1983-06-06

Hon. Erik Nielsen (Leader of the Opposition) moved:: That this House condemns the Government for its deliberate and persistent undermining of the Parliamentary process, for its flouting of Parliamentary traditions and for its continuing attempts to reduce Parliament and Parliamentary government to an irrelevant appendix in the formulation and application of major national policy decisions and the expenditure of public funds, and demands that the Government immediately reverse its attitude of regarding Parliament as the private preserve of the Liberal Party thus hastening the restoration of respect for and the dignity of this institution.
He said: For a long time, Sir, we have been hearing about the erosion of Parliament. We have been hearing it from the Auditor General, hearing it from the media, from committees of this House, from the Opposition, and occasionally from a courageous backbencher on the Government side. It does not appear as though any of the warnings, admonitions or demands have had any effect whatsoever.
In spite of sweeping rules changes in 1968, it is clear that Parliament has never suffered so much by the neglect and abuse of Government as this Parliament at the present time. The rules changes have had the effect of weakening Parliament's control of the expenditure of public funds by removing the study of the estimates by the Committee of the Whole of this House. Certainly when the amount of business Parliament must contend with is considered, some measure was needed to relieve the pressures of those burdens on this House. But unfortunately, the net effect of all of the measures taken has been to weaken Parliament's control over the fiscal operations of this country.
One of the major problems is that Government has been operated by people who in their hearts really do not believe that Parliament is necessary. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has made it clear in numerous statements that Parliament is an extraneous irrelevancy to the business of Government. The Prime Minister considers Parliament a nuisance. Indeed, in his some 15 years in office I dare say that he has not participated in debates in this House more than half a dozen times. Even more clearly has this appeared in the contempt with which he and his Government consistently address this House.
Let us just look at a few events in recent months. The Prime Minister unveils the Government's policy on the Cruise missile
in a letter to the press, with an accompanying note to suggest that in the interests of public information this had better be published. So we are now at a point where, from the august precincts of the Prime Minister's office, diktats are handed down for publication in the media for the enlightenment of a docile public. No tin pot dictator of a banana republic could have handled it more in accordance with the traditions of such institutions. Parliament has never been made aware in detail of the Government's policy position on the Cruise. We have not been given an opportunity to have the facts in this House. We have not been granted permission, even though we requested it on more than one occasion, to have before us the weapons testing agreement signed with the United States. This has never been ratified or debated by the elected representatives of the people in this House, yet this is a matter about which hundreds of thousands of Canadians have shown a well founded concern.
Canadians are concerned about the tergiversations, for want of a better term, of the Prime Minister in international policy, a policy which the House has not had the opportunity to debate. Instead of coming into the House and explaining the role and posture of Canada as an evenhanded broker between the United States and the Soviet Union, he elucidates his position in a long and detailed interview with a friendly Toronto newspaper. When he is pinned down on his criticisms, implied and direct, of the President of the United States, he attempts, unsuccessfully as it turns out, to backwater.
The point is that the debate is not carried in the House, where procedure, tradition and the highest demands of parliamentary freedom would suggest that it be carried on, but, rather, in the press, where the Prime Minister cannot be questioned, cannot be replied to, and his views cannot be tested.
What is the position of Parliament when the Prime Minister, acting strictly on his own, for purely political reasons, casts the nation in the dubious role of umpire or arbitrator between superpowers locked in nuclear confrontation? The concept of an evenhanded approach to the United States and the Soviet Union has never been debated or approved in the House. What does it mean? Are we to equate the actions of the aggressor with those of our friend and neighbour, our ally in NATO? Are we to erase all distinctions between the super slave power, whose aggressivity has cast a pall over Europe, Asia and Africa for 35 years, and the actions of the United States, whose foreign policy is aimed at preserving world peace and

June 6, 1983
Supply
stability? The Prime Minister obviously finds such distinctions to be oversimplistic, yet they are the distinctions which reside in the hearts and minds of Canadians who will resent being placed in a position of putting the United States and the U.S.S.R. on the same footing in Canadian foreign policy. None of this has ever come before the House for debate and resolution. Time and again, Parliament has been bypassed by the Government, frustrated by the continuing absence of Ministers and the continuing evasions on the Government benches.
There was a time when there were a few Ministers opposite who were honest and forthright in their answers to questions, but they are now all part of the same slippery bunch. We have had legislation dumped on us, literally dumped on us, poorly conceived and badly put together and, at the very best, ill-timed.
A year ago, for the first time in the House, the bells rang out for two weeks, an explosion of frustration and bitterness at the cavalier treatment of Parliament. At that time we were faced by a demand from the Government to rubberstamp an energy Bill containing elements of no less than 12 pieces of legislation, a demonstration of contempt for Parliament unequalled in many, many years.
We have had budgets tossed casually into the House and revised before the ink was dry. We have had budgets brought into the House, the only purpose of which was to revise the egregious errors of previous budgets. We had a proposal for the Crow rate thrown together in obvious haste and then altered before we had a chance to come to grips with it, and now altered again.
These Bills are writ on water. Parliament is not the same kind of quick lunch joint where the menu is changed every half hour. This is the public business. We have had Opposition days altered on a moment's notice by a Government which does not give a damn. Never has the public business been so poorly organized, so inadequately presented, so incompetently put together as under this Government.


