Power that the only solution was a military intervention. Could the Minister tell the House whether or not the results of that meeting, this assessment of Prime Minister Adams, was passed immediately on to Ottawa?
Hon. Gerald Regan (Minister of State (International
Trade)): Madam Speaker, for the Hon. Member to understand what occurred on Friday it might be useful to recount that Canadian High Commissioners in the region were instructed to contact the Prime Ministers to discuss the Grenadian situation with them, particularly in respect to what they intended to do or not do with reference to recognition of any new or interim government that existed within the chaos on the island. That discussion occurred between Mr. Noble Power, our High Commissioner in Barbados, and Mr. Adams. The discussion covered a number of matters in relation to the situation.
According to Mr. Power's report, in the course of that discussion one item mentioned by Mr. Adams was that it might be necessary for the eastern Caribbean states to consider the possibility of a military intervention. He specifically said that this was a matter which had not been discussed at a meeting of the other States, that it would have to be so discussed, that of course no decision therefore had been taken, and that there was no mention whatsoever of any American involvement.


REACTION OF CANADIAN GOVERNMENT
Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: The Minister did not answer my specific question as to whether or not this information was immediately passed on to Ottawa. I would like to ask the Minister again whether that happened. If so, if
Oral Questions
this information was passed on to Ottawa immediately, what kind of action did Canada take? Did we take immediate diplomatic action, such as calling our allies in Washington, in London, and in other Commonwealth capitals, notably in the Caribbean, to let them know, and 1 quote the Prime Minister who said in the House on Tuesday, that Canada was not in the habit of supporting invasions of other countries. If we did not take any action over the weekend on this, why not?


Gerald Augustine Regan: Madam Speaker, our allies are well aware of the fact that Canada is not accustomed to supporting military interventions. In addition, I think the Hon. Member would be quick to agree that a military invasion purportedly to be undertaken by the eastern Caribbean states on their own does not sound to be the world of reality at all, because of the very limited facilities that those people have for transportation of military people and also the lack of military forces that exists in those countries.
This was a question of an appraisal of a type that the Hon. Member would have made, about one comment made by Tom Adams. Had there been any mention of the use of forces from other countries, or of any serious intention to take action in that regard, I think the reaction would have been quite different. However, in view of the circumstances, the reaction was one that I consider to have been appropriate.


AIRLIFTING OF CANADIANS-REQUEST FOR AMERICAN ASSISTANCE
Mr. Bill McKnight (Kindersley-Lloydminster):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for International Trade. Why is the Government so reluctant, and what does it find repugnant about asking the Americans to assist in taking Canadians off the island of Grenada? They have the forces, the facilities, and the craft. Why will the Government not ask the Americans to assist in taking Canadians off the island with their own aircraft?


Gerald Augustine Regan: Madam Speaker, we are anxious for the Canadians who wish to leave the island to be moved to safety by any means whatsoever. We said to the Americans that we have a Hercules aircraft immediately available that has as its sole priority the removal of Canadians and any other people who want to come along with them on the aircraft. The Americans said that they would undertake to evacuate the Canadians, but they have not said when, and what priority that would receive. Members will recall that the American aircraft that are there have other priorities of a military nature. Ours has the sole priority of immediately removing Canadians as soon as they can be available at the airport. That is the distinction.

October 28, 1983
Oral Questions


TRANSMITTAL OF BARBADIAN INFORMATION TO OTTAWA
Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: Madam Speaker, 1 come back to the Minister of State for International Trade and ask him very simply the same question that I have now asked twice. Was the information that High Commissioner Power received from Prime Minister Adams on Friday night passed on to Ottawa, and when was it passed on to Ottawa?


Gerald Augustine Regan: Madam Speaker, the report of the discussion that Mr. Power had with Prime Minister Adams covering all of the items discussed was passed on to Ottawa. It was passed on in the course of the weekend. I would have to check to find out the exact hour.
If Hon. Members will be quiet and patient, I will frankly and honestly tell them what we know. The report of his discussion was passed on to Ottawa, as is the practice. It was not passed on with any apprehension of any early military action on behalf of eastern Caribbean countries. There was mention of this remark by Tom Adams, but also many other matters that Tom Adams had discussed. I suggest for the Member to picture that Tom Adams talked only about the possibilities, at some definite time in the future, of eastern Caribbean countries considering the possibility of a military action, was something not given the high profile in the discussion by Tom Adams that he is now suggesting.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Employment and Immigration, who has momentarily left the Chamber, perhaps I can direct my question to the Minister of Finance. In a document on the economy prepared by the Ministry of State for Economic Development last February, and released through Freedom of Information, there appears this interesting comment:
Large numbers of unemployed workers in major urban centres, especially young people, are presenting a dramatically different series of problems for which we are by and large unprepared.
Given the fact that youth unemployment in Canada has been hovering around 20 per cent for the past 15 months, and in light of the warnings and advice that were given to the Government in the report of the Ministry of State in February, why have there been no initiatives in the last nine months to deal with this matter? Why must we wait for another Speech from the Throne? Why, in the name of a half million young Canadians unemployed, can this Government not act now?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, this statement by the Hon, Member is rather unbelievable. He quotes a document that was prepared last February, before the budget. It was part of the preparation of the budget that was released last April. I do not know where my friend has
been for the last nine months, but he should remember that in April we had a budget which contained a very large amount of economic stimulus. It provided incentives to the economy of about $4.8 billion. It provided additional funds for the purpose of direct job creation, as well as providing large incentives to the private sector to create jobs.
The Hon. Member knows that since last November Canada has been creating jobs at a faster rate than any other industrial country in the world. This has happened since last November as a result of the recovery taking place in North America and also with the policies and incentives provided by the Government of Canada in the last budget. We have taken steps to ensure that our policies try to deal with the problems as they develop, and try to foresee the problems that are coming. The Minister of Employment and Immigration indicated that, now that the level of unemployment among adults seems to be coming down relatively fast, we must give even more attention to the problem of youth unemployment. He said he will be addressing this question more particularly in the next few months.


REQUEST FOR IMMEDIATE INITIATIVES TO CREATE JOBS
James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, I do not know where the Minister has been because, when he brought down his budget, he provided $90 million for
31.000	jobs for young people at a time when there were
600.000	young people unemployed, a time when the unemployment rate among young people was averaging 20 per cent over the previous 12 months. Why have there been no new initiatives, given the warnings back in February and the warnings by the Minister of Employment and Immigration who, incidentally, must agree with this because he was musing on the weekend about new initiatives, but these new initiatives will not come about until the Speech from the Throne. If there are to be new initiatives, in the name of all of these unemployed young Canadians, why cannot these new initiatives be taken now?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, very simply, my hon. friend should realize that when the Government provided $4.8 billion of incentives in the last budget, these incentives were not provided by saying that the young people cannot have access to them. That money has created incentives in the economic system in Canada to help all Canadians-adults, the young, males and females. The Hon. Member is completely distorting the fact when he contends that the only amount added for job creation among young people was $90 million over and above the hundreds of millions of dollars that were already allocated for the young people.
My hon. friend has to look at the total impact of the budget on job creation in this country which is available for young people as well as for adults. The Hon. Member should realize these facts.
As I indicated in my previous answer, the Minister is also considering whether there are additional steps that can be
October 28, 1983

taken to deal with the very serious problem of youth unemployment. This is what he has been actively working on.
I have another suggestion for my hon. friend. If he is that concerned about unemployment and jobs for young Canadians, he should encourage his Party and the New Democratic Party to vote for the Crow legislation which will create 370,000 jobs in this country and create $35 billion in sales for this country.


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Mr. Len Gustafson (Assiniboia):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. I would like to know how he intends to create jobs by bankrupting farmers. The Government now has in its hand over $1.1 billion of the farmers' money for grain sold. In the western Grain Stabilization Fund it has between $800 million and $900 million. Will the Government make an interim payment of the farmers' money before the end of the year? It might create some jobs.


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, in response to the rhetorical question that was posed by the Hon. Member, the way that you create jobs is by building a new railway to move the farmers' product to export markets so it can be sold and they can make money.


Some Hon. Members:: Right on.


Lloyd Axworthy: If he does not know those basic economics then he should change his seat.
On the second part of the question, the Hon. Member knows very well that just last week the Minister of State responsible for the Wheat Board announced new payments on barley coming out of that particular program. We have indicated that we are reviewing the Grain Stabilization Program. There is a legislative requirement that payments be based on a five-year average. No Government can overcome that particular requirement under the statute. However, we are reviewing it to determine whether there can be a new formula determined. Rather than sitting and making great speeches about it, the Hon. Member might be prepared to adopt such measures when and if they are brought forward.


FARMERS'CASH FLOW PROBLEMS
Leonard J. Gustafson: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Minister knows that I referred directly to the grain sold. The Minister also knows that when we were in Government we made interim payments.


Madam Speaker:: The question.


Leonard J. Gustafson: Is the Minister going to play politics with the farmers' money and make a large payment just before the
Oral Questions
election, or is he going to alleviate the cash flow problems they have right now?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, as always we will make the decision at the most prudent time.


CANADIAN TRANSPORT COMMISSION
Mr. Robert Bockstael (St. Boniface):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. On September 27 the Minister asked the Canadian Transport Commission to hold public hearings on domestic air policy following the events relating to discount fares by Canadian airlines. He pointed out that there would be a counsel appointed by the Minister of Justice to represent the public interest. Could the Minister inform the House when this appointment will take place?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, first I am pleased to report to the House that the Canadian Transport Commission has decided to hold such hearings, the first of which will take place on November 15. Second, the Minister of Justice has agreed to my request and has appointed Mr. Morris Kaufman as special counsel to represent the public interest at those hearings.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. On Wednesday he announced a policy making it easier for entrepreneurs to immigrate to Canada. Is the Minister aware of the situation in Hong Kong where a number of Canadian lawyers and so-called immigration consultants, mainly from Vancouver and Toronto, are operating out of expensive hotel suites in Hong Kong, issuing misleading newspaper advertisements, and exploiting Hong Kong business people with exorbitant fees of up to $15,000 a case for simply filling out forms, which can be done for free at the Canadian High Commission?


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Yes, Madam Speaker, I have heard something to that effect of the activities of these so-called consultants, although not in the detail which the Hon. Member has described. It is difficult for us to restrict the kind of advertisements which may appear outside of the country. It is extremely unfortunate that this is taking place. We have arranged to station an increased number of officers abroad to handle the applications of the entrepreneur class which we are seeking to expand.

October 28, 1983
Oral Questions
When we see such advertisements or activities of this kind in Canada we do investigate them with a view to seeing whether action under the Immigration Act to stop them is appropriate.
I very much regret the activities that he is describing taking place. These consultants cannot provide better information or better access than that which is provided by the officers of my Department.


APPLICATION OF GOVERNMENT'S POLICY
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister. He might also want to know that the embassy has even countered some advertisements which claim that for $250,000 you can get into Canada.
A number of immigration consultants and lawyers, including the Hon. Minister's predecessor, Ron Atkey, the Conservative Minister, have been to Hong Kong to take advantage of this bonanza business. Does the Minister think that our immigration policy, which favours business investment over family reunification, can lead to inequalities, and encourages these sharks to go to Hong Kong and say that you can in fact buy your way into Canada, at a time when the Hong Kong people are very uneasy over the renewal of the British treaty with China? Is not the policy itself inherently inequitable when it leads to this kind of situation?


John (Moody) Roberts: No, Madam Speaker, I do not think so, for two reasons which I would like to underline. First, it is not true that anyone can buy their way into Canada. It is possible, using the entrepreneurial class, for people to come to Canada bringing investment and their administrative skills. However, there are qualifications which are attached to that, requirements which they must meet in terms of the amount of money they invest, their participation in the enterprise, and the creation of jobs.
The second point which I would like to emphasize to the Hon. Member is that in the announcement of the desirable levels of immigration quotas, we have not reduced the size of the family entrance group. There has not been an increase of projected numbers in the entrepreneurial class at the expense of family reunification. I hope that is understood. I think that the assumptions which he presented in his question are not entirely accurate and would not lead to the conclusion that there is an injustice in the way in which the system is operating.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Tom McMillan (Hillsborough):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. The national economic analysis prepared by the federal Minister of State for Economic and Regional Expansion,
which has been referred to by my colleague from St. John's East, states clearly that current federal job training efforts in Prince Edward Island are "largely directed at off-Island employment opportunities".
According to the Government's own information and analysis, such programs rob the Island of its skilled young people in favour of other parts of Canada. What specific steps is the Minister prepared to take to correct this most serious deficiency in job-creation programs and job-training programs at the federal level?


John (Moody) Roberts: Madam Speaker, the report to which the Hon. Member is referring is one which dates back to last February and I therefore am not sure that the description which he cites is entirely accurate or appropriate to circumstances which we now face. He posed his question originally in terms of Prince Edward Island and then concluded with a more general question. 1 will write specifically about the Prince Edward Island situation.
We do have the Skills Growth Fund and other programs which are oriented towards creating the technological skills which he touched upon in his question. I have said to the House in the past that we have been a little bit disappointed in the take-up of some of those programs over the last year or so, since the private sector has been unwilling to accept the overhead costs which are implied in those programs. Our anticipation is that with the continuation of the recovery and the strengthening of the economy the private sector will be more anxious to take advantage of those programs which we have put in place. That is the general answer to his question, and I will return to him more specifically on the question of Prince Edward Island.


SUGGESTED CO-ORDINATION OF PROJECTS
Thomas Michael McMillan: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the same Minister. The same Government analysis to which I have made reference states that the major federal projects in Prince Edward Island have been poorly scheduled leading to "over-expansion in boom periods followed by over-capacity and unemployment". Given the millions of dollars which the federal Government is spending on Prince Edward Island on such projects as the national headquarters for DVA, the Charlottetown airport, the convention centre, and other programs, how does the Minister propose to co-ordinate those different projects to ensure maximum advantage to the local economy, especially to workers in the construction industry?


John (Moody) Roberts: Madam Speaker, I am a little bit puzzled. I am not sure whether the Hon. Member is suggesting that it would have been preferable if those projects had not proceeded. It is my impression that those projects are both active and of benefit to the Prince Edward Island economy. There are continuing discussions between the Government of Prince Edward Island
October 28, 1983

and the Government of Canada, under the auspices of my colleague, the Minister for Regional and Economic Expansion, about the co-ordination of development activities generally on the part of our two Governments to ensure that the programs of one are coherent with those of the other. If it is the question of the mechanisms by which that co-ordination takes place, it might be best if the Hon. Member directed that question to my colleague.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Doug Lewis (Simcoe North):: Madam Speaker, I believe if the Minister would check his documents he might find it was the summer of 1983 document, not February of 1983.
My question is directed to the Minister of Finance. The same Government documents confirm that high interest rates impact upon consumer and business confidence, consumption, and capital spending in the housing industry. Why was it that during the recession the Liberal Party adopted a policy to induce high interest rates?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the Government did not adopt a policy during the last recession. My honourable friend is mistaken.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: The "Economic Development Perspective" says high interest rates have been policy-induced.


CAPITAL FOR SMALL BUSINESS
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, I would like to go on and, using the same document, ask the Minister of Finance another question. The report goes on to state that one of the major constraints to growth as the economy moves out of the recession will be the availability of capital on favourable terms. What specific action is the Government taking to guarantee capital to small business, to farmers especially, on favourable terms?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, my hon. friend should read the document carefully and realize that indeed the high interest rates resulted from the situation determined and guided by United States policy. The Hon. Member knows that. This is recognized all around the world. This has been the subject of discussions at the International Monetary Fund meetings, at the World Bank meetings, at the Williamsburg summit and, as a matter of fact, at the summit at Montebello last year. My hon. friend will remember that this very issue of high interest rates in the United States
Ora! Questions
was discussed extensively because it was creating ripple effects around the world, including in Canada.
As far as the second part of the question is concerned, I remind my hon. friend again that in the last budget I provided about $2.4 billion of incentives to the private sector, particularly small business. These measures which were contained in the budget had a bias in favour of small business, whether in the area of research and development or in the area of general financing.
I remind the Hon. Member also that we have a program of small business loans. My hon. friend may not know that the majority of these small business loans, as a matter of fact, go to farmers. So we have a program therefore under small business loans which is available to farmers as well as to small business, which has met with great success.


INCOME TAX
Mr. Charles Mayer (Portage-Marquette):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. The Minister will know that this week the Federal Court has ruled that a farmer can deduct farm losses against income earned off the farm. This court case came about as a result of the insidious way some of the Minister's bureaucrats have been interpreting Section 31 of the Income Tax Act. Would the Minister be prepared to treat this case as a precedent-setting case, and instruct his Department to interpret that section of the Act in line with the way the Federal Court has just ruled?
[ Translation]


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of National Revenue):: Madam Speaker, very recently, yesterday in fact, we received the judgment in the case of Graham vs the Crown. Obviously, before drawing any conclusions with respect to policy or the Department's administrative practices, we shall have to make an in-depth study within the Department of this judgment and also consult with officials of the Department of Justice, to find out the scope of the judgment and what repercussions it might have on the policies referred to by the Hon. Member and on administrative practice as it relates to Section 31 of the Income Tax Act.