Mr. Smith:: What about December of '79?


Erik Nielsen: What do they want Parliament to do? Lie down and roll over? That is what they would like.
Regardless of the Prime Minister's opinion of Parliamentarians, Parliament will not do that unless, of course, the Government adopts the attitude which was adopted in Ghana when that new democracy modelled after Westminster was formed. The Government did not like the opposition there so it abolished it and threw half of them in jail. That is not going to happen here.
The sheer length and complexity of the Government business is another element in this Government's continuing contempt for the institution, its traditions and clear and central position in preserving the freedom of Canadians. No
Government has ever before in our history been so interventionist. This Government's centralizing policies have imposed upon Parliament a nearly insupportable burden of legislative quackery and parliamentary fiddle-faddle that no Parliament should have to put up with.
Because of this Government's inertia and incurable propensity to cover its tracks, we have had to take time out to extract the painful and distressing story of the clandestine arrangement between a former Minister and his colleagues in the Gillespie affair. We have been seized with the regrettable and sorry affair of another former Liberal Minister now before the courts. We have had the issue of a chairman of a major Crown corporation under investigation. In each of these areas the Government has thrown a smokescreen around Parliament's right to know. The official cover-up has gone into play.
In spite of the whiff of corruption emanating from that side, we are put off with the excuse that the matter is under investigation. These exercises in insider corruption within the Liberal Party do not serve to enhance the image of the Liberal Party.
There are Members on that side who are just as scandalized and just as disillusioned as we are in these matters. There are honest Members on the Government side. They are decent, hardworking Parliamentarians with an abiding respect for the institution and its traditions who are shocked and put off most strongly at the way in which Parliament is being degraded under this Government. They are concerned, as we are, at the parallel Government which is the personal creation of the Prime Minister, a caricature of Government, run by his flunkies which the Prime Minister has instituted to carry out his personal ideology. It is referred to by the Auditor General as a Government within a Government. The spidery network of Crown corporations and agencies, holding companies and quasi private corporations operated from the Prime Minister's office constitute a threat to the freedom of this country. What he cannot do by the front door, he is trying to do by the back door.
Parliament stands in the way of the socialization of this nation against the popular will. Therefore he is attempting to bring it about extra-legally and extra-curricularly by using public funds and the efforts of men who are sworn to carry out the wishes of the Prime Minister. This man has more court favourites than Louis XIV and each one has his own private little kingdom to operate at the taxpayers' expense.
It is true that they go through the motions of bringing these matters to Parliament, but well after the fact. What will the House of Commons do with 1,400 gas stations? Perhaps they will serve as a place of employment for Grit flunkies after the next election.
Continuing contempt, disregard, neglect and abuse of Parliament has been the hallmark of this Government. From the buffoonery of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) in front of the TV cameras with his budget papers to the backing and filling of the Prime Minister in delicate international matters of primary concern to Canadians, Parliament has been told to take a back seat.
June 6, 1983

It has been made clear to this House, elected to serve and to represent Canadians in the same way as the Prime Minister was elected, that we have all been red circled. This House has been kept sitting here longer than any Parliament in the history of this country, including the "long Parliament, of Charles I. We have not had a Throne Speech in nearly four years. What does that mean? It means there has been no blueprint of Government plans, no blueprint of Government intentions, so that Parliament has been kept deliberately in the dark. I would venture to suggest, Sir, that if Parliament is in the dark it is not more so than the Cabinet itself, whose members are usually the last to know about the Prime Minister's intentions.
Parliament has been inhibited in carrying out its functions. This House has been prevented from acting on major national issues, such as unemployment, high interest rates, bankruptcies and the sliding of the economy down the slippery slope of recession simply because this Government has removed its expenditures from the control of Parliament. As a result, Canadians everywhere have suffered. They have been subject to policies of economic attrition. They have been made to pay in lost jobs, lost income, higher taxes for the inefficiencies of an arrogant Government wrapped in a cloak of its own isolation. We are now in the clearly unconstitutional position of going into the fourth year of this Parliament without a new session, another indication of the Government's contempt for those traditions and laws which have made parliamentary democracy the envy of the world.
Only Parliament stands in the way of the Prime Minister's attempt to create a kind of corporatist state in this country. In order to do this, it is necessary for him to break or to bypass the power of the House of Commons, weakened though it may be. He has been working very hard at doing so-


Mr. Gauthier:: Who wrote that nonsense?


Erik Nielsen: -and the time has come to call a halt and bring this Government back to the realization that it is not going to be able to govern without the consent of Parliament.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: This is the purpose of the motion before the House now, perhaps the most serious ever to come before the House of Commons since I have been here. This country cannot operate in freedom with Parliament shunted to the sidelines, as it has been under this Government.
1 described the motion before the House as extremely serious, and the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) laughs. That is one further indication of the mental attitude that exists over there with regard to the Government's contempt of this institution.


Mr. Pinard:: Ring the bells again, Erik.


Erik Nielsen: My friends, if the Government abuses the parliamentary process again as it did on the occasion when it tried to smuggle 12 pieces of legislation under the covers of
Supply
one Bill, we shall adopt any means available to us to prevent that kind of abuse.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: That is arrogance.