DEPARTMENT'S TREATMENT OF FARMERS
Charles James Mayer: Madam Speaker, I thank the Minister for that answer. However, surely the very least we could expect is that in the meantime, when the Department is carrying out a re-evaluation and looking at the "ambit", to use the Minister's word, the Minister would be prepared to instruct his Department to cease from prosecuting and collecting money in the very insidious way his Department is interpreting those rules. Will the Minister instruct his

October 28, 1983
Oral Questions
Department that the evaluators must cease collections and cease harassing farmers under that section of the Act?


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, I do not think we can conclude on the basis of a single judgment that all cases covered by Section 31 of the Act are similar to the case involved here. It will be necessary to consider the nature of the case, the scope of the judgment and also whether present policy and practice should be revised, and that is the exercise we shall be conducting in the weeks to come.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, I would like to go back to the question of Grenada, with the Minister of State for International Trade. Is there any possible or reasonable explanation of why our High Commissioner, having been told by the Prime Minister of Barbados that the only solution as he saw it was military intervention, did not consider that to be of some vital importance and did not recognize the necessity to inform the Government of Canada that this was in the minds of those people in the Caribbean? As a result of that we were unable to move to safeguard our people in Grenada and, more important, we were unable to move to try to intervene and stop the proposed aggression.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Madam Speaker, in answer to-the last related question, 1 can now tell you that the telex from Mr. Noble Power was received Friday evening at approximately 8 p.m. That telex did not portray events as the Hon. Member suggests. If the Hon. Member wants to make a judgment as to what was said in the conversation between Mr. Power and Tom Adams, I would like to tell him that the absolute and final answer as to the accuracy of what Mr. Power reported is the fact that, subsequent to the invasion, Prime Minister Tom Adams has apologised to Canada for the fact that it was not possible to consult, that it was not possible to have told us what was going to happen-


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Why?


Gerald Augustine Regan: -and if indeed what he had suggested was such that it was going to indicate to Canadians the urgent possibility of military intervention, then Tom Adams would not have found it necessary to have apologised after the fact for the situation in which Canada was not consulted.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Why could he not tell us?


Gerald Augustine Regan: Events moved so fast and security was of such paramount importance that it became almost impossible to consult.


GOVERNMENT'S ACTIONS FOLLOWING RECEIPT OF INFORMATION
Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. Now that we understand that the Government of Canada had in its possession the communique from our High Commissioner indicating that there was the possibility of armed intervention, why did the Government of Canada not take steps right then and there, immediately, to contact our allies-


Marc Lalonde: Do not be ridiculous.


Ian Deans: -in order to try to find a way to stop that before it occurred?


Gerald Augustine Regan: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member must remember that the Opposition cannot have it both ways.


Ian Deans: I can have it the way I am asking.


Gerald Augustine Regan: It cannot say on one hand that we were consulted and therefore we should have done something, then, on the other hand, say we were not consulted because we were not trusted.


Ian Deans: Answer my question.


Gerald Augustine Regan: We either were or were not. The Opposition had better get its story together. That is the first thing I want to say.
The next thing I would like to say to the Hon. Member is that the problem is in his question, not in our answers. He continually says that we were told there was a possibility of an invasion. That is not the case at all. What Tom Adams said to Noble Power was that some of the eastern Caribbean states were interested in the possibility of a military intervention. It had not been discussed by them at any meeting. This was just one of the possibilities. Surely the Hon. Member is not going to try seriously to portray to the Canadian people that he believes there was a potential for the eastern Caribbean countries to carry out an invasion by sea or air.


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Yukon on a supplementary.


Mr. Nielsen:: Madam Speaker, I have a point of order.


Madam Speaker:: I am sorry, I thought the Hon. Member was rising to ask a question. Points of order are not entertained during Question Period and I had intended, because there are a few here who are asking for supplementary questions, I presume on this matter of Grenada-


Mr. Kilgour:: Yes.
October 28, 1983


Madam Speaker:: Very well. The Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona.


CANADA'S RELATIONS WITH CARIBBEAN STATES
David Kilgour: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for External Relations. Will the Minister not agree that the events of the last week show that Canada was trusted with respect to Grenada by neither the Caribbean states nor the United States? Will he not agree that the lesson is that if you try to ride all horses simultaneously, you end up being trusted by none? Will he also tell us why the Minister responsible for international trade is responding to questions on this subject rather than himself?


Gerald Augustine Regan: Madam Speaker, I am responding to questions on this matter as Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs. In relation to what the Hon. Member has said, surely, Madam Speaker, he is perceptive enough to know the reason we were not consulted was because of the fact we are known to be a country which is seeking peace and is hesitant about becoming involved in any military intervention.
1 point out to the Hon. Member through you, Madam Speaker, that once there had been a meeting of the Caricom nations, and once Trinidad and Belize indicated their opposition to military intervention, even though Trinidad is the nearest possible country to Grenada and it was not consulted, no one was consulted except those countries in the area which had already indicated they were in favour of an invasion. They did not want to consult with anyone who was going to slow down the process or ask that remedies other than an invasion be carefully examined.


TEXTOFTELEX COMMUNICATION FROM BARBADOS
J. Michael Forrestall: Madam Speaker, first of all would the Minister be kind enough to facilitate the House by the tabling of the telex to which he referred? Also, who in fact is not telling the truth? He or Prime Minister Tom Adams, whom I have known for a long time, and his father before him, is an honourable man. He says he did advise our High Commissioner in Barbados that military intervention seemed to be the only answer.


Mr. Pepin:: By whom?


J. Michael Forrestall: Tell us who in fact is telling the truth. The Minister or Mr. Adams?


Gerald Augustine Regan: Madam Speaker, 1 have known Tom Adams for a long while. He was on my committee when I was chairman of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. I have a very high regard for Prime Minister Tom Adams. 1 do not think it is a question of who is telling the truth. 1 want to tell the Hon. Member to read the different versions of the New Testament by the different Apostles.
OraI Questions


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gerald Augustine Regan: He will see how different people recollect the same situation in different ways, and from different perspectives. I suggest that what you have here is a situation that in a discussion Noble Power had occasion, as our High Commissioner, to note carefully, as High Commissioners are trained to do, the contents of the discussion and report them immediately. That is contrasted with Tom Adams' recollection a few days later, after the very important other matters he had been involved in as a participant in the invasion.


Mr. Mulroney:: Madam Speaker-


Madam Speaker:: I will be lenient because it is the Leader of the Opposition, but I must tell him in advance that I have to allow only one question because Question Period is over.


REQUEST THAT TELEX BE TABLED
Martin Brian Mulroney: Madam Speaker, St. Francis of Assisi may never recover from what the hon. gentleman just said. Lent is coming in a hurry, and there is going to be a lot of penance on the other side to be paid for this kind of answer.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: The Minister made specific reference to an important telex in which an officer of this Government was apprised of an important fact by the Prime Minister of Barbados. Will he table that and related documents in the House immediately, so that Members of this House can pass an objective judgment as to which of the Apostles is telling the truth?


Gerald Augustine Regan: Madam Speaker, I would have thought that the Right Honourable-excuse me, the Leader of the Opposition-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: You are right.


John Horton McDermid: It is coming.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Madam Speaker, I had in mind that the previous Leader of the Opposition was Right Honourable. May I say I would have thought that the Leader of the Opposition, from his education at St. Francis Xavier University, would have learned that St. Francis was not one of the Apostles.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I never suggested he was.


Gerald Augustine Regan: I have to say that I am somewhat shocked. I knew the Honourable Leader was deficient in some other knowledge, but I thought he might have known that. I think it is more likely that he is here portraying the doubter, Saint Thomas.

October 28, 1983
Point of Order-Mr. Nielsen
1 say to the Hon. Member that reports by High Commissioners and Ambassadors to the Government, as the Hon. Member will perhaps learn after some time here, are not the type of documents customarily tabled in the House.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: You read from it.


Gerald Augustine Regan: I certainly did not read from it, whatsoever.


John Horton McDermid: You did so.


Gerald Augustine Regan: The Hon. Member can contend that I did. I am saying that I did not read from it.


Madam Speaker:: Order. Will the Hon. Minister come to the point because, as I said before, it is past the hour.


Gerald Augustine Regan: I say to the Hon. Member that I believe the appropriate and prudent course for me in such a situation would be to bring his request to the attention of the Secretary of State for External Affairs-


John Horton McDermid: Wherever he is.


Gerald Augustine Regan: -who returns to Canada tomorrow.


Erik Nielsen: Point of Order-


Madam Speaker:: I will put an end to Question Period before I entertain a point of order in the way that I sometimes do when I have reports of petitions, and 1 certainly have some today.
V *	*


PETITIONS
Madam Speaker:: With the exception of 11 petitions, I have the honour to report to the House that the petitions presented by Hon. Members yesterday meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form. Those who do not meet the requirements as to form are the following: two presented by the Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen), two presented by the Hon. Member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Patterson); two presented by the Hon. Member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight); one by the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski); one by the Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong); one by the Hon. Member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers); one by the Hon. Member for Erie (Mr. Fretz); and one by the Hon. Member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gustafson).



POINTS OF ORDER


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I do not believe the Minister has the luxury of hiding the telex from the
High Commissioner to Barbados, which he is attempting to do. We all saw the Minister, in response to questions, quoting at some length from that telex, if he says-and we must accept his word in this House-that he was not reading from the document, he certainly referred to it at some considerable length. I would like to draw to the Chair's attention Citation 327 of the Fifth Edition of Beauchesne which stipulates that:
A Minister of the Crown is not at liberty to read or quote from a despatch or other state paper not before the House, unless he is prepared to lay it upon the Table.
That is equated to the same rule of evidence in courts of law which requires production so as to enable all sides to a dispute to have all the evidence in order to come to a value judgment. Citation 326(2) reads:
It has been admitted that a document which has been cited ought to be laid upon the Table of the House, if it can be done without injury to the public interest.
It submit the public interest demands that all the facts be known since the lives of some 50 Canadians were placed in jeopardy by the Government's ineptness.
The other citation I wish to quote is to be found on page 103 of the same edition of Beauchesne.
It might be argued that a Minister must either cite or quote specifically from the document before that rule applies. I have made this argument previously in the last three and a half years, Madam Speaker, and I must say that I have not been too successful in the outcome. However, I maintain and so submit that this rule does come into play when a Minister of the Crown refers to a document in his hand as being an official communication, in this case from the High Commissioner in Barbados, and when he is seen by Hon. Members of the House while answering questions to be referring to the document.
I cannot say that the Minister was reading because he said that he was not and I must accept his word. However, he was seen by Hon. Members to be holding that document up. He was seen by Hon. Members to be quoting or citing at length from that telex which he held in his hand. In the observance of all Members, it is quite clear that he was at the very least referring to, if not reading from, that document. On the basis of the clear perception of Hon. Members who saw him doing this, I suggest that he is now under an obligation by virtue of our practices and precedents to table that document. He cannot seek refuge by the application of any fine and stringent interpretation of Beauchesne.
It would be gravely disappointing to us, Madam Speaker, if in response to this situation you were to say that the Minister has said that he did not read and therefore we cannot compel him to table a document, or that the document was not cited from because the Minister said he did not read it. We all clearly saw him do this. I submit, Madam Speaker, that if there ever was a clear case for the application of the practice of Ministers being required to table such documents, this is certainly the case.
October 28, 1983


Gerald Augustine Regan: Madam Speaker, I wish to be very exact on this point of order. 1 am certainly in the hands of the House, but it is my recollection and my strong impression that I did not read from the telex. I have in front of me personal notes as well as a telex. In the course of Question Period, I did consult the telex. The Hon. Member said that I read at length from it. I have checked the telex and found that I have only used three or four words that are contained within that document. 1 paraphrased-


Erik Nielsen: That is enough.


Gerald Augustine Regan: 1 said that 1 used the words, I did not read them.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gerald Augustine Regan: I was consulting from my personal notes. I am obviously totally in your hands, Madam Speaker, but in my view I did not read from the telex. I felt that I should stand and make it clear that the telex was on my desk along with my personal notes, and if that requires its tabling, then I would obviously be in the hands of the House. However, 1 do not feel that that is the case and 1 do not feel it is appropriate policy for such documents to be tabled unless I am clearly in the position that a rule of the House does require that 1 table the document. I was not reading from it.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I have now a specific citation to refer to the Chair in view of the admission made by the Minister. I refer to Citation 327(5) which reads as follows:
To be cited, a document must be quoted or specifically used to influence debate.
While we saw what we saw, Madam Speaker, the Minister has now admitted that he cited four or five words from the document.


Mr. Evans:: It was from his notes.


Erik Nielsen: No, he said that he cited four or five words from the document. That is what I heard him say and that is what we all heard him say. I would ask the Chair, Madam Speaker, to apply Citation 327(5) to this situation.


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, you may recall a ruling made by the Chair involving paragraph (5), where you changed a word in Beau-chesne, and the Chair is to be congratulated for having done so. Paragraph (5) reads in the published edition:
To be cited, a document must be quoted or specifically used to influence debate.
In one of your rulings, you substituted the word "and" for "or". Perhaps I could be more specific about dates, but I made a note in my copy of Beauchesne when you made your previous ruling. Therefore, the Chair must conclude that if the Minister used the telex, which is not the case, he did so in order to
Point of Order-Mr. Nielsen
influence debate. But aside from that, and I just mentioned it for the sake of argument, the Minister was very clear about the facts. He did not quote the telex. He mentioned that he had some personal notes in front of him, that he may have been using two or three words that appeared in the other document, but a Minister has the right to quote from personal notes, without having to table them, and since he said clearly that he neither read nor quoted from the telex, he is not obliged to table it.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, I would recall for the House the circumstances that led up to the Minister referring to the telex and, as he has said, using the three or four words from that telex. You will recall that he was attempting to confirm his version of the actual message from Prime Minister Adams of Barbados. We have another version. He was attempting to influence the debate by saying that he had a telex and he waved that telex around. He used the words that he has now admitted to using and he made a biblical reference in order to confirm that his version was perhaps different from our version of what Prime Minister Adams had said. It is a clear example of why the tabling of such documents is required.


Madam Speaker:: I believe that it is quite clear from Beauchesne that a Minister of the Crown is not at liberty to read or quote from a despatch or other state paper that is not before the House unless he is prepared to lay it upon the Table. The reasons for that are quite obvious. If a Minister is using a document in order to enforce an opinion or an idea, Members should obviously have access to that document.
As well, Citation 327(5) of Beauchesne reads as follows:
To be cited, a document must be quoted or specifically used to influence debate.
As I was listening to the arguments made by both sides, I felt that there might be a single restriction which might be put on this, and that is if it can be done without injury to the public interest. The Hon. Minister could have said to the House that something in that particular document should not be published in the interests of public security. However, on his own admission, the Minister did read from the document since he said himself that he used two or three words from it.
I cannot determine whether or not the Hon. Minister read from the document if he tells the House that he did not read from the document. However, he has now told the House that he read from the document-


Yvon Pinard: He did not say that.


Madam Speaker:: I think that two or three words means-


Gerald Augustine Regan: I "used" them. On a point of order-


Madam Speaker:: Sorry. He quoted the document and that is sufficient to have it tabled. It is clear to me that the document was read from and quoted in part and therefore the rules should apply.

October 28, 1983
Point of Order-Mr. Hawkes
I can look at the "blues" to see if there are any other points that would allow me to change my mind, but the Hon. Minister has offered to look at the document to see whether it is possible to table it without any injury to the public interest. Perhaps in the meantime, I can look at the "blues" after giving the House at this time my preliminary impression about what has just taken place in the House. That would allow the Minister time to reflect upon the nature of that document and tell the House whether or not he feels that it can be published without any injury to any matters of public interest.



MR. FLIS-PRESENTATION OF PETITION

Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I stood up on a point of order right after you made your ruling on petitions, Madam Speaker. I would first like to thank you for ruling the petition I presented yesterday in order.
I draw your attention to yesterday's Hansard, Madam Speaker, where the Hon. House Leader of the Official Opposition got up on a point of order after I presented my petition. He said:
Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I did indeed inspect the petition. It was not signed by three Members of Parliament. It has to be, to be in order.
Knowing the parliamentary gentleman that the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) is, I wonder if he would stand up in the House and withdraw those words. Or do petitions require three signatures by three Members of Parliament, as the House Leader of the Official Opposition got up in the House and said yesterday to try to discredit my petition by making that statement?


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, the Chair has ruled on the advice of her officers. I always respect those rulings and the advice which you receive.



MR. HAWKES-ALLEGED ERROR IN GOVERNMENT PUBLICATION

Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. 1 have in my possession a Government document which was issued this morning. On page 2 of that document it makes clear that unemployment insurance payments by employees and employers go up 10 per cent. On page 1 it indicates-


Madam Speaker:: What is the point of order?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: The point of order is that this is the earliest opportunity for the Government to correct an error that cannot co-exist with the facts at the same point in time.


Madam Speaker:: I know that was the Hon. Member's question during Question Period. He was waving that document at me during the Question Period. He is just trying to
put in a question that he was not able to put in a few minutes ago. We will not have that.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


John Leslie Evans: Madam Speaker, I have the distinct honour to present the twenty-fourth report of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs in both official languages.
[Editor's Note: For above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


PETITIONS
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Madam Speaker, I have received from the length and breadth of my constituency, petitions of concern about the degradation and exploitation of women, children and men through pornography, most recently from Telegraph Creek and the Queen Charlotte Islands. Today 1 have the honour to table petitions on this matter from Terrace residents.
Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to demonstrate its opposition to the denigration of women by enacting an Act to amend the Broadcasting Act, as introduced by the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) on March 8, 1983. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Madam Speaker, I have a petition from the residents of the town of Strasbourg in Saskatchewan to the House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of the town of Strasbourg in the Province of Saskatchewan who do now exercise their right to present a grievance humbly sheweth that we do not need any more nuclear weapons or Cruise missiles and we call upon the Government to refuse to test the Cruise missile. Your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.
October 28, 1983


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Madam Speaker, I have the privilege and the duty to present a petition to the House of Commons assembled by the undersigned residents of Canada from the towns of Beausejour, Swan River, Lac du Bonnet and Ottawa, some 36 names, who say that western Canadian farmers paid $131 million to move export grain under the Crowsnest Pass freight rate. This grain in turn contributed $6.3 billion to Canada-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Will the Hon. Member simply read the title of the petition and the prayer.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The undersigned believe that this is the farmers' fair contribution. Wherefore the undersigned will pay one times Crow and your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to maintain the present statutory grain Crowsnest Pass rate. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


Mr. Doug Anguish (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Madam Speaker, I have the pleasure to stand here today to present to the House of Commons a petition signed by residents of the Province of New Brunswick who support the passage of the Private Member's Bill standing in my name, Bill C-678, an Act to declare Canada a nuclear weapons free zone.
The petitioners believe that testing the Cruise missile in Canada escalates the nuclear arms race and is therefore a serious threat to the peace of the world. The petitioners stress that Canada has a traditional-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Will the Hon. Member resume his seat. I have to remind Hon. Members that what is allowed in the course of presenting a petition is a reading of the title and the prayer. No argumentation should take place in the course of reading a petition or using "whereas" to justify the particular petition.
1 warn Hon. Members that if they have several petitions they should file them all when they are recognized, because I will not recognize Members twice on petitions.


Douglas Keith Anguish: I find that a very strange ruling.


Madam Speaker:: Order. Will the Hon. Member read his petition. That is what he is recognized for.


Douglas Keith Anguish: The petitioners stress that Canada, as a traditionally peaceful nation, can and must play a crucial role in achieving multilateral disarmament-


Madam Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to tell the Hon. Member that he does not seem to be listening to what the Chair is saying. I just told the Hon. Member that he should not be giving any more details than the title and the prayer. He continues exactly where he left off. If that is the way the
Petitions
Hon. Member pretends to obey the Chair, I must tell him that he does not have a clear notion of what parliamentary behaviour requires of Hon. Members.


Douglas Keith Anguish: They believe that the passage of Bill C-678 will allow Canada to act as a mediator along with other countries that wish to participate in the world-wide nuclear disarmament process. And as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
I have some other petitions here this afternoon so I should present them at the same time and I will just being to go through them.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. With great respect, the Standing Orders do not support the contention that a Member rising to present a petition must present all of the petitions that a Member might have in a bundle, whether they be two, three or a dozen.
Surely the Standing Orders support the Member's right to rise and present a petition which may deal with the two I presented yesterday, for instance, about the Yukon placer mining industry. If they have a petition with respect to the state of the egg industry in this country, they are entitled to present that separately. If they have some other subject matter from another part of the country, they may present that separately.
Surely the time-honoured right of presenting petitions is the right of the citizen in the various parts of this country to be heard in a distinct and separate fashion. The Member who rises to present that petition is honouring that right of the citizen in presenting the petition in that fashion.
I would therefore suggest that while the process could be speeded up somewhat, nevertheless the right remains in the citizen, really, to have a petition signed by a particular group of citizens submitted by a Member quite distinctly and separately from any others. If the rule were to be otherwise, we would have occasions when we would be duplicating some instances in the House which the Chair has frowned upon in the past with respect to petitions that are two or three blocks long with signatures attached to them. I suggest that while it is not our intention to engage in this process this day, Members should be entitled to proceed by presenting their petitions individually.
1 believe the Chair is correct in restricting the presentation of petitions so as to exclude any debate thereon, certainly to exclude reading them because the rules do not permit that. The rules, however, do go slightly beyond the reading of the title and the prayer. The rules stipulate that the nature of the petition can be explained by the Member presenting it, for instance. There are other criteria set forth in the rules. If the rules were to be applied strictly to the petitions, I would have no problem with their presentation in accordance strictly with the rules. But you do get into the nature of a petition and you also get into the purpose of a petition under the Standing Orders. That is permitted, in my reading of the Standing Orders.

October 28, 1983
Petitions


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, under the Standing Orders, petitions may be either presented orally or laid on the Table of the House. Of course, Members who want to waste the time of the House may present their petitions orally.
The Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Anguish) was presenting another petition when you interrupted him to explain that you were not going to allow Members to present more than one petition unless they did so the first time they were recognized, and that this was the Chair's ruling. The Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake rose to object to this ruling, and he had the floor for barely two seconds. However, the Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) rose and the Chair gave to the Hon. Member the floor for two minutes to criticize the same ruling. Now, I wonder why the Member for Yukon would be more equal than the Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake? The former has been wasting the time of the House for weeks, and it would seem that just because Member for Yukon can outshout other Members, he enjoys privilege of being allowed to explain his arguments. I therefore wonder whether he is not more equal than others. When the Chair makes a ruling, it applies to all Members, including the Member for Yukon, and if the Chair did not allow the Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake to criticize its ruling, I do not think the Member for Yukon was entitled to the two minutes he was allowed.


Madam Speaker:: I may point out to the Hon. Minister that as far as the Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake is concerned, it seemed to me that he was objecting to a procedure I was suggesting in order to speed up the process of presenting petitions. He then started reading all over again exactly what 1 had asked him not to repeat. That is why 1 was a bit strict with him.
As for the Member for Yukon, he was entirely justified in raising a point of order. I heard him, as is my duty to do so. He criticized a ruling! Well, I do not know whether he was criticising, but in any case, he did not attack the Chair. He seemed to be giving his interpretation of the Standing Orders, and I do not disagree with the Hon. Member for Yukon, in that he also felt that I was right in wanting to speed up the process. He agreed with me on that point. Where I did not agree entirely was when the Hon. Member argued that citizens have the right to present petitions separately. He seemed to be arguing that if I ask a Member to present all petitions when he or she is given the floor, the petitions are no longer presented separately. Well, they are separate, since all petitions are separate entities and the Member in question may read them one right after the other. So the argument raised by the Hon. Member for Yukon is not valid.
I also wish to point out to the House, as was done by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard), that if the Chair
finds that too much time has been spent on petitions, it has the discretion to ask Hon. Members to lay their petitions on the Table of the House instead of reading them in the House.


Yvon Pinard: Absolutely!


Madam Speaker:: it is allowed, it is part of parliamentary practice, but the Chair nevertheless has some discretion in such matters. I would therefore ask Hon. Members to speed up the process so that we can go on to other business, without spending too much time on petitions. It is clear to anyone who follows the proceedings of Parliament that on days that Hon. Members are presenting flocks of petitions, something unusual is going on, and the Chair is well aware of this. It has noticed that on occasion, presentation of petitions is being used to delay the business of the House. Anything is legitimate, up to a point. That is why the Chair has discretionary powers.
The Hon. Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake has the floor.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Madam Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. The difficulty I have is that in this House-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Did the Hon. Member want to rise on a point of order or to read his petition?


Douglas Keith Anguish: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.


Madam Speaker:: The point of Order is finished. I have made my comments. That is finished. If the Hon. Member wants to read his petition, 1 have recognized him for that purpose. If he wants to raise another point of order, I will recognize him for that purpose as well.


Marcel Prud'homme: Just read your petition.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Madam Speaker, the second of the many petitions that 1 have here today calls upon the House of Commons to find a solution to the grievance that the petitioners have put forth. They ask first that the Crow rate, the statutory rate, be maintained and that the railways of all of Canada must be upgraded and developed into a modern and efficient transportation system. Under no circumstances should the Crowsnest freight rate be changed. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Mr. Speaker, this petition 1 would like to present to the House of Commons today is one signed by some 60 residents of the Brockville, Ontario area, all of whom call upon Parliament to debate and pass a Private Member's Bill standing in my name, Bill C-678, an Act to declare Canada a nuclear weapons free zone.
October 28, 1983

I am pleased to say the signatures were obtained after a Brockville resident visited Ottawa and the Parliament Hill peace camp where he was able to see and obtain a copy of my petition. The petitioners call upon Parliament to recognize that the testing of the Cruise missile in Canada escalates the nuclear arms race and is therefore a serious threat to world peace. They call upon Parliament to pass Bill C-678 so that Canada can act as a mediator along with other countries that wish to participate in a world-wide nuclear disarmament process.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Mr. Speaker, the next petition I have is sent to me by residents of the Lloydminster and Marshall area. They call upon this House to seek a solution to their concerns. The undersigned have carefully considered the alternate plan put forth by the New Democratic Party. They want the Crow rate to be maintained, as we have insisted in the many debates in this House of Commons; that the railways of all of Canada be upgraded and developed into a modern and efficient transportation system. The undersigned petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to adopt the provisions of the New Democratic Party's alternative plan which will not change the Crowsnest Pass freight rate. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


Marcel Prud'homme: God has forgiven you, you have prayed enough.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Only a few more, Marcel.
Mr. Speaker, the next petition I have is signed by residents of Marsden, Saskatchewan. They call upon the House of Commons in Parliament assembled to find a solution for their concerns and hope that this honourable House will provide a remedy. The undersigned want the statutory Crow rate maintained without question, without alteration, and that the railways of all Canada, especially those branch lines in western Canada so essential to the movement of grain, be upgraded and developed into a modern and efficient transportation system. The undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to adopt the provisions of the New Democratic Party's alternate plan which will have no change to the Crowsnest Pass freight rate. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition this afternoon which calls upon the House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of the Town of Colonsay in the Province of Saskatchewan, who now exercise their right to present a grievance, humbly sheweth that they are opposed to the testing of the Cruise missile in Canada. They call upon
Petitions
the Government to refuse the testing of the Cruise missile, since they view it as a serious escalation of the nuclear arms race and to ensure that we become a nuclear weapons free zone to allow Canada, as well as other countries, to participate in a mediation role between the superpowers and other countries which currently have a nuclear arms capability, because it seems that they enter into conflict, not meaningful consultation or disarmament talks. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Mr. Speaker, I also have the pleasure to present a petition signed by residents of Calgary, Alberta. The petitioners wrote me through Mr. Richard Collier of Mount Royal College, Calgary. They say that Canada must somehow turn back the tide of potential world destruction and express their fears of the deployment of the Cruise and Pershing II missiles. The petitioners stress that the testing of the Cruise missile escalates the nuclear arms race and is therefore a serious threat to world peace. They call upon Parliament to debate and pass Bill C-678, an Act to declare Canada a nuclear weapons free zone, which would allow Canada to act as a mediator in the world along with other countries that wish to participate in the process and to work toward a world-wide nuclear disarmament process.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Mr. Speaker, I have another petition which is signed by residents of the Marshall and Lashburn area. They call upon the House of Commons to find a solution to their concerns and ask that our honourable House will therefore provide a remedy for their concerns arising from Bill C-155. They want to impress upon the House the importance of preserving and maintaining the statutory Crow rate. Further, they want to see the rail transportation system in Canada improved and upgraded and especially their branch lines preserved because they are so important to the survival of their communities. The undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to adopt the provisions of the New Democratic Party alternate plan which will not change the Crowsnest Pass freight rates. And as in duty bound your petitioners ever pray.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Mr. Speaker, I have a fairly lengthy petition which gives me a great deal of pleasure to present. It is signed by some 216 residents of the Province of Alberta from such communities as Medicine Hat, Calgary, Banff and Red Deer, all of whom support the passage of the Private Member's Bill standing in my name, Bill C-678, an Act to declare Canada a nuclear weapons free zone. The petitioners believe that the testing of the Cruise missile in Canada escalates the nuclear arms race
28460

October 28, 1983
Petitions
and is therefore a serious threat to world peace. The petitioners urge Parliament to recognize that multilateral nuclear disarmament must occur in order to secure world peace and that Canada, as a traditionally peaceful nation, can play a crucial role in achieving multilateral disarmament by becoming a nuclear weapons free zone, thus allowing it to act as a mediator between countries with a nuclear weapon capability along with other countries that wish to participate in the process.
Those are all the petitions 1 have to present at the present time. However, I have some more which I will present in following days. I appreciate the indulgence of the Chair in allowing me to present these petitions this afternoon. They were sent as a result of very serious concerns on the part of the people who signed them. Whether they be on the issue of disarmament, statutory freight rates, pornography or whatever, it is very important for people to be allowed to express themselves through Parliament by the presentation of petitions through Members of Parliament should they choose to do so.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I have only two petitions to present to the honourable House of Commons in Parliament assembled. The first petition is from the undersigned residents of the Town of Viscount, in the Province of Saskatchewan, and of the City of Ottawa, in the Province of Ontario, who now exercise their right to present a grievance. They humbly sheweth that if the United States wants to test Cruise missiles, it can be done in its own country, not in ours. They call upon the Government to refuse to test the Cruise missile in Canada. The petitioners are duty bound and will ever pray. There are a number of petitioners in this case, about 20 people from those particular towns. I would like to sign and table that petition.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, my second petition is from the Town of High River, a well-known town in Alberta.


An Hon. Member:: A great town.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Yes, a great town, as my friend says. The former leader of his Party came from that town; I hope he supported him. This petition is from residents of High River, Alberta and of Ottawa, Ontario. It is to the honourable House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled. They exercise their right and humbly sheweth that the removal of the Crow rate will see its replacement by rates which will impose higher freight costs of five times the present Crow rate and higher by 1990, that such increases are being imposed at a time when prices for producers' grain are now at 1974 levels, and that the calculations show, finally, that the rate of 5.1 times the Crow rate will cost the community of High River alone $732,500 in payments for grain freight, which otherwise
would have stayed in that community, based on actual deliveries of 1980-81 crop. It is signed by some 19 people from High River, together with three people from Ottawa. The petitioners pray that this House will listen to their pleas. I would like to sign that petition and to file it.