Erik Nielsen: Another Member, the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) shows the same degree of contempt for this institution about which I am speaking. Liberal Members do not understand this place. That is very sad, Sir.


Some Hon. Members:: Come on. Erik.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Yukon has the floor.


Erik Nielsen: On the grounds of competence alone, Parliament cannot be a dumping ground of badly conceived legislation, half-baked budgetary attempts that must be constantly revised, and disorganized House business. Parliament is entitled to be treated with respect. This is a lesson which the Government and those who support it seem unable to learn. The Prime Minister must cease and desist his attempts to create a parallel Government to wrest control of the purse strings from the House of Commons and to relegate Parliament to a back seat in the decision-making process.
One of Parliament's primary functions is to prevent the excesses of Government. This Government has done everything possible to inhibit Parliament's role. The purpose of this motion is to attempt to bring home to the Government and to the Prime Minister that he must cease his performance as some kind of sun king, that he cannot expect to create important foreign policy in the media, particularly when it involves a role of which Parliament has never approved and threatens our relations with our allies. This Government and those who support it must be brought to realize that Parliament's role is not to be diminished or curtailed but rather the opposite.
Canada is not ready for a one-man government, even if the Liberal Party is. God help us if the country ever reaches the stage which the Prime Minister is attempting to bring about. Parliament is now at a crisis in its long history in the country. If the Government, which has attempted to control the media, the private sector and to downgrade the role of the Provinces, continues in its determination to govern without Parliament, then the Government has voted in favour of its own terminal decay.
I hope Hon. Members on the Government side will rise to participate in this debate and, in so doing, justify if they can and I challenge them to do so-the number of occasions since they came back in 1980 where they have bypassed and thwarted the parliamentary process deliberately by reason of the fact that they regarded it as some kind of private, personal perserve of the Liberal Party.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

June 6, 1983
Supply


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). He complained at the beginning of his speech that Parliament did not have an opportunity to discuss international affairs. He knows very well that under the rules this matter can be raised on an Opposition day, as is the case today. This subject could have been chosen and would have been much more appropriate and serious. Could the Hon. Member explain why this subject was not chosen for today, and where is his critic for international affairs?


Erik Nielsen: I suppose the President of the Privy Council can be forgiven-and I say this with generosity and without offence-simply because he has not been here long enough to appreciate the standard annual practice which existed in this place prior to the election of the present Prime Minister, where external and foreign affairs were debated on an annual basis on days that were put up by the Government. Earlier when I first came here two days of Government time were allotted back to back for the purpose of debating external affairs. 1 must say that as a result of that kind of practice there was a far closer harmony, which there should be, between Opposition and Government benches on external and foreign affairs, because that is the manner in which we should appear on the international stage when it comes to that exceptional policy area.
When the Prime Minister was elected that changed. The President of the Privy Council indicated the practice when he first came into the House. He will also admit that it changed with the changes of rules. Now, because the Government-and I say "Government" because its majority passed these changes-allotted us a specific number of days, it expects us to use our days as it sees fit. They are our choice, not the Government's choice. It would like to determine the subject matter of those days, but that is one of the freedoms that still rests with us. I hope that adequately answers the question of the President of the Privy Council.


Yvon Pinard: Not at all, Mr. Speaker. Once again the Hon. Member for Yukon has led us to believe that the change in the rules which gave the Opposition 25 Opposition days per year was passed because of the Liberal majority. That is simply not true. That is not the case.


Erik Nielsen: It was passed by closure.


Yvon Pinard: It was not even passed by closure. No, that is not the truth. What we are talking about here is what happened in December 1967 or 1969.


Mr. McGrath:: It was 1969.


Yvon Pinard: It was before I was here, 1969. It was by unanimous consent of the House of Commons that those rules were adopted. I invite my hon. colleagues to check the record.


Erik Nielsen: You had better do that.


Yvon Pinard: The 25 Opposition days were supported by the entire House of Commons in 1969. When they talk about closure, they are talking about Standing Order 75A, 75B and
75C. That was not part of the package. He should know more about the business of supply which was supported unanimously by the House of Commons in 1969.
The Opposition now have 25 days a year in which to select a subject of their choice. They have dealt with other matters but it seems they were not interested in choosing international affairs. The Hon. Member said that it was up to the Government to use its time. Perhaps we could have afforded more time if the bells had not rung for 17 days during the last two years. Despite that, this morning could have been a very good day to be used by the Opposition to deal with international matters. That subject was there to be taken by the external affairs critic of the Tory Party.
The Hon. Member did not answer my questions. Why did they not choose that important subject this morning, and where is their critic on the subject?


Erik Nielsen: To answer the question very, very quickly, I dealt with this subject in the light of the motion. I have dealt with the very subject which the President of the Privy Council is criticizing me for not dealing with. Let him not speak to us about 25 days. Let him not charge us with holding up the business of Parliament when that business was so abused by the process they attempted that our only recourse was to ring those bells. Let those opposite not talk to me about holding up the parliamentary process when they themselves in 1963 kept the government of the day of then Prime Minister Diefenbaker for 49 days-a record in the House of Commons-by filibustering tactics, forcing the government of the day to go to Governor General's warrants to get enough to pay the civil service. Let not the accusers over there talk to me about holding up the parliamentary process.