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to present a petition from undersigned residents of the City of Toronto, in the Province of Ontario. They 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. This petition humbly sheweth that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) presented to the United Nations in 1978 the strategy for nuclear suffocation, that testing of the new Cruise missile in Canada is inconsistent with this strategy, and that Canada's NATO partners, Belgium and The Netherlands, have refused to have Cruise missiles deployed on their soil.
Wherefore we the undersigned humbly pray and call upon Parliament to request the Prime Minister to refuse to allow the testing of this new generation of weapons on Canadian soil. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray. Having signed this one on the back, I present it for tabling.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I also have a petition which was signed by some 59 or 60 residents of several different parts of Ontario. To the honourable House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of the Province of Ontario, 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 undersigned have carefully considered the alternate plan presented by the New Democratic Party, that the Crow rate must be maintained and that all railways of Canada must be upgraded and developed into a modern and efficient transportation system.
Wherefore we the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to adopt the provisions of the New Democratic Party alternate plan which will not change the Crowsnest Pass freight rate. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray. Having signed this one on the back, I am prepared to have it tabled.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by residents from many parts of Ontario, especially northern Ontario, to the honourable House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of Canada, who now avail themselves of their
October 28, 1983

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 people in northwestern Ontario sometimes have to wait in unheated shelters for infrequent trains up to four hours late in wintertime.
Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to improve train service with modern, reliable and comfortable trains. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray. Having signed this petition, I will now give it to the Clerk.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, 1 have another petition which is signed by some 20 people and addressed to the honourable House of Commons in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of Canada, who do 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 specific requirements for documentation from income tax claimants for nonresident dependants have been unfair and have imposed great hardship on some countries where such help is needed most. The Government of Canada has removed this claim from the 1982 tax year.
Wherefore we the undersigned do humbly pray and call upon Parliament to petition the Minister of National Revenue to cease all audits against such claims for 1979, 1980 and 1981. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray. Having signed this petition, 1 will now present it to the Clerk.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present another petition from a number of residents of Ontario to the honourable House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of Canada, who do 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 Canadians are greatly concerned about the possible use of Canadian-made military products in Latin America military adventures or by the dictatorships in Latin America.
Wherefore we the undersigned do humbly pray and call upon Parliament to refuse applications for DiPP and PEMD assistance and as well to refuse export permits to companies for the sale of military products to these Latin American dictatorships. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.
Petitions


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from a number of residents of the Province of Ontario to the honourable the House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents, who do now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right to present a grievance common to your petitioners in the certain assurance that your honourable House will therefore provide a remedy, humbly sheweth that Canadians are greatly concerned about the presence of large numbers of American military advisers in Honduras and El Salvador and that Canadians are greatly concerned about the present training and other assistance being given to Somocista forces both in Honduras and in the United States.
Wherefore we the undersigned humbly pray and call upon Parliament to condemn at the United. Nations and through other diplomatic channels such interference in both the sovereignty of Nicaragua and the just struggles of the Salvadoran people. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray. Having signed this petition, 1 now ask the Clerk to receive it.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a petition to the honourable House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled from a number of residents of Ontario who do 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. This petition humbly sheweth that Canadians are greatly concerned about the lack of support being shown by the Canadian Government for the Nicaraguan Government in its efforts to reconstruct their country and provide a decent standard of living for all Nicaraguans.
Wherefore, we the undersigned do humbly pray and call upon Parliament to establish a program of generous assistance to the Nicaraguan Government and to pressure the Government of United States to reinstate its purchase order for Nicaraguan sugar at the previous level of 58,500 short tonnes. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray. Having signed this petition, I present it to the Clerk.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, 1 have another petition to the honourable House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of Canada, who do 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 expenditure of government income on subsidization of the sale of nuclear reactors constitutes a theft from the social services needed for Canadians.

October 28, 1983
Petitions
Wherefore we the undersigned humbly pray and call upon Parliament to cease the sale of nuclear reactors and reallocate the money saved to such services as daycare centres, social housing and health care for Canadians. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray. Having signed this, I now ask the Clerk to receive it.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: I have, Mr. Speaker, a petition from a number of residents of Canada. The undersigned do 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. This petition humbly sheweth that affirmative action programs regarding the hiring of visible minorities by the departments of the federal Government have been sadly neglected.
Wherefore we the undersigned do humbly pray and call upon Parliament to petition the Minister of Employment to encourage the hiring of visible minorities and to undertake studies dealing with the problems faced by visible minorities. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray. Having signed this petition on the back, I call upon the Clerk to deliver it.
Perhaps we can call it one o'clock, Mr. Speaker. I have more petitions to read.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Hon. Member has suggested that the House call it one o'clock. Is that agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I had been reading a petition when it was time to call it one o'clock, and as I explained to the Speaker then under the new rules I have some other petitions as well.
It is my honour to present a petition to the honourable the House of Commons in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of Canada, who now exercise their right to present a grievance, humbly sheweth that western Canadian farmers paid $131 million to move export grain under the Crow rate in the 1981-82 crop year. This grain, in turn, contributed $6.3 billion to the balance of trade, that the undersigned believe that this is the farmers' fair contribution
to the Canadian economy, and that western farmers will pay one times Crow rate, no change.
Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to maintain the present statutory grain Crow rate. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I have another petition to the honourable House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of Canada, 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 testing of Cruise missiles in Canada compromises the integrity of Canada in striving towards peace.
Wherefore we, the undersigned, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to refuse to allow the testing of the Cruise missile in Canada. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition to the honourable House of Commons in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of Canada, who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right to present a grievance common to your petitioners in the certain assurance that your honourable House will therefore provide a remedy, humbly sheweth that there have been great public concerns regarding the use of substantial portions of Canadian human and materiel resources for the production of military products for use by dictatorships, that there has been great public concern regarding the corresponding lack of support for Canadian industries producing useful goods for Canadians.
Wherefore we, the undersigned, do humbly pray and call upon Parliament to institute an industrial plan to convert those productive facilities presently involved in military production to the manufacture of goods to be enjoyed by Canadians. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition to the honourable House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled. The undersigned citizens and constituents of Burnaby have asked me to present this petition because they 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. This petition humbly sheweth that, in the opinion of your petitioners, successive Liberal budgets impose undue and unfair hardship on low and middle-income Canadians, that the
October 28, 1983

budgetary policies of this Government have served to increase the miseries of inflation and unemployment rather than reduce them, that budgets fail to reduce interest rates which thereby prohibit any economic recovery, that the citizens of Burnaby wish and need to be consulted about matters of public policy affecting their well-being.
Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to be dissolved in order that a general election may be held immediately. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition to the honourable House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of Canada, who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right 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 present lack of affordable housing for families in Canada constitutes a threat to the social well-being of millions of Canadians, that there are thousands of unemployed construction workers across the country presently dependent on Government assistance for survival.
Wherefore we, the undersigned, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to institute an expanded program of construction of social housing. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition addressed to the honourable House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of Canada, 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 imported clothing and textiles are threatening the viability of Canadian manufacturers and putting Canadians out of work.
Wherefore we, the undersigned, do humbly pray and call upon Parliament to limit imports of clothing and textiles to 20 per cent of the Canadian market. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a petition to the honourable House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled. This petition is signed by residents of Burnaby in the Province of British Columbia 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. This petition humbly sheweth that the Governments of British
Petitions
Columbia have in the past assured citizens of Burnaby that all prisons on the Oakalla lands would be phased out, that the citizens of Burnaby feel that the Oakalla buildings have outlived their usefulness and are not compatible with abutting parkland uses, and that Burnaby Municipal Council has expressed its desire that the facilities be phased out.
Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to urge the Province of British Columbia to undertake no further construction of prison facilities in the Oakalla lands and ensure the early removal of the Oakalla correctional facilities. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition to the honourable House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of Canada, 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 language training skills are only available to one member of an immigrant family upon arrival in Canada and that immigrant women cannot participate in the work force of the community without the necessary language skills.
Wherefore we, the undersigned, do humbly pray and call upon Parliament to request the Government to provide funding to community and social service agencies to establish language training programs with daycare facilities to prevent these women from being isolated in their new homeland. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition to the honourable House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of Canada, 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 there is uncertainty as to whether uranium sold by Canada to the United States and other countries is being used for strictly peaceful purposes.
Wherefore we the undersigned, do humbly pray and call upon Parliament to cease its sales to the United States and other countries until it is proven beyond doubt that no Canadian materiel is being used in the manufacture of nuclear weapons. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a petition to the honourable House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of

October 28, 1983
Petitions
Canada, 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 now provide a remedy, humbly sheweth that Canadians are greatly concerned about the lack of safe haven for persons persecuted in Central American countries for their political beliefs and about the difficulties and dangers such persons have in making contact with the appropriate Canadian authorities to make a refugee claim.
Wherefore we, the undersigned, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to establish a well publicized program, in conjunction with international aid organizations, to assist persons wishing to escape repression to safely make known their desire to claim refugee status in Canada, and to be expeditiously accommodated. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a petition to the honourable House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of Canada, 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 there is great public concern regarding the present interest rates and their inflationary effect on the Canadian economy.
Wherefore, we the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to legislate a maximum interest rate of no more than 1 per cent above the rate of inflation. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition which I will now present to the honourable House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled. This petition of the undersigned residents of Canada, 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 immigrants and refugees from countries ruled by Fascist dictators are not given equal opportunity with immigrants from Communist countries, and that these immigrants suffer the indignities of torture, repression and imprisonment.
Wherefore we, the undersigned, do humbly pray and call upon Parliament to request the Government to review its policies regarding immigrants and refugees from these countries. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present a petition to the honourable House of Commons of
Canada in Parliament assembled. This petition of the undersigned residents of Canada, 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 immigrant and refugee groups strongly feel that the recent consultation process on immigrant settlement programs did not permit sufficient time for proper input.
Wherefore we, the undersigned, do humbly pray and call upon Parliament to petition Cabinet to make no decisions concerning the policy framework for resettlement, integration, adaptation and language training prior to additional consultation among representative constituencies of the non-governmental agencies, the Provinces and the federal Government, and, further that the consultation process be extended until the resumption of Parliament for the fall session. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition to the honourable House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of Canada, 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 presently no one federal department or Minister is responsible for the needs of children and their families.
Wherefore we, the undersigned, do humbly pray and call upon Parliament to appoint a Minister responsible for children to ensure that their futures are protected. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition to the honourable House of Commons in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of Canada, 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 whereas there is a dearth of secondary manufacturing industries in Atlantic Canada, we, the undersigned, do humbly pray and call upon Parliament to promote the expansion of light manufacturing industry and other industries based on fishing and other maritime resources in Atlantic Canada in order to provide work and income security and to preserve the seagoing way of life. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition to the honourable House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of Canada, who now avail themselves of their ancient and
October 28, 1983

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 Canadians are concerned about the massive lay-offs in the nickel industry and the apparent inability or unwillingness of business dominant in that industry to plan their operations to benefit Canadian workers.
Wherefore we, the undersigned, do humbly pray and call upon Parliament to immediately bring Falconbridge Limited and the International Nickel Company of Canada under immediate public ownership and control. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition of the undersigned residents of Canada to the honourable House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled. These petitioners, 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 in times of high unemployment the Armed Forces should not be used as a means of relieving unemployment among young Canadians.
Wherefore we, the undersigned, do humbly pray and call upon Parliament to request that the Minister of Employment and Immigration seek more creative methods of providing employment for the young. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition to the honourable House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of the City of Toronto, in the Province of Ontario, 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 Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) presented to the United Nations in 1978 a strategy for nuclear suffocation and that testing of the new Cruise missile in Canada is inconsistent with this strategy, and that Canada's NATO partners, Belgium and The Netherlands, have refused to have Cruise missiles deployed on their soil-their soul, too.
Wherefore we, the undersigned, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to request the Prime Minister to refuse to allow the testing of this new generation of weapons on Canadian soil. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition to the honourable House of Commons of Canada in Parliament
Petitions
assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of Canada, 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, relates to the proposal by Chevron Oil to conduct offshore oil exploration on the West Coast.
Wherefore your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament that there be full and complete public hearings into supply and demand for energy and the socio-economic and environmental aspects of offshore development before the moratorium is lifted. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray. That petition is from residents of the south coast of B.C.
I have another petition, Mr. Speaker, to the honourable House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of Canada, 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, relates to the question of the federal Government's new energy legislation.
Wherefore your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament that there be full public hearings into the demand for energy and the socio-economic aspects of offshore development. That petition is from residents of Saanichton and Victoria on Vancouver Island.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair is informed the Hon. Member has already been recognized for petitions today and the practice of the House will not be to recognize an Hon. Member twice on the same day for a group of petitions.


Erik Nielsen: New ground being broken.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt but this is the practice that Madam Speaker indicated would be followed. If there are other Hon. Members rising to introduce-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin).


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, the Chair announced earlier this day that only one Member would be recognized to present petitions. That was after a number of Hon. Members had been recognized.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The ruling of the Chair is that a Member will be given an opportunity once in a particular day's sitting to present petitions. Are there other Hon. Members-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Would the Hon. Member please sit down? That is a ruling of the Chair. Are there other Hon. Members seeking to be recognized for petitions? The Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong).

October 28, 1983
Petitions


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member is seeking to reflect on a judgment of the Chair. I call to his attention that this is not permitted. The Hon. Member for Regina East.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, the Chair informed the House that it would only recognize-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Would the Hon. Member please sit down? The Chair recognizes the Hon. Member for Regina East.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Another point of order.


Erik Nielsen: He may have a new point of order. He might.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Point of order. I know, with all due respect, that the Chair would never countenance or take part in changing the rules in the middle of a procedure.


Lloyd Axworthy: Order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member is reflecting on a judgment of the Chair.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Exactly.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: He has repeatedly done this.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Exactly.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair does not feel obligated in the circumstances to recognize him again on the same point of order on which a ruling has been made. The Chair now recognizes the Hon. Member for Regina East.
If the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) has an observation, the Chair is always prepared to listen. But the Chair is asking in the circumstances if the Hon. Member for Regina East can be recognized. The Hon. Member for Yukon wishes to be recognized.


Erik Nielsen: The only observation I have to make, and I do not want to appear to be bailing out the NDP, is that I did not hear enough of the point of order of the Hon. Member for Regina West, even though it is not my responsibility to do so. I heard one sentence. It may well be that he is going to get into an area reflecting on the judgment of the Chair and the Chair at that point would be quite correct in curbing it. But 1 can think of a point of order he could raise legitimately-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: With all due respect to the Hon. Member for Yukon, we cannot deal in hypothetical situations.


Erik Nielsen: Let us hear it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Yukon is an experienced Parliamentarian, and the Hon. Member for Regina East has been recognized for the purpose of petitions.


Erik Nielsen: He has a point of order we have not heard, for heaven's sake.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Four times we have heard it.


Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from people in and around the Swift Current area. It is addressed to the honourable House of Commons of Canada 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 undersigned have carefully considered the alternative plan proposed by the NDP.
We, the undersigned, urge the Parliament of Canada to immediately adopt its provisions in order that the Crowsnest Pass freight rates may be maintained and the railways of Canada may be upgraded and developed into a modern and efficient transport system.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I have another petition addressed to the honourable House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of Burnaby, British Columbia, who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted rights 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 Government of British Columbia has in the past assured citizens of Burnaby that all prisons in the Oakalla lands would be phased out. They feel that these buildings have outlived their usefulness and are not compatible with the abutting park land uses. Burnaby Municipal Council has expressed a desire that this facility be phased out.
Wherefore we, the undersigned, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to urge the Province of British Columbia to undertake no further construction of prison facilities on the Oakalla lands and ensure the early removal of the Oakalla correctional facilities. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition addressed to the honourable House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of the constituency of Burnaby, 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-
Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I can get some guidance from you as to the accepted pronunciation and customs of the House. Mr. Speaker, is it "showeth" or "sheweth"?
October 28, 1983


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member, as a Member of this institution, will surely be well aware of the proper style at this stage, having presented many petitions.


Simon Leendert de Jong: All right, humbly sheweth, but "sheweth" sounds like a shoe.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member will please read his petition as best he can.


Simon Leendert de Jong: It might be my immigrant background.
It is the opinion of your petitioners that successive Liberal budgets impose undue and unfair hardship on low and middle income Canadians and that the budgetary policies of this Government have served to increase the miseries of inflation and unemployment rather than to reduce them; that the budgets failed to reduce interest rates which thereby prohibit an economic recovery and that the citizens of Burnaby wish and need to be consulted about matters of public policy affecting their well-being.
Wherefore we, the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to be dissolved in order that a general election may be held immediately. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


Mr. Parent:: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. Perhaps the Chair could clarify something for me. Is it the understanding of the Chair that all of these petitions have to be read or can they simply be tabled in the House without being read?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Certainly the opportunity is offered for Hon. Members to leave petitions with the Clerk at the Table but the Chair cannot deny Hon. Members who insist upon reading petitions their right to read the petitions. However, if they choose to bear in mind the time of the House and the circumstances and allow their petitions to be placed with a Clerk at the Table, that option is certainly open to them.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Simon Leendert de Jong: It sounds like there is an atheist or some such creature over there.


An Hon. Member:: It takes one to know one.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Is that a point of personal privilege, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: At this point the Hon. Member is dealing with petitions. Would he care to proceed with the petitions that he is presenting?