Mr. Kristiansen:: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Nielsen). While my colleagues in the New Democratic Party and I join with him in much of his criticism of the arrogance of the Government and what we also regard as its contempt for Parliament and for public opinion, I must say that I found it passing strange to hear the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Conservative Party in the House of Commons condemning the Government for its failure-a criticism which is justified-to bring before the House in a Government-sponsored debate or motion, for instance, the question of the agreement to test the Cruise missile in Canada. I found it particularly strange in view of the comments of the Conservative defence critic, the Hon. Member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon), on April 29, 1982, when my Party gave up its allotted time to enable a defence and foreign policy debate. At that point the Hon. Member for Victoria said:
The second recommendation is that there be no Cruise missile testing in Canada. I have many reasons as to why we cannot and should not support such a recommendation. However, I will limit myself in this short and gratis time to saying that we-
He was referring to the Conservative Government of 197980.
June 6, 1983

__agreed to the modernization of nuclear weapons in 1979. The present
government has concurred in the decision which was taken. We should fail in our commitment in the worst possible fashion if we were now to decide that we would not allow this vehicle to be tested in our skies.
If it was in fact, as his defence spokesman said, the policy of the P.C. Government to reach these agreements to test the Cruise missile and other weapons systems in Canada, how can the Leader of the Opposition now play the role of the pot calling the kettle black and simply accuse the Government, which is also guilty, of refusing to recognize its proper role and showing contempt for Parliament?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have left? There is no way that 1 could adequately answer the Hon. Member as he deserves to be answered in the short time remaining. The fact is that as short as it was when we were in office for that seven months, it was our Secretary of State for External Affairs who was part of a government which brought accord to the two-track policy that is now being followed by the Government. Our policy on Cruise testing is known. It is succinct and it is public, and the Hon. Member knows that.
MO)
Since his coming into this House, I have noticed that he is prone to twisting, distorting and changing colour in order to suit the public opinion of the day. That Hon. Member's opinion cannot be accepted on any matter. All he does is twist, ride and distort for the purpose of pushing the so-called socialist position on anything: always grandstanding, like the Member in front of him. He is always attempting to grab an issue and then be very annoyed when he cannot do so.
That is understandable because (a) they are Members of the New Democratic Party; therefore, that explains a lot; and (b), they are in deep trouble in this country so they grab at anything they think will lift them up by their bootstraps, if they can see a way of doing it. They will grab on to anyone's coat tail. It does not matter whose coat tail it is, as long as they think it will give them a lift in the public opinion polls.


David P. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I would just point out to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Nielsen) that he has a short and selective memory. During this session of Parliament, in the Summer of 1980, the Government did in fact allocate two days of Government time to a debate on international affairs. That, of course, was before we got into the constitutional filibustering and the bell ringing. If there has been any breach of parliamentary tradition, it has not been on this side of the House.


Erik Nielsen: I realize my time is short, Mr. Speaker, so I will keep my answer short. That intervention amounted to a crock of rhubarb.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The period for questions and answers has expired.


Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I must confess that I found the answer of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Nielsen) to my colleague's question almost tantamount to temporary insanity. I cannot believe that he would
Supply
attempt to worm his way out of the clear and unequivocal statement that is contained in the answer with regard to the Conservative position as it applies to the testing of nuclear weapons. It brings the debate down to a level I had hoped it would not reach.
I had intended, as you will appreciate, Mr. Speaker, to stay directly within the confines of the motion. I will, of course, do that, but I must draw to your attention in response to the comments by the Leader of the Opposition that any normal, reasonable individual reading page 16745 of the Commons Debates for April 29, 1982 would find the following words:
The second recommendation is that there be no Cruise missile testing in Canada. I have many reasons as to why we cannot and should not support such a recommendation.
Those words are attributed directly to the Member speaking on behalf of the Conservative Party, a former Minister. He was speaking to a motion put down by this Party in opposition to the testing of the Cruise missile. He went on to say:
However, I will limit myself in this short and gratis time to saying that we agreed to the modernization of nuclear weapons in 1979.
He was speaking about the Conservatives. I want this to be listened to. Again I quote:
The present Government has concurred in the decision which was taken.
Any person with any degree of intelligence reading that could come to no other conclusion but that the Conservative Party was in agreement with the attitude and policy direction of the Government of the day, the Liberal Party. It bears out exactly what we have been saying for the better part of the last three years, that there is no difference. On major issues, there is no difference between the attitude and policy direction that would be taken by the Conservatives over and against the attitude and policy direction that has been taken by the Liberals.
For the Leader of the Opposition to rise with such indignation and attempt to leave the impression that the Conservative Party was opposed to Cruise testing and that my colleague's very well taken statements were somehow or other not an appropriate reflection of what was said by the spokesman of the Conservative Party in 1980 is very difficult for those of us in the House of Commons to absorb. I held him in higher esteem than that. I find it very difficult to imagine what possessed him to rise and make such an obviously inaccurate statement.
Passing on from that, there is an element of concern that must be expresed about the general attitude that prevails within the House of Commons. There is a misunderstanding on the part of many people of the role of the House of Commons. Because the misunderstanding has been held for a long time, the role of the House has deteriorated. People believe that because one Party gains a majority, it therefore has carte blanche to do whatever it believes, to bring forward at any time whatever measures it believes are appropriate, and that the balance of the House of Commons, the Opposition in particular, are being obstructionist if they in one way or another try to stop the Government from passing what the

June 6, 1983
Supply
Opposition may consider to be illegitimate. I know that you, Mr. Speaker, do not adhere to that view of Parliament. I suspect there are others who do not adhere to it.
The Government has the right to bring forward whatever legislative proposals it deems advisable in its so-called wisdom. However, the Opposition also have certain rights and obligations. It is the right of the Opposition, in as constructive a way as possible within the rules, to attempt to stop the Government from passing that which it believes is inadvisable. It has the obligation to do all in its power to keep the Government from putting in place laws that it believes will be of long or shortterm harm to the country as a whole.
Much of the aggravation that has developed in the House of Commons of late has centred around the role of the Opposition and the way the Opposition approaches its tasks and obligations. The most recent example is the ongoing debate over the Government proposal to change the Crowsnest Pass freight rates. I do not intend to deal with the substance of that because that would not be in order. However, I want to make reference to the way in which that and on other occasions other legislation has been brought forward.
The Government will take one of two principles that may find favour as a question of principle with the House of Commons and do as it did in this instance by including two matters of genuine concern across the country. For example, there is the revitalization of the railroads and the disposition of the dominion coal lands, both of which as a matter of principle the majority in the House of Commons would agree ought to be dealt with. How they should be disposed of would become clear as the question was put before the House.
The Government in this instance, however, as it has in other instances, has taken an absolutely unacceptable measure and lumped it in with the other two, making it extremely difficult for Members who are attempting to do their job diligently and well to vote with a clear conscience on the principle of the Government's measure. The Government's measure in fact contains three principles, two of which may well be acceptable and one of which is totally unacceptable.
That is an abuse of Parliament and it is the kind of abuse that worries me. That is the kind of abuse which causes legislation that is unacceptable and which may have a long-lasting, detrimental effect, to go through the House of Commons and become law. It happens because the Government wants to sneak through something which is very contentious and potentially harmful along with measures that are somewhat less contentious and, if properly handled, would be beneficial.
There is no one in this House who disagrees with any proposal to upgrade the transportation system in this country. No one would disagree that as a matter of principle that ought to be pursued. No one in the House of Commons is prepared to deny that it is time we dealt with the dominion coal lands to determine how they should be utilized and who should have jurisdiction over them. To bring forward each of these measures in separate pieces of legislation-they are not tied
together and are not dependent one upon the other-would make good sense, and that is what the Government ought to do.
No one denies the Government's right to propose changes to the Crowsnest Pass freight rate, but that action is not a matter that need be dealt with in conjunction with the upgrading of the transportation system or the disposition of the dominion coal lands. It can and ought to stand on its own, as a matter of principle.
While the position of this Party would be diametrically opposed to the position likely to be taken by the Government and the Official Opposition on the question of the Crow rate, it recognizes that it is the right of the Government to make whatever proposal it deems necessary for its own purpose. It is the obligation of Opposition to do what it can to make sure the things it does not agree with or believes will have a long-term, detrimental effect, are stopped.
I say to you, Mr. Speaker, dealing with that one aspect of the way the House of Commons operates, that there is an abuse of Parliament. It is not the kind of abuse about which the Leader of the Opposition was speaking, but in my opinion it is a serious abuse. It is an abuse which stems from the Government wanting to get certain things done and attempting to push them through with other matters that, if at all related, are only marginally related. The Government must look seriously at its tendency to put into what is now commonly called an omnibus Bill-although it may not adequately apply to this-a number of things that are at odds or are not related. Members of Parliament have the right to have matters of principle put before Parliament in a clear, concise way, a way that is not obscured or fogged, a way that enables them to deal with questions singly and vote upon them as their conscience and knowledge dictate.
You know, Mr. Speaker, as I do, that the whole subject of complicated questions has been before Parliament since the beginning of Parliament. The Government of the day-and I suspect this is not an attribute solely applicable to this Government but to many other Governments that have done likewise-may choose to ignore the important principle that questions can be resolved by the House of Commons singly, as a matter of conscience and as a matter of principle. The Government ought to rethink its position on this principle.
There is another abuse which flows from the way the business of the House is being conducted of late. That is the question of asking the Opposition to pass legislation that it has not seen in a single day. I wish that we did not have to do that. It is difficult to accept that Members of the Opposition, without actually having seen the legislation, should be asked in advance of its even being brought forward to give a commitment to deal with it with one day's debate. I do not see that as a useful addition to the way in which Parliament operates and I urge the Government to recognize that it creates problems rather than solves them.
I appreciate that there is a need, on matters of a somewhat less controversial nature, to look at ways in which the Government may proceed with its business in an orderly manner. I do
June 6, 1983