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition that I wish to present to the House and to Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of the Town of Elrose in the Province of Saskatchewan, who now
Petitions
exercise their right to present a grievance, humbly sheweth that the Cruise missile should not be tested in Canada and call on the Government to refuse to test the Cruise in northern Saskatchewan and Alberta.
Your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. Since Elrose, Saskatchewan, is my home town, I wonder if the Hon. Member could tell me how many people signed that petition.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member can merely present his petition at this point. If he chooses to indicate the petitioners' communities, it has been recognized that he can do so and he can also roughly indicate the number of signatures. However, at this stage there is no exchange or questions permitted, nor is examination of contents permitted.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, 1 will continue reading my petitions. I suggest to the Hon. Member that he should go back to Elrose sometime and visit his own constituency a bit more often.
Mr. Speaker, I do have another petition addressed to the honourable House of Commons in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of the City of Toronto, in the Province of Ontario, 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 Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) presented to the United Nations in 1978 a strategy for nuclear suffocation and that the testing of the new Cruise missile in Canada is inconsistent with this strategy and that Canada's NATO partners, Belgium and The Netherlands, have refused to have Cruise missiles deployed on their soil.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe that this morning, Madam Speaker and yourself pointed out to the Hon. Member, who is a good friend of mine, that he should not be reading and giving us facts. He is still doing that, and although I find it very interesting, it is not what should take place at this time. He is supposed to read the title and to give the prayer-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The point of the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) is well taken. I shall quote from Hansard of April 12, 1973, the remarks of the previous Speaker of the House:
Order, please. The Hon. Member knows that under the terms of the Standing Order he can only lay the petition on the table and not make a speech or present argument in support of the petition.
I call that passage to the attention of the Hon. Member.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on that same point of order. I am glad you limited the ruling to that extent because I do not think it need be denied that the nature and the purpose of the petition may be stated in its delivery.

October 28, 1983
Petitions


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) will recognize that the Chair has permitted this, but I think the Hon. Member for Yukon will also recognize that the Hon. Member who is presently on his feet is going a little beyond the scope which is normally permitted.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I certainly wish to apologize to you and to the House if 1 am breaking any rules or straying from the-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member will please read his petitions.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Wherefore we, the undersigned, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to request the Prime Minister to refuse to allow the testing of this new generation of weapons on Canadian soil. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a petition which is mainly from residents of Vernon, British Columbia, and it is addressed to the honourable House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of British Columbia and other Provinces, 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-and I will try to make this brief, Mr. Speaker-that the oil companies, particularly Chevron, are considering a resumption of offshore explorations, that the federal Government is considering lifting the moratorium on offshore explorations, and that any future benefits to British Columbia are in question because of the federal Government's new energy legislation.
Wherefore your petitioners humbly pray that there will be full and complete public hearings into the supply and demand for the energy and the socio-economic and environmental aspects of offshore development before the moratorium is lifted. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition that I wish to introduce to the House. It is a petition that is mainly from people who live in and around the Swift Current area. We, the undersigned, have carefully considered some of the alternatives proposed by the Pepin-Gilson Report and we urge the Parliament of Canada to immediately adopt some provisions other than the Pepin-Gilson provisions in order that the Crowsnest Pass freight rate agreement may be maintained and to ensure that the railways of all of Canada may be upgraded.
Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to retain the Crowsnest Pass freight rate agreement.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair has considerable misgivings concerning points of order during the presentation of petitions. If the Hon. Member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight) has a point of order, the Chair is prepared to hear it. However, it is very difficult to conceive of a point of order under these circumstances.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I do not rise to enter into debate or to cause problems. I simply want to make a correction. I understood the Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong) to say that he was presenting a petition from Melrose, Saskatchewan. I come from-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: With all due respect to the Hon. Member, he is not making a point of order. The Hon. Member for Regina East.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition that I wish to introduce to the House. It is addressed to the House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of Canada, who now exercise their right to present a grievance, humbly sheweth that whereas the number of unemployment people in Canada far exceeds the present demand for workers and the number of people whose Unemployment Insurance benefits become exhausted each month and who are subsequently forced to exist on inadequate welfare benefits is a national disgrace, therefore we, the undersigned petitioners, call on the Government of Canada to extend the length of payments of Unemployment Insurance benefits to those who qualify for major claims by a further 52 weeks.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a petition addressed to the honourable the House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of Canada, who now exercise their right to present a grievance, humbly sheweth that whereas under present regulations people who are graduating from or leaving post-secondary educational institutions and who have taken out Canada student loans are required to begin paying back those loans within six months of leaving full-time study, and whereas with the present and projected level of unemployment at such a high rate many students find themselves without employment and in severe financial hardship for extended periods after leaving school, therefore we, the undersigned petitioners, humbly pray that the Government of Canada amend the Canada Student Loans Act to extend this grace period to 18 months.
October 28, 1983


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition that I wish to present to the House. It is addressed to the honourable House of Commons in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of Canada, who now exercise their right to present a grievance, humbly sheweth that whereas under present regulations Unemployment Insurance benefits are paid on the basis of 60 per cent of the recipients' insurable earnings, and whereas this regulation severely hampers the ability of lower paid workers to maintain a reasonable standard of living during their term of unemployment, we, the undersigned petitioners, call on the Government of Canada to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act to allow benefits of 90 per cent of insurable earnings up to the current maximum to be paid to recipients. Most of the petitioners are from the Province of Ontario.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition which is addressed to the honourable the House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of Canada, who now exercise their right to present a grievance, humbly sheweth that whereas the continued existence of the salmon fishing industry on the West Coast of Canada is dependent upon the revitalization of the stocks, and whereas the Salmonid Enhancement Program has shown to be a viable vehicle for accomplishing this objective, therefore we the undersigned, your petitioners, call on the Government of Canada to continue and increase funding for the Salmonid Enhancement Program.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition I wish to present to the House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of the Town of Govan in the Province of Saskatchewan, who now exercise their right to present a grievance, humbly sheweth that, no way, it is our country and not theirs. If they must, let them foul their own nest. We call on the Government of Canada to refuse to test the Cruise. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition addressed to the House of Commons in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of Canada, who now exercise their right to present a grievance, humbly sheweth that whereas there are a substantial number of vessels, both domestic and foreign, fishing the waters off the West Coast of Canada without the presence of Department of Fisheries and Oceans observers to monitor their catches, and whereas it is essential to the health of the fishing industry in Canada that commercial stocks be closely monitored, therefore
Petitions
we the undersigned, your petitioners, call on the Government of Canada to provide adequate funding to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and to ensure the implementation of an observer program for West Coast fisheries.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition I wish to present to the House of Common in Parliament assembled, mainly from petitioners in and around Swift Current, Saskatchewan, who have carefully considered the alternative plan of the Pepin-Gilson Report concerning the Crow's Nest Pass Freight Rate Agreement. They urge that the Parliament of Canada immediately adopt its provisions in order that the Crowsnest Pass freight rate may be maintained and ensure that all the railways of Canada may be upgraded and developed to modern and efficient transportation for the benefit of the whole country.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a petition signed by the residents of Canada to the honourable the House of Commons in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of Canada, who now exercise their right to present a grievance, humbly sheweth that whereas the Minister of Defence has indicated that he does not know whether or not submarines frequenting the U.S. naval base at Nanoose Bay, British Columbia, are equipped with nuclear arms, therefore we the undersigned, your petitioners, call on the Government of Canada to insist to the Government of the United States that it remove and prohibit any further use of this base by submarines which are nuclear powered or contain nuclear weapons. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition addressed to the House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of Canada, who now exercise their right to present a grievance, humbly sheweth that whereas the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has complained that Canadians have not been vocal in criticizing the deployment of SS-20 missiles by the Soviet Union, and whereas the Prime Minister is the chief elected spokesperson for Canadians, therefore we the undersigned, your petitioners, call upon the Government of Canada to instruct the Prime Minister to condemn on behalf of Canadians the deployment of those missiles. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, to the honourable House of Commons in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of Canada, who now

October 28, 1983
Petitions
exercise their right to present a grievance, humbly sheweth that whereas the Government of the United States continues to support financially the daily murders and repression in El Salvador, therefore we the undersigned, your petitioners, call upon the Government of Canada to demand in the strongest possible terms that the United States cease its interference in the affairs of El Salvador. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition I wish to introduce in the House. It is addressed to the honourable House of Commons in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of Canada, who now exercise their right to present a grievance, humbly sheweth that under the present regulations people graduating from post-secondary educational institutions and who have taken out Canada student loans are required to begin paying back those loans within six months of leaving the full-time studies.
1 wish to withdraw this petition, Mr. Speaker. I believe I have already introduced it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: That seems a reasonable ground. Is there unanimous consent for the Hon. Member to withdraw his petition?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Petition withdrawn.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, 1 have another petition.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Has the Hon. Member checked that this petition has not already been introduced?


Simon Leendert de Jong: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I apologize, and 1 will take special care to make certain that I do not duplicate my petitions to you this afternoon.
This petition is addressed to the honourable the House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled. The Government of Canada in its budget of April 19, 1983 made a commitment to extend funding for the Canadian Home Ownership Stimulation Plan until May 1, 1983. An increase in activity in the housing construction industry is of great importance to economic recovery in Canada and in particular to British Columbia.
We, the undersigned petitioners, call upon the Government of Canada to consider further extensions to this program. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition I wish to introduce. It is addressed to the honourable the House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of Canada, mainly living in the City of Ottawa, who now exercise their right to present a grievance, humbly sheweth that the Government of the United States has cut back drastically on imports from, has refused foreign aid loans to, and has continued to financially support and anti-Government guerilla army in Nicaragua.
Wherefore the undersigned petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to demand in the strongest possible terms that the United States cease its campaign to undermine the Government and the economy of Nicaragua. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, 1 wish to introduce another petition. This petition of the undersigned residents of Canada, who now exercise the right to present a grievance, humbly sheweth that whereas wage restrictions in the various government job-creation programs have not increased in relation to the increasing cost of living, and whereas these wages are far too low to support even a small family in any reasonable manner, we the undersigned petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to increase the wage allowance that is paid to workers on job-creation programs in order to reflect the increased cost of living. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.
This is like signing my Christmas cards, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member will confine himself to reading petitions.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, a petition signed by the residents of the Province of Saskatchewan, who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right thus to prevent a grievance common to your petitioners in the certain assurance that your honourable House will therefore provide a remedy, humbly sheweth that the undersigned have carefully considered the alternate plan presented by the New Democratic Party and that the Crow rate must be maintained and that the railways of all Canada must be upgraded and developed into a most modern and efficient transportation system serving everybody.
Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to adopt the provisions of the New Democratic Party alternate plan which will not change the Crowsnest Pass Freight Rate Agreement. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.
October 28, 1983


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition addressed to the honourable the House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned constituents of the riding of Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain, Province of Saskatchewan, and other concerned citizens, 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 Canadian Radiotelevision and Telecommunications Commission television broadcasting regulations do not extend to women the same protection against abusive comment or abusive pictorial representation as now exists for racial and religious groups; that the concerns of citizens have been recently heightened not only by the so-called adult programming on pay-TV but also by the proliferation of pornography in various media; that the degradation and exploitation of women, children and men through pornography is abhorrent to all people; that the Minister of Communications has been willing to empower the CRTC to regulate broadcasting to ensure Canadian content but has yet to intervene to ensure the protection of women against abuse. It is Parliament's responsibility as provided for in the Broadcasting Act to strengthen, enrich and safeguard the cultural, political, social and economic fabric of Canada.
Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to demonstrate its opposition to the denigration of women by enacting an Act to amend the Broadcasting Act as introduced by the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Miss McDonald) on March 8, 1983. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


Gilbert Parent: Send some over here and I will do some for you.


An Hon. Member:: The Libs want in on the action.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Why don't you do your own?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Simon Leendert de Jong: I wish to introduce a petition to the honourable the House of Commons in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of Canada, 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 oil companies, particularly Chevron Canada, are considering a resumption of offshore exploration for oil and gas on the West Coast, that the federal Government is considering lifting the moratorium on offshore exploration on the West Coast and that any further benefits to British Columbia are in question because of the federal Government's new energy legislation.
Wherefore your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament for full and complete public hearings into the supply and demand for the energy and the socio-economic and
Petitions
environmental aspects of offshore development before the moratorium is lifted. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I have one more petition I wish to introduce to the House today. It is a petition mainly from residents of the Town of Cupar, Province of Saskatchewan, who now exercise their right to present a grievance and humbly sheweth that it is time their feelings be known about this important issue, that they do not agree to having the United States of America test the Cruise missile in Canada, and they call upon the Government of Canada to refuse to test the Cruise. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.


Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour today to present a petition which has been produced and addressed to the House of Commons. It is to the honourable the House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents 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. They indicate that thousands of jobs and billions of dollars of industrial benefits are not accruing to Canadians because Canada lacks a marine industrial strategy; that the federal Government has by and large failed to enact or implement a coherent Canadian marine industrial policy, although it promised to do so over a number of years; and that economic growth in Canada and the wellbeing of the country are in jeopardy because of Government inaction. Wherefore your petitioners humbly pray that the Government be encouraged immediately to implement a sensible and effective marine industrial policy which will result in the creation of a Canadian merchant marine and the expansion of Canadian shipbuilding industries. I have the honour to present this petition which was signed by individuals from Toronto, Peterborough, Tho-rold and numerous other locations in southern Ontario.


John Horton McDermid: You have never been there.


Raymond John Skelly: On the contrary.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, also I have the honour to present a second petition which is addressed to the honourable House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned constituents of the ridings of Broadview-Greenwood and Spadina in the Province of Ontario and other concerned citizens, who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right thus

October 28, 1983
Petitions
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 CRTC television broadcasting regulations do not extend to women the same type of protection against abusive comment or abusive pictorial representation as now exists for racial and religious groups, that the concerns of citizens have been recently heightened not only by the so-called adult programming on pay television but also by the proliferation of pornography in various media, that the degradation and exploitation of women, children and men through pornography is abhorrent to all people, that the Minister of Communications (Mr. Fox) has been willing to empower the CRTC to regulate broadcasting to ensure Canadian content but has yet to intervene to ensure the protection of women against abuse, and that it is this Parliament's responsibility as provided for in the Broadcasting Act to strengthen, enrich and safeguard the cultural, political, social and economic fabric of Canada.
Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to demonstrate its opposition to the degradation of women by enacting an Act to amend the Broadcasting Act, as introduced by the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) on March 8, 1983. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray. Of course this was signed by numerous residents of Toronto.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a third petition from numerous residents of the Province of British Columbia, representing the communities of Victoria, Steveston, Richmond and Vancouver. Their petition is addressed to the honourable House of Commons in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of Canada, 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 thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in industrial benefits are not accruing to Canadians because the Government has failed to implement a comprehensive and effective marine industrial strategy, that it has failed to enact the appropriate legislation to ensure that offshore oil and gas development benefits will accrue to Canadian industry and Canadian workers, and that Canada's economic growth is in serious jeopardy because of Government inaction in this very vital area.
Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to encourage the Government to implement immediately a sensible and effective marine industrial policy which will result in the creation of a Canadian merchant marine and the expansion of Canadian shipbuilding and allied industries. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr. Speaker, 1 have another petition to present on a related topic. It is somewhat similar. It expresses very serious concerns. It is addressed to the-

-the honourable the House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled.
The petition of the undersigned citizens of Canada who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right to present a common grievance, in the certain assurance that your honourable House will therefore provide a remedy, humbly sheweth that Canadians have been deprived of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in industrial spin-offs because we have no industrial maritime strategy and the federal Government has neglected to provide Canada with a consistent maritime policy, although more than two years ago it promised to announce such a policy, and that the Government's action is endangering Canada's economic growth. Therefore, the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray that the Government be asked to adopt forthwith a consistent and effective maritime policy, resulting in the creation of a Canadian merchant marine and expansion of the Canadian shipping industry and related sectors. As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

This petition is signed by numerous residents of the Province of Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, 1 have the honour to present another petition of a similar nature. As a result of the very vigorous efforts of members of the Canadian Brotherhood of Railway Transport and General Workers who sought to present this petition in the Parliament of Canada, signatures have been obtained from residents of Elmira, Kitchener, St. Catharines and Waterloo, in the Province of Ontario. Essentially their petition is to the honourable House of Commons in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of Canada, 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 because of a very serious omission in the development of a Canadian marine industrial strategy, Canadians are now losing thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in possible benefits; that the federal Government has failed to take the initiative to implement a coherent Canadian marine industrial policy, although such a policy was promised more than two years ago; and that this country's economic growth is being jeopardized because of inaction.
Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to encourage immediately the Government to implement an effective Canadian marine industrial policy which would see the creation of a Canadian merchant fleet and the expansion of Canadian shipbuilding and allied industries. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr. Speaker, I have here a petition which comes from the riding of a colleague in the House, North Vancouver. A large number of people have signed this petition. It is addressed to
October 28, 1983

the honourable House of Commons in Parliament assembled. They are very concerned about the nature of shipbuilding and allied industries on the West Coast of Canada. They have made their thoughts known through the petition of the undersigned residents of Canada, 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 billions of dollars in industrial benefits are not accruing to Canadians because Canada lacks a comprehensive marine industrial strategy, with the result that thousands of jobs are being lost to Asia and Europe by the failure to implement this strategy and that the federal Government neglected to implement such a coherent policy is, therefore, deliberately aiding and abetting in the loss of employment and economic opportunities in this vital sector and the economic growth and wellbeing of this country is in serious jeopardy because of the Government's inaction.
Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to enact soon the legislation required to implement a Canadian marine industrial policy and to develop a Canadian merchant fleet. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.
It is probably relevant to pray now that the Gallup poll shows our colleagues to be at 62 per cent. The intervention may be worthwhile. We should probably pray together.
Mr. Speaker, I want to present another petition from the Province of Quebec. This petition has been gathered by the Syndicat international des marins du Canada.
[ Translation]
To the honourable House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned citizens of Canada who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right to present a common grievance, in the certain assurance that your honourable House will therefore provide a remedy.
Humbly sheweth that:
Canadians have been deprived of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in industrial spin-offs because we have no industrial maritime strategy and the federal Government has neglected to provide Canada with a consistent maritime policy, although more than two years ago it promised to announce such a policy, and that the Government's action is endangering Canada's economic growth.
Therefore, the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray that the Government be asked to adopt forthwith a consistent and effective maritime policy, resulting in the creation of a Canadian merchant marine and the expansion of the Canadian shipping industry and related sectors.
As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