not think the Government should draw the conclusion from that that every single matter it brings forward can be finalized within a time period that it sets down and which is acceptable to it alone.
There are other questions that begin to draw from the value of the House of Commons. A practice has grown up of late that Ministers of the Crown do not make statements in the House. How often have we read in Saturday's newspaper or watched on Friday night television or listened to a radio newscast and realized that a Minister has sneaked across to the Press Gallery at 4.30 on Friday evening to issue a statement of importance without the Opposition being given an opportunity to respond to it and without its being put on record for public consumption at a time when it would be possible to put our positions on the subject forward simultaneously. There are certain Ministers who do this on a regular basis. They tiptoe across, without a word to anybody, and fill the ears of the press full of rhetoric. By seven o'clock on Friday night when the journalists have a chance to see what the Minister has to say, they have to try to track down a Member of the Opposition to get a response to a statement that the Opposition had not heard or has had no opportunity to study. What is the point of making statements by Ministers available to Cabinet, which of course gives the Opposition an opportunity to rebut or enter into some small debate, if that practice is to be misused by not being used at all? That is an area where there has been serious abuse of Parliament.
That is not the practice in Westminster, Mr. Speaker. 1 recall being at Westminster representing this House of Commons at the time of the Falklands crisis. A statement was never made outside the House with regard to that very crucial issue of the time. There was always an announcement that the Minister would be going to the House of Commons to make a statement within moments, and that the Opposition would be able to question the Minister. That is the way public business should be conducted. That is the way debate should be conducted. It must take place inside the House of Commons where the public can view it through television, can hear about it through other media, and can see the responses from the Official Opposition and the New Democratic Party to a clear and concise statement made publicly by Ministers in the proper forum. It is an abuse when the Government does not follow that practice.
Then there is the question of Government expenditures. The Government decides it is going to go ahead with a change to the Crow rate but instead of coming to Parliament and proposing it there first, it advertises the program all across the country at public expense, without having had approval and with no indication that it might become law. It spent tens of thousands of dollars of public money on a program that, when it finally came before Parliament, was substantially different from the program it proposed in the first instance and which it attempted to sell to the people of western Canada. That is an abuse of Parliament. There should be no advertising by Government of its programs until after those programs have been brought into the House of Commons and dealt with.
Supply
That, in my judgment, is the sort of thing we should be dealing with. The questions put are questions of fundamental rights. No one denies that the Cabinet, being the Government, has the right to bring forward whatever proposals it deems necessary for the future of this country. However, equally no one can deny that it is not only the right but the obligation of Parliament to deal with those questions in the House of Commons and to dispose of those questions in the way in which Parliament as a whole feels is appropriate and necessary. The adage that it is Government's right to propose and Parliament's right to dispose must be held to be of vital importance.
It is time that this Government, like all Governments, began to understand that to gain a majority at the polls does not give any Party the right to do whatever it pleases, notwithstanding the parliamentary process which is in place. Just to have a majority at the polls does not give a select few individuals, chosen by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), any proprietary rights over the democratic system established to safeguard the people of Canada from a dictatorship which could be set up. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, in looking at this motion, that I feel there is a place for this kind of debate. It is an important motion and it is important for the reasons I suggest. I believe it is a vitally important motion because I believe that in fact Parliament has become somewhat less important, and I regret that that has been allowed to occur.


Mr. Cullen:: Mr. Speaker, I agree with part of what the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) says, that this is a debating forum. What concerns me, however, is that we have a Bill dealing with the Crow rate and we cannot get it on to hear both sides of the issue. The New Democratic Party has already made up its mind that the Crow shall go or that the Crow shall stay. Having made up their minds to do this, Hon. Members of that Party have read into the record a series of petitions and things of that nature. We have heard their side. We have heard their opposition. However, I hardly think that that is debate. I would agree with the Hon. Member; let us bring the legislation on, let us debate it, and let the people of Canada see if the Government also has a position to make, rather than hearing just total opposition to it. Is there a case to be made for the Crow Bill or even some amendments to be made to it as it stands at the present time? Your Party would not even let it be introduced, which is not the traditional way to do things around here. Under normal circumstances-and I have been here 15 years-I can think of about two or three occasions when people have refused to allow a Bill even to be introduced. I believe that is an inappropriate use of a parliamentary situation. We are hearing your side, but I do not feel we have had an opportunity to hear what the majority's side has to say about the subject.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member does not need to be reminded that his remarks should be addressed to the Chair.

June 6, 1983
Supply


Ian Deans: I am happy, Mr. Speaker, that you brought that to the Hon. Member's attention. He tends to abuse the rules regularly. What the Hon. Member is saying, Mr. Speaker, is not factual, although it is true that, having had prior knowledge of the content of the Bill, this Party said that it did not believe that the Bill should come before Parliament. I contend that that is an appropriate use of the rules. Given that the Minister spent tens of thousands of dollars advertising his proposals, telling everyone in the land what was contained in them, I feel that once we knew what was in them, and once we recognized the immeasurable harm it would do, we had an obligation to begin by saying that we did not think the Bill should be introduced. Beyond that, however, there has been considerable time for debate.
I put to the Hon. Member honestly that there are three distinctly different principles in the Bill. No one can convince me that we cannot deal with the disposition of the dominion coal lands separate and apart from the upgrading of the railroads or the disposition of the Crowsnest Pass freight rate agreement. No one can convince me that we cannot deal with the upgrading of the railroads separate and apart from the disposition of the dominion coal lands or from the disposition of the Crowsnest Pass freight rate agreement. Nor can anyone tell me that to deal with the Crowsnest Pass agreement requires us to deal simultaneously with the upgrading of the transportation system or the disposition of the dominion coal lands.
What we are saying is that those are three distinctly differently principles. If the Government would like to go ahead with two of them right now, before the end of June, then we would be quite prepared to facilitate that. However, the Crowsnest Pass freight rate is a question of serious contention across this country, a question of great complication, which cannot be dealt with in a short period of time. We feel, given the number of speakers, given the nature of the Government's intention to impose time allocation, that we must stop it now until it agrees to at least divide the three principles. That seems to me to be the way Government ought to operate.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to hear the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain giving his views on the Crow rate agreement, and that is my point. That is the kind of debate we should have. Perhaps it should be divided into three parts, I really do not know.