This is signed by numerous individuals in the Province of Quebec in many of the communities which depend upon
Petitions
shipbuilding and the allied industries for their basic livelihood.
1 would put my signature on and submit this for the consideration of the House.
Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to present another petition from residents of Burnaby, B.C., who have put forward this petition to the honourable House of Commons of Canada and Parliament assembled in the hope that Parliament will give consideration to the matter which they have raised. The petition of the undersigned residents of Canada, 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 throughout Canada on the East Coast, along the St. Lawrence River and the Great Lakes and on the West Coast of Canada, and in the North along the MacKenzie delta, there have been thousands of jobs lost and billions of dollars of industrial benefits forgone. They have not accrued to Canadians because Canada lacks a coherent and effective marine industrial strategy. Canada's economic growth and wellbeing is jeopardized because of the Government's inaction in this area.
Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray that the Government be encouraged to implement immediately a sensible, effective and direct marine policy that will result in the creation of a Canadian merchant fleet and the expansion of the Canadian shipbuilding and allied industries. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray. As I mentioned before, this is signed by numerous residents of Burnaby, B.C.
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour once again to present a petition which has been gathered by the longshoremen's union. They have obtained many signatures of residents of the communities of Vancouver and Burnaby, British Columbia, and many areas in the Lower Mainland where marine activities associated with port facilities are of serious concern to these people. They have indicated that they are addressing their petition to the honourable the House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of Canada, 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 thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in industrial benefits are lost to Canada each year because Canada lacks an intelligent marine industrial strategy and that the federal Government for many years have neglected to develop and implement a coherent marine industrial strategy, even though that promise was made to the Canadian people many years ago, that Canada's economic growth and wellbeing are in serious jeopardy because of the Government's inaction.
Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray that the Government will immediately implement a sensible and effective marine policy that will result in Canada having a merchant fleet and expanded facilities for shipbuilding and allied industries. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

October 28, 1983
Petitions
Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by the residents of the communities of New Westminster, Nanaimo, Vancouver. I am looking for one from Rosemond, Alberta, but there does not seem to be one here. Certainly communities such as Richmond and Delta are represented, and so is North Vancouver once again. There are very large populations and areas which are dependent upon the ocean and marine activities for their way of life. They have addressed their petition to the honourable the House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of Canada, 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 provide a remedy, humbly sheweth that thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in industrial benefits are not accruing to Canadians because we lack a coherent and effective marine industrial strategy and that the federal Government has neglected to implement a coherent Canadian marine policy although it promised to do so. Canada's economic growth and wellbeing is in jeopardy because of the Government's inaction.
Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament that the Government be encouraged immediately to implement a sensible, effective, direct marine industrial policy that will result in the creation of a Canadian merchant marine and the expansion of Canadian shipbuilding and allied industries. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.
This is an expression of very serious concern from the residents of Langley, British Columbia, Richmond, Vancouver, Surrey, Delta and New Westminster.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to introduce another petition. This is an expression of concern by many residents of Ontario. They have addressed their petition to the Honourable the House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of the Province of Ontario, who now exercise their right to present a grievance, humbly sheweth that only 3.7 per cent of judicial appointments in the past year were awarded to women, that recent judicial decisions such as the Leatherdale and Brown point to a desperate need for a more balanced perpective on the bench. Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to get cracking and to guarantee that all subsequent federal judicial appointments adhere strictly to the affirmative action program whereby as vacancies on the bench develop women and men will be appointed on an alternating basis. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray. This is a very serious expression of concern that Parliament should address very quickly.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to introduce to the House the concerns of a number of residents of the Province of Ontario in the city of Ottawa. This petition is addressed to the honourable House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of the Province of Ontario, who now exercise their right to present a grievance, humbly sheweth that the Senate has become a retirement haven for political appointees and that the salary paid to Senators is in all probability less than-I cannot make out this word here, but at a time when the old age pensions are limited to six and five, the petition does express some concern about the salary paid to Senators.
Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to abolish the Senate. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.
This is the sincere expression of concern of many residents of the Province of Ontario, and undoubtedly in most Provinces of Canada, and I suspect it would be the majority.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich)):: The Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) on a point of order.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, a few moments ago one of the Members raised the point of how you pronouce "sheweth". As an old, old schoolteacher, and after having verified by the Oxford Directionary I can say that the proper pronunciation is showeth.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich)):: It
is hardly a point of order, and the Hon. Member for Bow River is not as old as he pretends.
The Hon. Member for York-Scarborough (Mr. Cosgrove) on a point of order.


Mr. Cosgrove:: Mr. Speaker, inasmuch as I have the honour of serving as the joint chairman for the Joint Committee on Senate Reform, I would like to have the opportunity, with your concurrence, to receive a copy of the last petition introduced. This Committee has been seeking the opinion of the public, and we have sought opinions from coast to coast, on the subject of Senate reform. We would be very pleased to have a copy to consider the thrust of whatever body of opinion there is in support of the petition last filed with the Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich)):: The Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River on a point of order.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I think it is quite disappointing that the Committee would continue to seek opinion when probably the solution is self-evident and the institution should have been abolished years ago.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich)):: The Hon. Member for York-Scarborough (Mr. Cosgrove) can,
October 28, 1983

upon directing a request to the Table, obtain a copy of that particular petition.


Raymond John Skelly: One further point of order, Mr. Speaker. It pertains to the previous comment by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor). Certainly I concur with the Chair that the age is certainly overestimated and some of the ideas come out of the-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich)):: The Hon. Member is beginning to be facetious. The Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River had the floor.
The Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme).



POINT OF ORDER


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to direct my observation to one Member in particular. Out of curiosity and for my own enlightenment I have read some of the petitions being presented to the House. 1 intend to make a further study of most of these petitions over the weekend, but I would like to remind Hon. Members of Beauchesne's Fourth Edition, at page 257, Citation 334 (1). I will read it because 1 think you will see exactly where 1 am leading. It reads:
A petition must have original signatures or marks, and not copies from the orignal-
I attract your attention to the following, Mr. Speaker.
-nor signatures of agents on behalf of others, except in case of incapacity by sickness;
Mr. Speaker, prima facie I am under the impression, having rapidly read a couple of them, that some of the petitions have been signed by the same people. 1 will double check that, but I would just like to remind Hon. Members that if such was the case it would be totally unacceptable to receive these petitions if they have been signed by one person with the same ink, with the same handwriting. This is against the rule, to say the least.
I will say more on Monday, or next week, but I would like to remind Members of Citation 334 of Beauchesne, where it is absolutely clear that each signature must be made by each individual person.


Charles James Mayer: I rise on the same point of order, Mr. Speaker. It seems to me what is going on here today is simply the presentation of petitions. Surely, after they are presented, Mr. Speaker, and sent to the Table, it is then up to the Table officers and the Speaker to rule whether they are in order to be received by the House. 1 believe the concern which the Hon. Member is raising is already looked after, in fact, after the petitions are presented.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. Each day the Chair announces to the House its ruling as
Point of Order-Mr. Prud'homme
to whether or not a petition is in proper form. It is up to the Chair and its advisers. It is not up to the Hon. Member to decide whether or not there is some kind of prima facie evidence of duplication or same signatures. Surely that is up to the Chair and the Chair's advisers and no one else.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, with all due deference to my good friend in the New Democratic Party, it is not my understanding of the rules. I would like a ruling from the Chair about that, if not today, then at some other time. The Table is only asked to receive petitions and see that they are in the right form. It is not the duty-unless I am convinced otherwise-of the Chair or of the officers at the Table to check if the names are factual or if the names do exist. That is not their duty. Unless, 1 repeat, I am convinced otherwise by Your Honour, it is not the duty of the officers at the Table to check if the name exists or if it is a duplicate. Their duty is to receive or not to receive petitions and to check them as to their proper form. That is their only duty. It is the duty of the Hon. Member, 1 contend Mr. Speaker, who presents the petition, to be very careful to make sure that it is acceptable and that there are not two signatures of the same person. That is my point of view and I invite the Chair's comments on the point I am making.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I simply want to speak to the point of order with respect to the comments made by the Hon. Member for Portage-Marquette (Mr. Mayer). He said that what we have here is a simple presentation of petitions. Nothing could be further from the truth. We have here a total hijacking of Parliament. The Canadian people should be aware that this has nothing to do with the presentation of petitions. It is simply a way of totally wasting the time of this House and the taxpayers' money. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we subject these petitions to the most rigorous test so that the Canadian people will know exactly how Hon. Members opposite are totally destroying this institution.


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the point of order raised by the Hon. Member concerning the signing of petitions, very simply, what I said was that what we are going through as far as procedure today is concerned is the presentation of petitions. It is then up to the Chair, as 1 understand it, to decide whether in fact the petitions were presented in such a fashion as to be found to be in order. In fact, Madam Speaker did find that some of the petitions presented yesterday were out of order. We do not need any lessons or lectures from the Minister of Transport as to what is going on in Parliament when he has to bring in closure to ram through a Bill which affects the Minister's own part of the country. We do not need any lectures from that side on what this Government is doing or is continuing to do to Parliament, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. Although a debate which is based on points of order made on the subject of the legislation which would be before the House on some other day may be more interesting than petitions, nevertheless I do not believe the Chair is in a position to allow the debate to take place, based on points of order.

October 28, 1983
Point of Order-Mr. Prud'homme


Lloyd Axworthy: At least it makes a change.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Why did you sneak it in on Private Members' day? It was a dirty trick.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Some Hon. Members have indicated that at least it is a change. I agree. However, I do not think I should recognize other Hon. Members if what they want to do is to contribute to debate. The point of order
is-
[ Translation]
-a point of order-

-an appeal to the regulations of the House. I will recognize Hon. Members but 1 would ask them to stay within those limits.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Mr. Speaker, 1 did not catch what you said at the end, but I would like to say, on the same point of order, that it is not a hijacking of Parliament, and it has been the New Democratic Party


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. What I was attempting to say to all Hon. Members is that a legitimate point of order has been raised as to how petitions are to be seen, how they are to be reviewed, what are the responsibilities of the officers at the Table and the people in the Chair. Those points of order which refer to issues on the Crow Bill or anything of that nature are not legitimate points of order. I would ask Hon. Members to stay within the limit of the matter of petitions and how they are dealt with.


Douglas Keith Anguish: What I intend to address exactly, Mr. Speaker, is the point of order concerning petitions and the form and relevancy of them. First of all, I would like to point out that there is an urgency in presenting petitions because many of the petitions I have received deal with pieces of legislation which are possibly before Parliament. We all know that this session of Parliament is coming to an end very soon and that the Government wants to start a new session. Therefore, these petitions from my own constituents and from constituents all across Canada, which have been sent to us, need to be presented at this time because they will not be relevant after the new session of Parliament begins, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. There is no dispute as to the urgency, in the view of the Hon. Members of the House of Commons or anyone else. The only issue is the form. I might simply indicate that the responsibility of the Chair and of the Table is to establish that any given petition is acceptable in its form. I feel, perhaps, that the issue has been sufficiently ventilated. However, I understand that the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis wants to look further into it. I would reserve his right to do that and to pursue the matter further if he so wishes. No one is disputing whether or not these petitions are urgent.


Yvon Pinard: 1 rise on a point of order. I just want to confirm very clearly that the order of the day on Monday will be Bill
C-155. I mention that now because I feel it is important that the Opposition Members do not find some other pretext on Monday to try to waste the time of the House, like it did yesterday and today, when the Government is attempting to create hundreds of thousands of jobs in Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: It hurts, does it not?


An Hon. Member:: Is that a point of order, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Partly.


Douglas Keith Anguish: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, if the Government is creating hundreds of thousands of jobs I would like to know what it is doing to create these hundreds of thousands of jobs. The way we see the present legislation-


Lloyd Axworthy: Order.


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


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, you know I have been an Hon. Member of the House for 20 years. That is the reason my approach to this debate is more kind than partisan, in my view. I would just like to remind Hon. Members of the rules. After reading them a little more I am afraid that the rules are much more severe than I expected, even though I thought 1 knew them well. With all kindness to my colleagues who are at the moment presenting petitions-and I am not singling one out in particular at this time-I reserve my right to look at all petitions which were introduced this week. However, I already have one in my hand which, as I said, prima facie, appears to be signed by the same person for many names.


An Hon. Member:: Shame.


Marcel Prud'homme: I do not want to say "shame" as my good friend and neighbour did. I would like to remind my colleagues that it is not the duty of the Table officers to check if the names are the same or are a reproduction. It is their duty to receive the petitions.
I will read, without comment at this time, from the Nineteenth Edition ofErskine May, at page 141. The heading is:
Presenting Forged, Falsified or Fabricated Documents to Either House or Committees of Either House.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: You had better put your name on the line here.


Marcel Prud'homme: I am reminding Members-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Careful.


Marcel Prud'homme: I am more careful than you think.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Are you accusing anyone?
October 28, 1983


Marcel Prud'homme: I think you did not listen to me, sir, but if you force me to become partisan, I will.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: You are such a neutral Liberal.


Marcel Prud'homme: I said 1 will, and if the attitude of the Hon. Member is such, I may become more partisan and do today what I may do on Monday.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Then you might show up in the House?


Marcel Prud'homme: It says:
It is a breach of privilege to present or cause to be presented to either House or to committees of either House forged, falsified or fabricated documents with intent to deceive such House or committees or to subscribe the names of other persons or fictitious names to documents intended to be presented to either House or committees of either House, or to be privy to, or cognizant of, such forgery or fraud.
Examples of this kind of contempt are:
Forging signatures to petitions or subscribing fictitious signatures thereto
(Pilkington's Case, C. J. (1825) 445;
There are many other cases cited. I just want to put that on the record. Members should follow what I have just said and be absolutely sure about some of the petitions presented. I did not make an accusation about any Member, I just read from Erskine May. If the Hon. Member wants to come with me, we will examine one petition and he will come to the same conclusion that, prima facie, I have doubt on at least one petition. That is all 1 want to say, Mr. Speaker.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, it is incumbent upon the Member who just spoke, not any other Member, to present evidence, if he has it, of illegality or forgery or whatever. Until he does that, 1 invite him to finish reading the whole rule book, all of Beauchesne's and everything else, and he can take up the rest of the afternoon. We will be glad to listen to him.


Mr. Huntington:: Mr. Speaker, as a Member who had the privilege of presenting five petitions yesterday, I just want to make it very clear that I would be really concerned if I put forward a petition not in the proper form. I think a Member has his pride to contend with when he is presenting petitions. 1 suggest that is the issue, and the Table and Speaker's staff will find out whether the petition is in proper form. 1 think your own pride as a Member is at stake when you are using the petition process.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, 1 sincerely think the point raised by the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) is most serious. What he has said should be examined very carefully. I would like that some of those petitions tabled today be looked at in light of what the Hon. Member has said, because we would like the rules of the House to apply. What he was quoting was a clear indication of what can be and what cannot be done in this place. I have not examined the petitions but he has referred to some existing doctrines and 1 would like those who examine the petitions to take into serious consideration the remarks made by the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis before next Monday.
Point of Order-Mr. Prud'homme


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Chair has a difficulty. 1 have to respond to the point made by the Hon. Member or Saint-Denis by indicating I would be concerned as well if indeed petitions are presented in a manner not consistent with the spirit of parliamentary rules and the purpose of petitions. That could be a fairly serious problem.
I will recognize other Hon. Members on points of order in that regard, but I must say that the Chair can make no decision now because these petitions have not been examined as to whether or not they are in the proper form. That decision will be made probably by Monday.