Ian Deans: Let it go to committee.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: The Hon. Member is clapping. I said perhaps that is the way it should be, but who will know? Who in Canada will know? If I had not asked the Hon. Member the question through you, Mr. Speaker, the country would not have known that that Party would like it divided into three parts. We have an opportunity to debate it here. Let us debate it. Let us make the decision about whether or not in committee it should be split. It is obvious that that Party has made up its mind. It is a minority Party. It has the right to stall, to block
and to do as much as it can. However, there comes a time when we should have debate. That is what Parliament is all about. I do not believe that the Government is receiving its just due here in having its opportunity to debate a Bill which it is satisfied is for the general benefit, not only of the people of western Canada, but the people in all of Canada.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are there other questions? Debate.
[ Translation]


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to say that I honestly believe there is not a single Member in this House who does not have a sincere desire to improve Parliament and to make this institution one that is eminently deserving of respect, because whenever extreme actions or tactics are used by any Members of the House to undermine the parliamentary process and Parliament's credibility, I think everyone of us has to pay for this in some way, and I feel it is very bad for a country where individual and collective freedoms are as respected as they are. I want to make it clear, first of all, that within the framework of the debate on this motion, we on this side of the House are willing to listen to any constructive proposals for improving the parliamentary process and making Parliament more effective, more modern and better able to meet the needs of Canadians.
However, when we read the text of the motion itself, it is clear that it lacks substance and that it is rather partisan. It would have been easy, this morning, to use the text of the motion, especially after the speech by the Acting Leader of the Official Opposition, to make this debate a purely partisan and political one, pointing out various abuses and making this a confrontation which, in the final instance, would have proved to be sterile and would not have enhanced the prestige of this institution, and would certainly not have increased the stature of our politicians in this country.
However, I would prefer to take this opportunity to express some views on our attempts, in recent years, and especially during this session, to improve the parliamentary process, and also to point out certain specific facts which speak for themselves and will illustrate the point I wish to make, and finally, I would like to set the record straight on some statements that have been made.
I would like to start by correcting the record and I hope it will be clear once and for all. The Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) has been here for over a quarter of a century and should know what happened in 1960 because he was here and most of us were not. I hear a good friend like the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), who just left the chamber, supporting the affirmation made by the Leader of the Opposition when he said that the Business of Supply was forced down the throat of the Opposition through closure in
June 6, 1983

the year 1960. That is misleading the House and is unacceptable. I cannot understand how Members who were here at the time can so lightly support an affirmation such as this which has been made more than once during the last three years. It is absolutely contrary to the reality, the truth and to what happened in fact.
During the speech of the Leader of the Opposition I asked that I be provided with the proper extracts from the records of the House of Commons. I see the Hon. Member for St. John's East has come back and I hope he will convey the message to his dear leader, the Hon. Member for Yukon.


David P. Smith: Beloved leader.


Yvon Pinard: His beloved leader, I am sorry. The reference is clear and it appears on page 4230 of Hansard for December 20, 1968, when the fourth and fifth reports of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization of the House were presented and adopted by all Parties unanimously. The questions were put and agreed to. As shown in the Journals of the House of Commons at page 554, December 20, 1968, we see the corroboration of the fact that the new Standing Orders, including 25 Opposition days and the whole Business of Supply we are now applying, were not carried on division, not forced through by closure. The questions were put to the House and they were agreed to unanimously.
So I hope that once and for all the Leader of the Opposition will stop saying the Business of Supply has been imposed on the Opposition. It was a decision taken by Parliamentarians, just like the decision we took a few months ago to experiment in parliamentary reform. That was supported unanimously by Members on both sides of the House. I hope that in future the Hon. Member for Yukon, who has been here for over a quarter of a century, would stop misleading the House on this in order to try and score cheap political points when the facts are absolutely contrary to what he is saying.