James Aloysius McGrath: At the next sitting of the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: At the next sitting of the House. But in the interim if there are serious problems with respect to form, perhaps Hon. Members might want to reconsider their presentation of petitions. I am in no position to give decisions one by one on these petitions. They will be done, as the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) has said, probably at the next sitting of the House on Monday, or not later than another day.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, this is a spurious point of order because clearly it is the responsibility of the Chair under our rules to examine petitions as to their proper form, as you just indicated. Quite frankly, 1 do not believe this is a point of order at all.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I would not want to comment because it is perhaps beyond our capacity at this point to do so, but 1 do not want the point of order to go by without raising an observation with respect to the procedure now being followed. Those who are watching us can draw no other conclusion than that motives have in fact been imputed, which may or may not have validity. To use the floor of the House of Commons to question another Member seems to me to be quite improper and somewhat outside of our practices, and I wish that practice to be stopped now.


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, I agree entirely with my deputy House Leader. I find it unfortunate that these kinds of allegations would be made. I know 1 have had an opportunity to present many petitions, and the practice and right is as ancient and as fundamental to parliamentary democracy as anything else. It is one thing to talk the procedure of presenting petitions, but another thing to talk about the collection process as far as signatures are concerned. I would feel very sad if in fact that is the kind of allegation made. I certainly speak for myself and everyone on our side when I say that in the many times I have had the chance to present petitions, that certainly has not been the case at all.


Mr. Malone:: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) has made some points. It is his suggestion that the Table officers take the weekend to consider them. I sought your attention to simply put on record one caution I would like to be exercised. The allegation is that one person has written a number of names. In the name collection

October 28, 1983
Point of Order-Mr. Prud'homme
process of petitions I have been involved in, such as the use of metric in auction markets, the petition was thumb-tacked to a bulletin board. I noted that with some frequency people would write Mr. and Mrs. and then the name, perhaps including children's names, all done in one pen and one hand. I think it is one thing to find a person is fabricating names, if that is the contention, but it should be noted that there is sometimes a duplication of names simply because of the close relationship of the people involved who are of the same opinion. They are separate, and 1 would not want them to be categorized in such a way as to say that one person cannot sign for his spouse or siblings.


Yvon Pinard: Each case would be looked at on its merits.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: At this point, I would ordinarily recognize the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly) because of the number of occasions on which he has risen. However, 1 am not sure whether he is rising on a point of order or whether he is rising on petitions.


Raymond John Skelly: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: In that case, the Chair will now recognize that Hon. Member on that point of order.
There are a great many other Members who are rising on points of order. I leave it to each individual Hon. Member to decide whether the subject has been aired sufficiently or whether they wish to continue this particular point of order.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I think it is time to lay this question to rest. The petition sheet, on which this issue was called into question, contains some 30 additional pages of a petition that was circulated in the newspapers and mailed back. Ultimately, Mr. Speaker, these are tabled-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. I do want to try to contain the debate on this point of order. The Hon. Member for Saint-Denis did not raise an objection, and he specifically so indicated, against any one particular petition.


Raymond John Skelly: Then, Mr. Speaker, he does not have a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: In that case, I think it is out of order to refer to an argument on any one given petition.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, do we really have a point of order before us? The Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) stood up in the House and gave notice of an admonition to the House, but he did not in fact in my opinion raise a valid point of order.


An Hon. Member:: It was a broad brush smear.


Raymond John Skelly: It was not a broad brush smear. He certainly expressed some concerns, but I am not certain that those concerns might exist other than his indicating that he had some evidence that he might wish to raise on Monday. I do not
think, Mr. Speaker, that we do have a point of order before us until the Hon. Member makes some kind of a specific accusation in the House. I think you should dispense with it, Mr. Speaker, and move on. I think that your original thoughts on this matter were probably the best for the direction of the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I thank the Hon. Member for the compliment but I cannot refuse to see another Hon. Member on a point of order.


Mr. Thacker:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the point of order raised by the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme). I think it is appropriate to note that the vast majority of petitions are from people in western Canada. That is no accident because it flows out of what so many people in western Canada do say in response to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy). It is when the House is sitting that the West is being oppressed and attacked, whether it is by the National Energy Program, the Crow-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Hon. Member is entering into debate. A small voice in my ear indicated that I ought to correct myself about not being able to refuse to recognize Hon. Members on points of order. Of course it is possible that at some point the Chair may have to declare that there is an end to hearing points of order.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to make two comments with respect to petitions. First, if anyone decided to write a petition and one person signed it on behalf of many others, that would be a complete fraud.
The second point I wish to make is that I see some petitions signed in front of me, but hundreds and thousands of them come through the mail. There is no way that I can swear an affidavit that any one particular person signed that petition. However, I have to give some credence to the credibility of the people of the country. They are not illiterate. They will not sign a petition unless they believe in what it calls for. It is an ancient right of the people to present a petition to their Parliament through their representatives. I do not think Hon. Members of the House should be questioning that right to sign a petition.
Thousands of these people have signed these petitions. They are very concerned. They are so concerned that they sign petitions and send them to their Members, many times even putting stamps on the letters. I think we should accept these petitions for what they are, and I wish the Government would realize that these petitions mean something. The Government should try to reflect the thinking of the people, as indicated by these petitions.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. 1 think a very important point was raised by the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme), and although it did not deal with a petition that I had tabled, 1 did go with him to look at the prima facie evidence that he alluded to in his point of order.
October 28, 1983

1 think it is important that Hon. Members of the House know just what it was the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis was talking about. It was a petition provided to the Members of the House by the Seafarers' International Union and it is clear on the surface, at least to the eyes of the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis and to my eyes as well, that the same hand put a number of signatures and addresses on the petition. However, I do not think it is for us as individual Members or for the Chair to decide. Perhaps it is for the Table officers to decide. It may well reflect upon what kind of meeting it was. Perhaps it was a meeting at which a great many handicapped people were present. Perhaps there was some reason why that was done.
1 believe that the manner in which the point was raised has cast some doubt in the minds of those people who are watching this as to whether or not some kind of falsified petitions are being put forward. I think it should be clear to all Hon. Members and to the Chair that I went with the Hon. Member from the Government side and looked at the petition. That appears to be the case on that one petition and only for a limited number of names on a very extensive petition, which obviously contains a great many other bona fide signatures.
1 do not think the people should feel that some kind of scam is going on whereby petitions are being tabled that have been put together fraudulently or by forgery. I agree with the prima facie point raised by the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis but I do not think that the idea should be left in the House that there are some kind of fraudulent activities going on.


PETITIONS
Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I wish to have the honour to present 25 pages of petitions all dealing with the same subject sent by the Seafarers' International Union. 1 believe that these petitions match those for which there is presently concern. The petition of the undersigned residents of Canada, 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 thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in industrial benefits are not accruing to Canadians because we lack a marine industrial strategy, that the federal Government has neglected to implement a coherent marine industrial policy although over two years ago it promised to develop such a policy, and that Canada's economic growth and wellbeing is in jeopardy because of the Government's inaction.
Therefore your petitioners humbly pray that the Government be encouraged to implement immediately a sensible and effective marine policy that will result in the creation of a Canadian merchant marine and the expansion of Canadian shipbuilding and allied industries. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.
Petitions
These signatures, Mr. Speaker, are those of people from virtually one end of the country to the other. The petition appears in both languages and is signed by numerous people and by thousands of different hands. 1 think this would probably reassure the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis that this is a bona fide petition and addresses a very sincere and serious concern of thousands and thousands of people in the country. If that will lay his mind to rest, I would offer him the weekend to examine this petition and examine the issue which gave rise to his point of order. 1 hope that it will help him.


Raymond John Skelly: Moving right along, Mr. Speaker, I again have the honour of presenting another bona fide petition to the honourable the House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of the Province of Ontario, who now exercise their right to present a grievance, humbly sheweth that the intent of the Freedom of Information Act was to make Government information and files more accessible to the public and that plans to charge outrageous fees for information requests would undermine the spirit of the Act as well as make it inaccessible to less affluent persons.
Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to provide information under the Freedom of Information Act free of charge. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, 1 have the honour to present another petition that deals with a very vital and important question. The petition is addressed to the honourable the House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of the Province of Ontario, who now exercise their right to present a grievance, humbly sheweth that all persons, regardless of sexual orientation, should have the right to employment, housing and social services.
Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to include sexual orientation in the Canada Human Rights Act and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as a prohibited ground for discrimination. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present another petition which is addressed to the Honourable the House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled. It is signed by a number of residents of Ottawa in the Province of Ontario.
The petition of the undersigned residents, who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right thus to present a grievance common to your petitioners in the certain

October 28, 1983
Petitions
assurance that your honourable House will therefore provide a remedy, humbly sheweth that negotiations between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of Canada in the 19th Century regarding the demarcation of the boundary between Canada and the United States were conducted under duress, and that the boundary fixed at the 49th parallel north of the equator has no force in law, and that the area bounded by the 42nd parallel north of the equator and the 49th parallel north of the equator and west of the continental divide does not legitimately belong to the United States although that country now defines this region as comprising the States of Oregon, Washington and Idaho.
Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to urge the Government of Canada to unilaterally reject the treaty that fixed the boundary between Canada and the United States at the 49th parallel north of the equator and undertake negotiations with the United States for the return of Oregon, Washington and Idaho according to the norms of international law that were so grievously violated in the nineteenth Century. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition to the honourable the House of Commons in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of the Province of Ontario, who now exercise their right to present a grievance, humbly sheweth that the present arms race between the United States and the Soviet Union is sheer madness, that Canada should not allow itself to be pressured into following American foreign policy.
Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to state outright now that Canada will not allow Cruise missile testing over its soil nor the manufacture of any components for the Cruise missile. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray. I would like to recommend that petition to the House.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to introduce a further petition to the House of Commons which all Parties, especially the Government, should consider. It is addressed to the honourable the House of Commons in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of the Province of Ontario, who now exercise their right to present a grievance, humbly sheweth that a person's political beliefs should not be used to justify barring a person from housing, employment or social services.
Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to include political beliefs in the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as a prohibited ground for discrimination. As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, the petition of the undersigned residents of Canada, who now exercise their right to present a grievance, humbly sheweth that, whereas the salary budget for staff of Members of Parliament is frozen until August 3, 1984, under the six and five program, and that MP's were not informed of the freeze until well into the first year of the program, and that as a result most MP's staffs will not receive any salary increases during 1983 and most of 1984, therefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to increase salaries of staffs of Members of Parliament so that these employees are able to meet the financial arrangements they entered into based on salary increases MP's and staff were led to expect. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray. This is signed by a number of residents of the Province of Ontario.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition which is addressed to the honourable the House of Commons in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of Canada, who now exercise their right to present a grievance, humbly sheweth that the western Canadian farmers paid $131 million to move export grain under the Crow freight rate in the 1981-82 crop years. This grain, in turn, contributed $6.3 billion to the balance of trade. The undersigned believe that this is the farmers' fair contribution to the Canadian economy and that western farmers will pay one times Crow, no charge.
Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to maintain the present statutory Crow grain freight rate. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.
This is signed by numerous individuals from across the Province of Saskatchewan, and in order to reassure the Hon. Member for St. Denis (Mr. Prud'homme), let me say that, to the best of my knowledge, the signatures are all different.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to present another petition on a matter of vital concern to residents on the West Coast of Canada. It is addressed to the honourable the House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of Canada, 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 oil companies, particularly Chevron of Canada, are considering a resumption of offshore exploration of oil and gas on the West Coast. The Federal Government is considering lifting the moratorium on offshore oil exploration on the West Coast that has existed there for many, many years, and
October 28, 1983

any future benefits to British Columbia are in serious question because of the federal Government's new energy legislation. There are obvious dangers to the environment which will affect the basis of the economy of the West Coast and the fishing industry.
Therefore, your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament that there be full and complete public hearings into the supply and demand for energy and the socioeconomic and environmental aspects of offshore development before this moratorium is lifted, and in duty bound your petitioners ever pray.
This petition was also signed by numerous people with different hands from the communities of Half Moon Bay, Seashelt, British Columbia, Gibsons, North Vancouver and downtown Ladysmith.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a petition to the honourable House of Commons in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of the Province of Ontario who now exercise their right to present a grievance, humbly sheweth that inclusion of enjoyment of property in the Charter of Rights would have a serious implication for environmental rights, Indian land claims, workers' rights, etc.
Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to ensure full consideration of property rights, both in the House and in the Justice Committee, and to allow the public the broadest opportunity for input, and as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.
That is a very sound recommendation, Mr. Speaker.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, 1 have the honour to present a petition which is addressed to the honourable House of Commons in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of the Province of Ontario, who now exercise their right to present a grievance, humbly sheweth that the application of the six and five program to old age pensions is obscene in that it hits out at our elderly citizens, many of whom can barely subsist on existing pensions.
Wherefore, the undersigned, your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament not to limit old age pensions to six and five, and instead to increase old age pensions to a minimum of 50 per cent of the average industrial wage. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.
Petitions


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to present another petition to the House of Commons. It is addressed to the honourable the House of Commons in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of the Province of Ontario, who now exercise their right to present their grievance, humbly sheweth that the present escalation of the military buildup by both the United States and the Soviet Union constitutes a no-win situation while draining public funds from social programs and job creation.
We, therefore, the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to declare Canada a nuclear weapons-free zone, and as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I have the Honour to present another petition. It is addressed to the House of Commons in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of the province of Ontario, who now exercise their right to present a grievance, humbly sheweth that the application of the six and five program to the family allowance program undermines the principle of universality and hits hardest at those who can least afford it.
Wherefore, the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament not to limit the family allowance to six and five and instead to re-establish the original base for the program and to make retroactive compensation payments to Canadian families. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.
This petition is signed by a number of residents of the Province of Ontario.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition addressed to the House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of the Province of Ontario, who now exercise their right to present a grievance, humbly sheweth that the existing denial of the right to unionize by all Parliament Hill employees contravenes the spirit and intent of the Canadian Charter of Rights and offends against our democratic sensibilities. Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to extend to all Parliament Hill employees the right to organize and the right to collective bargaining. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.
That petition is signed by a number of residents of Ontario.

October 28, 1983
Petitions


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition. It is addressed to the honourable the House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of the Province of Ontario, who now exercise their right to present their grievance, humbly sheweth that the existing contempt of court provisions are anachronistic, and that the greater role to be assumed by the judiciary under the Charter of Rights underlines the need for the public to have confidence in the judicial system.
Wherefore the undersigned your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to revise contempt of court laws in the next Parliament, and in the process to allow the public to make representations on the matter. And as in duty bound your petitioners ever pray.
MR. SKELLY-ELECTORAL DISTRICT OF NORTH ISLAND-POWELL .	RIVER


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition of very serious concern to residents of Gibsons, British Columbia, Langdale, British Columbia-the sunshine coast. The petition is addressed to the honourable the House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of Canada, 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 recommendations of the Electoral Boundaries Commission of British Columbia are that the area of the Sechelt Peninsula be placed in the electoral district of Capilano-Howe Sound; that the residents of the Sechelt Peninsula share a common interest with the residents of the proposed electoral district of North Island-Powell River by reasons of geographical boundaries and by communities of interest, including common transportation concerns and a common economic base; that the residents of the Sechelt Peninsula have very little community of interest with the residents of the electoral district of Capilano-Howe Sound, that electoral district being principally an urban one; and that the inclusion of the Sechelt Peninsula in the electoral district of North Island-Powell River will not create an imbalance of population.
Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray that the House of Commons will recommend to the Electoral Boundaries Commission of British Columbia that the residents of the Sechelt Peninsula remain within the electoral district of North Island-Powell River. As I pointed out, this was signed by a number of people from the Sechelt Peninsula.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to present a petition addressed to the honourable
the House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled. The petition is from a number of residents of North Surrey and Vancouver, British Columbia.


Mr. Friesen:: Bob Wenman would not like that.


Raymond John Skelly: Maybe they feel that another presentation is required. At any rate, the petition of the undersigned residents of Canada, 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 thousands of jobs and billions of dollars of industrial benefits are not accruing to Canadians because they lack an industrial strategy, that the Government has neglected to implement a coherent industrial strategy although it promised many times in the past to do so, and that Canada's economic growth and wellbeing is being jeopardized by Government inaction.
Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray that the Government be encouraged to implement immediately a sensible and effective marine industrial policy which will result in the creation of a Canadian merchant fleet and the expansion of Canadian shipbuilding and allied industries.
Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to present another petition signed by individuals from Oshawa, St. Catharines, Scarborough, Downsview, Bellechasse and Montreal. This petition deals with the topic of a sensible and effective marine industrial strategy for Canada. It is addressed to-

-to the honourable House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned citizens of Canada who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right to present a common grievance, in the certain assurance that your honourable House will therefore provide a remedy.
Humbly sheweth that:
Canadians have been deprived of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in industrial spin-offs because we have no industrial marine strategy and the federal Government has neglected to provide Canada with a consistent maritime policy, although more than two years ago it promised to announce such a policy, and that the Government's inaction is endangering Canada's economic growth.
Therefore, the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray that the Government be asked to adopt forthwith a consistent and effective maritime policy, resulting in the creation of a Canadian merchant marine and the expansion of the Canadian shipping industry and related sectors.
As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to present a further petition, addressed to the House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of Canada, who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right thus to present a grievance common to
October 28, 1983

your petitioners in the certain assurance that your honourable House will therefore provide a remedy, humbly sheweth that because of the lack of a marine industrial strategy, Canadians are subject to substantial unemployment and tremendous loss of industrial spin-off benefits to Asian and European countries; that the federal Government over a number of years has failed to implement an effective Canadian marine industrial policy, although there was a solid commitment for years and years to do so; and that it is obvious Canadian economic growth and development has been severely harmed by Government inaction in this area.
Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray that the Government move quickly to implement the effective development of a Canadian merchant fleet and the expansion of Canadian shipbuilding and allied industries. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr. Speaker, 1 have the pleasure of being invited to present a petition which is addressed to the honourable the House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled. It contains a substantial number of signatures of citizens of Lakeshore Road, Toronto and Mississauga, in the Province of Ontario, which appear to be in order. The petition of the undersigned residents of Canada, 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 thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in industrial benefits are being lost each year to Canadians because the Government of Canada has failed to develop a Canadian marine industrial program, that the federal Government failed over many years to develop a coherent Canadian marine policy although it promised to do so, and that the Canadian economy has been harmed because of Government inaction.
Therefore your petitioners humbly pray that the Government be encouraged immediately to implement a sensible and effective marine policy that will result in the creation of a Canadian merchant fleet and the expansion of Canadian shipbuilding facilities and allied industries in Canada. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition addressed to the honourable the House of Commons in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of Canada, 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. This petition is presented by a number of residents in the community of Grantham Landing, British Columbia. The
Petitions
petition basically recommends to the House of Commons that the Electoral Boundaries Commission of British Columbia take into consideration the fact that the Sechelt Peninsula has a large number of common interests with the proposed electoral area of North Island-Powell River. The petition requests that the Sechelt Peninsula be included in that electoral district rather than being moved into the electoral district of Capilano, which is the current proposal.
Wherefore your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Commons will recommend to the Electoral Boundaries Commission of British Columbia that the residents of the Sechelt Peninsula remain within the electoral district of North Island-Powell River.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a great deal of pleasure in presenting a petition that is addressed to the honourable the House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled. The petition is from the undersigned residents of Canada in the Province of Ontario, who now exercise their right to present a grievance. There is grave concern about the growing amount of pornographic material available in the community in many forms, especially the increase in violence depicted in pornography, degradation and sexual exploitation of children. There is increasing evidence of the direct harmful effects of pornography in sexual and other assaults and in child abuse. The Canadian obscenity laws are woefully out of date and inadequate for dealing with current problems.
Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to revise the obscenity laws to reflect community concerns about excessive violence and degradation of the human person, sexual exploitation of children and the portrayal of coercive sexual relations by imposing serious penalties for violations. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present another petition that is addressed to the honourable the House of Commons in Parliament assembled. The petition is from the undersigned residents of Canada 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. This petition deals with the question of the marine industrial strategy of Canada. It indicates that there has been an enormous loss of income to Canadians, an enormous loss of unemployment and that this country has generally been harmed economically because of the lack of the Government's initiative in this area. The federal Government

October 28, 1983
Petitions
has neglected to pay attention to this area for decades. As a result, the Canadian economy has suffered and Canadian workers and businesses have been placed in severe jeopardy because of the Government's inaction.
Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray that the Government be encouraged to move immediately to implement an effective policy of marine industrial development and the development of a Canadian merchant marine fleet and the expansion of shipbuilding and allied industries.
This is signed by people from the Province of British Columbia, White Rock, Port Langley, Surrey, Delta, Coquitlam, New Westminster, Haney, Port Moody, Aldergrove, Sardis. It essentially covers many areas of the Province of British Columbia.
Mr. Speaker, I have an excellent petition to present addressed to the honourable the House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled. The signatures gathered in this petition will interest the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme). They are those of the Seafarers' International Union of Canada on Homer Street in Vancouver, B.C. All the signatures appear to be in order. They are extremely concerned. They addressed the petition to the honourable the House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled. The petition is from the undersigned residents of Canada 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. They outline in very explicit detail that the Seafarers' of Canada have lost enormous employment opportunities. This country has suffered the loss of hundreds of millions of dollars in lost revenues because the Government of Canada has failed to develop a Canadian merchant fleet. The petitioners humbly pray that the Government immediately move forward to develop a Canadian merchant fleet, which would obviously result in the expansion of shipbuilding and allied trade in this country. It is my pleasure to present this petition on behalf of those individuals.
Mr. Speaker, this petition is brought forward and I have the honour to present it to this House. It is from St. Catharines and Windsor, Ontario, areas in which many individuals have suffered as a result of the failure to implement a marine strategy. It is addressed to the honourable the House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of Canada, 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 there has been a tremendous loss of employment opportunities and an incredible amount of money in lost revenue for Canadians. That has taken place because the Government has failed to develop an industrial policy in this country, has neglected to implement such a policy for decades, and has placed in severe jeopardy many of those
shipbuilding operations across Canada that are facing very bleak prospects because of Government action.
Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament that the Government be encouraged immediately to implement a sensible and effective marine policy that will result in the creation of a Canadian merchant fleet and the expansion of Canadian shipbuilding and allied industries.
Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to present another petition from a number of residents of the Province of British Columbia who have expressed their concerns. This petition has been gathered by the CBRT and General Workers Union and they express their concern through the following text.
The petition of the undersigned residents of Canada, who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right to present a grievance common to your petitioners in the certain assurance that your honourable House will therefore provide a remedy, humbly sheweth that thousands of jobs and billions of dollars of industrial benefits are not accruing to Canadians because we lack a marine industrial strategy and that the federal Government has neglected to implement a coherent marine policy, although it promised to do so over two years ago, and that Canada's economic growth and wellbeing is in jeopardy because of the Government's inaction.
Therefore, your petitioners humbly pray that the Government be encouraged immediately to implement a sensible and effective marine policy that will result in the creation of a Canadian merchant fleet and the expansion of shipbuilding and allied industries.
Mr. Speaker, I again have the pleasure to present a very important statement by way of a petition from residents of Lauzon, Quebec. They have addressed their petition to the House of Commons and have indicated the following.
[ Translation]
To the honourable House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned citizens of Canada who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right to present a common grievance, in the certain assurance that your honourable House will therefore provide a remedy.
Humbly sheweth that:
Canadians have been deprived of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in industrial spin-offs because we have no industrial marine strategy and the federal Government has neglected to provide Canada with a consistent maritime policy, although more than two years ago it promised to announce such a policy, and that the Government's inaction is endangering Canada's economic growth.
Therefore, the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray that the Government be asked to adopt forthwith a consistent
October 28, 1983

and effective maritime policy, resulting in the creation of a Canadian merchant marine and the expansion of the Canadian shipping industry and related sectors.
As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, I have examined this petition and have found it to be in pencil, which worries me somewhat. It may be that this will be called into contest, but I certainly think it is appropriate to give it consideration and the benefit of the doubt. It is signed by residents of Surrey, British Columbia, Maple Ridge and other places where the recession has hit very hard. It is addressed to the honourable the House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of Canada, who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right to present a grievance common to your petitioners with the certain assurance that your honourable House will therefore provide a remedy, humbly sheweth that thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in industrial benefits are not accruing to Canadians because we lack a marine industrial strategy and that the federal Government has neglected to implement a coherent Canadian marine policy, although it promised to do so more than two years ago, and Canadian economic growth and wellbeing are in jeopardy because of the Government's inaction.
Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray that the Government will be encouraged immediately to implement a sensible and effective marine policy that will result in the creation of a Canadian merchant fleet and the expansion of Canadian shipbuilding and allied industries. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.
I wonder if we might get a ruling from the Table at some point on whether the pencil is okay.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent that we proceed to Orders of the Day.


Raymond John Skelly: You cannot even get it from your side.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I see why the Hon. President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) did not rise on a point of order, but simply rose for recognition. It makes an interesting procedural point as to whether or not he acquired the floor without a point of order, and he did. Technically, in that sense, he is able to seek the unanimous consent to move to Orders of the Day. Is that agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: It is not agreed. I will recognize the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River in order that he may continue with his petitions. But first I recognize the President of the Privy Council on a point of order.
Point of Order-Mr. Pinard




Yvon Pinard: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The President of the Privy Council on a point of order.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to take down the names of all Opposition Members who said no and who, consequently, do not want Parliament to operate normally and would rather prevent the Government from creating hundreds of thousands of jobs in this country and spending billions of dollars in Western Canada.
I think that for two days now the Progressive Conservative Party and the New Democratic Party have been quite irresponsible and that their objections ought to be recorded. They are the ones who do not want us to create hundreds of thousands of jobs throughout Canada; that should be made public and they ought to be officially censured by having that fact recorded in Hansard. Mr. Speaker, my request is simple: on a point of order, I ask that all Members who object to the Government creating hundreds of thousands of jobs through Bill C-155 give their name to the Clerk before we adjourn.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Perhaps the President of the Privy Council would refer the Chair to the particular Standing Order to which he refers.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, it is incumbent upon the Government to decide the Orders of the Day, as set forth in Standing Order 23(2). Now then, we have been trying for two days to debate Bill C-155 which will enable us to spend billions of dollars in Western Canada and create hundreds of thousands of jobs throughout the country, but owing to the dilatory tactics of the Opposition, we-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I believe the President of the Privy Council knows 1 must interrupt him in this regard. If he is referring to Standing Order 23(2), which entitles the Government to establish the Orders of the Day, that does not translate either into a right or an obligation on the part of the Chair to entertain a procedure which would cause all Hon. Members present in the House to register themselves in some fashion.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I would have appreciated being heard on that point. However, since you have disposed of it in a very able fashion, before hearing representations, I might suggest there is a way out of the dilemma which the President

October 28, 1983
Point of Order-Mr. Pinard
of the Privy Council suggests we are in. In order to establish the view, the national collective view, call an election.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Yvon Pinard: We will certainly call an election. However, 1 do not know when. Certainly, we have always respected the Constitution of this country. We intend to keep on doing that. I do not want the Hon. Member for Yukon to turn this into-


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Hang onto your jobs while you can.


Yvon Pinard: -a joke. Our request is serious. There are over a million unemployed in this country who are watching the Tories and the NDP-


Erik Nielsen: Who caused the unemployment?


Yvon Pinard: -wasting the time of the House of Commons.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Hon. Member for Portage-Marquette (Mr. Mayer) has the enormous advantage of being in my immediate vicinity so that I tend to recognize him very often. I would ask him, in return for his recognition, since he is rising on a point of order, that he apply himself to the Standing Orders.


Charles James Mayer: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. With regard to the request of the Government House Leader that the number of Hon. Members who are in the House be recorded, I suggest there is a way out of that dilemma. If the Speaker would accept a motion of non-confidence we could vote on it and everyone would know who was in the House at this particular time.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Kristiansen:: Mr. Speaker, it is a point of order. I understand the difficulty which the Chair finds itself in with some Hon. Members being closer to the Chair than others. However, the President of the Privy Council rose to his feet, apparently not on a point of order, and was still recognized and allowed to set forth an option or a request for unanimous consent. At the time the President of the Privy Council rose, not on a point of order, my colleague, the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River, was still being recognized by the Chair, was still on his feet. He was still in the process of presenting petitions. If the President of the Privy Council did not rise on a point of order, how then, I must ask, did he ever gain the floor? If he did not gain the floor, then how could we have points of orders interjecting his participation in the proceedings of the House this afternoon? I am left in a quandary. I tried to raise this point at the earliest possible moment. I find it passing strange to realize how we got into the situation we are now in. If anyone, Mr. Speaker, is wasting the time of the House on matters which are certainly frivolous, not germane and totally out of order, it is the President of the Privy Council, and he ought to know better.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member makes a very serious point of order. He is wondering how I could be
recognized while one of his colleagues had finished reading a petition and was signing it. It is very simple. Every Hon. Member has the right to rise in this House and present petitions. We have seen that for the last two days. When I rose and you recognized me, Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River had finished presenting his petition and was in the process, perhaps of considering raising another one. Therefore, I believe I was very much in order. I would not like a precedent to be established that one could not rise, other than on a point of order, in between two petitions. I believe it is within the discretion of the Chair to recognize any Member in his place during the presentation of petitions or at any other time. 1 believe the Speaker recognized me in accordance with the Standing Orders.
That is, perhaps, a very serious answer to a very serious point of order. When my colleague says that he thinks 1 have been wasting the time of the House, I do not feel he can be serious. I can excuse him if perhaps he was using some kind of dry humour. Certainly, he will realize that for the last two days his Party and the Conservative Party have been preventing Parliament from working, and have been preventing Government from creating hundreds of thousands of jobs in the country.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Since Madam Speaker earlier today-


Yvon Pinard: It is Mr. Speaker.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: -made a ruling. I am not sure if it was Mr. Speaker or Madam Speaker at that time.


An Hon. Member:: Madam Speaker made the ruling.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Madam Speaker made the ruling. As I thought, my recollection was correct. She made the ruling that Hon. Members presenting petitions would have to do so continuously and that if they gave up the floor they could no longer continue presenting what petitions they had, which are certainly considered to be rather urgent by those Canadians who have forwarded them to their Member of Parliament, or other Members of Parliament, for presentation. If the President of the Privy Council is suggesting that someone can intervene other than on a point of order while someone continues to have the floor and is presenting those petitions, in the only way Madam Speaker ruled today that they could, then the President of the Privy Council is obviously out on cloud nine and out to lunch, Mr. Speaker.
I suggest we go back to the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River. He still has the floor in my view and, quite frankly, because of that I do not know what I or any other Hon. Member is doing participating in debate on a point of order at this time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: There are three minutes remaining to the House and it seems to me to be open to Hon. Members as to which way they wish to proceed. At the request of Hon. Members, the Chair will either, first, rule on the points of order; second, recognize the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River to continue with his petitions, as I gather
October 28, 1983

he indicated he wishes to do; or, third, recognize any Hon. Member who rises on a point of order.


An Hon. Member:: We want Skelly.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: If an Hon. Member stands, I will recognize him.


Yvon Pinard: I would just like to draw to the attention of the House Standing Order 71(1) which is brief and reads:
A petition to the House may be presented by a Member at any time during a sitting of the House by filing the same with the Clerk of the House.
Therefore, the Hon. Members could have filed their petitions with the Clerk of the House during the last two days without wasting the time of the House. The Hon. Member's colleague does not have to be penalized because he is interrupted. He still has the right to file his petitions with the Clerk of the House. This procedure allows Hon. Members of the Opposition and Hon. Members on this side as well to do that. That is my point. It is very clear that Standing Order 71(1) applies. Hon. Members opposite cannot complain that they lose their rights if they are interrupted. They have always the right to file their petitions with the Clerk of the House. If they had done that, we would have saved two days. Parliament would have worked. Canadians would have been proud of their Members and we would have succeeded in creating hundreds of thousands of jobs in Canada, which the Opposition is now preventing.


Mr. Nystrom:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Government House Leader quoted Standing Order 71(1). 1 draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to Standing Order 71(2) which says:
Any Member desiring to present a petition in his or her place in the House must do so during Routine Proceedings and before Introduction of Bills.
Point of Order-Mr. Pinard
All that our Party has been doing is what Standing Order 71(2) says we should do.


An Hon. Member:: According to the rules.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would ask that the Chair and the Table consider over the weekend the Citation 682(2) at page 211 of Beauchesne. And I ask that a ruling be made on the nature of the petitions which are being put before the House. Citations 682(2) says:
(2) A petition should seek the redress of grievances and should refrain from expressing an opinion with regard to the House, the Government or the positions taken by Members of the House. Expressions which would be in order from a Member of the House may not be in order when presented as a petition.
Mr. Speaker, it seems to me, after listening to petitions for the last two days, many of the petitions put forward, especially the ones put forward by the Official Opposition yesterday regarding the calling of an election and the crisis in Government, are definitely, in my opinion, and I would ask a ruling of the Chair and the Table officers, expressions of opinion. If they are, then they should be ruled out of order by the Chair.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: It is five o'clock. 1 indicated earlier to the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) that there may be cause to examine the petitions. 1 think that he or any other Hon. Member has the right to do so. That will be looked at over the weekend. The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary makes a similar request as to the nature and the matter of arguing the content of a petition. I hope the Hon. Member will give us a little more time than just over the weekend. If he would do that, perhaps I might wish all Members a good evening and a good weekend.
At 5.01 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Orders.

Monday, October 31, 1983