Mr. Speaker, when I started my speech, I said that I would also like to put certain facts on the record. For a better understanding of what I am about to say, the public must realize that in a week in Parliament-before the present experiment, that is, last year and in previous years-only four days were available to the Government to consider subjects, bills and measures introduced by the Government. On average, the Opposition was usually given one day on which it would select the subject for debate. If we consider the time that has been spent on a number of important measures in the national interest during this session, we realize how limited the Government is in its flexibility and its ability to introduce for debate enough measures in the national interest to meet the needs of a society as diversified as ours.
Perhaps I may refer Hon. Members to the major debates we have had during this session, of which we are particularly proud. The Leader of the Opposition alluded to the fact that this has been the longest session in history, having gone on for
Supply
more than three years. We are nevertheless proud of that fact, because this session has produced many exceptionally important measures that have made history and that are vital to the entire country. I am referring to what we have done in very basic and specific areas such as the Constitution, energy and the economy. As soon as we started this session, we made it quite clear that we intended to be agressive, to table major issues and introduce appropriate measures, even if they might be controversial, because we felt it was necessary for the country, that it was our responsibility as a Government, and also because we knew these measures would come before Parliament, which would have an opportunity to debate them, we hoped, in a constructive and civilized manner. Unfortunately, that has not always been the case, and I shall talk about this later on. In any case, most people are aware of what happened on certain occasions.
Take the Constitution, for instance. In his motion, the Leader of the Opposition blames the Government, and I quote:
-for its continuing attempts to reduce Parliament and Parliamentary government to an irrelevant appendix in the formulation and application of major national policy decisions-
I should think the term national policy applies particularly well to patriation of the Constitution, the Charter of Rights, the inclusion of the principles sharing, equity and equalization in the constitutional resolution, as well as a new amending formula that was adopted.
However, in order to consider this national question, we had to use ... I am not complaining, but it is a fact we should not overlook and which explains why so often other measures had to wait their turn, and why some sessions, during which a great deal of business is considered, will tend to last longer. The debate on the Constitution, not counting the meetings of the Committee, took up 38 days of debate in the House on the various motions we introduced, both before and after the debate in committee. If we add the months of televised debate on this important subject in committee, we will realize that Parliament, which consists not only of the House of Commons and the Senate but also of their respective committees, was asked to debate a very important issue, that Parliament was therefore involved in these decisions and that in the final instance, the constitutional resolution we brought before Parliament is a resolution that was debated in the House of Commons, before the Special Joint Committee of the House of Commons and the Senate, and, finally, in the Senate. The Constitution we have now is a constitution made in Canada, but considering the issue we are debating this morning, it is entirely proper to say that it is a constitution that was made in Parliament.
To think there are people who claim that we have downgraded Parliament. I wonder how they could forget the time the House spent not so long ago on issues that are of vital importance to the entire country. Thirty-eight days is quite a long time, when we realize that the Government has four days a week, which means that in one month, there are 16 days

June 6, 1983
Supply
available, on average, for considering government business. This means that for more than two and a half months, aside from the days set aside for the Opposition, there was no time for anything else on the floor of the House except the debate on the Constitution. Almost one third of the time of the House of Commons was used for the exclusive consideration of constitutional resolutions, not including the debate in committee.
Another major issue was the National Energy Program. This major debate took 112 days of Government time in the House of Commons, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps we should realize that 112 days represents nealy a full year of the time of the House, spent exclusively on energy and the Bill on our national energy policy-112 days, which means 377 hours and 22 minutes, and this in addition to the six days of debate on the Budget, which was also debated in the same period, six days that are not included in the 112 days, and neither am I including 15 or 16 days when the division bells rang in Parliament, when the Progressive Conservatives, in a manner that is totally unacceptable, systematically paralyzed the Parliament of Canada and prevented any debate from taking place.
When I said that 112 days of Government time were used to debate the energy issue during this session, that does not include the 15 or 16 days we heard the division bells, and this means that for all practical purposes, we have once more had almost nine months or a full parliamentary year devoted almost exclusively to energy.
Another vital issue has been the economy. Parliament has considered the subject on many occasions. If I am not mistaken, we have had four budgets, in addition to statements on the economy, and I may remind the House that in the previous budget, we proposed our 6 and 5 policy to fight inflation, which has proved to be a tremendous success. I think it is irresponsible and unrealistic of an Opposition Member to claim that this major anti-inflation policy was put into effect outside Parliament. The policy was debated here in the House of Commons. It was analyzed, amended and debated in the Parliament of Canada, which was asked to consider one of the most pressing issues of the moment, in the middle of a recession: how do we prepare for economic recovery and how do we fight against inflation? This was followed by the budget brought down by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde), which included $4.8 billion to stimulate the economy and create jobs in this country. People who say that the major economic issues were not debated in Parliament are either half or totally asleep, or they are entirely ignorant of what is going on in Parliament or they are not being sincere, but I hardly think that is the case.
Mr. Speaker, the fact is that as far as the 6 and 5 policy is concerned, we must not forget the time the House of Commons
needed to debate this policy so that we could obtain the results we have today, at this very moment, namely, that inflation is now down to 6.6 per cent, from 13 per cent in August 1981. The bank rate, the rate set by the Bank of Canada, is now 9.5 per cent. We all remember that only a year and a half ago, mortgage rates were over 20 per cent. Our 6 and 5 policy has worked, it has benefited the entire country and has produced concrete results. We realize this now. How was this brought about? By the Government, who originated the plan, but also as a result of debate in Parliament. The Parliament of Canada was asked to consider this important question, and in fact did so for a grand total of 72 days, the equivalent of two full semesters of our parliamentary year, or 236 hours and five minutes, when it debated Bill C-131, Bill C-132, Bill C-133, Bill C-139 and Bill C-125, which are directly connected with our 6 and 5 policy and to amendments to update the Income Tax and remove any uncertainty in the business world.
Therefore, if we look at three major issues-the economy, energy and the Constitution-we realize that in the Parliament of Canada, in the House of Commons and in committee, a considerable number of days and hours were spent on debate on these issues, time that could therefore not be used to consider other issues of perhaps lesser importance nationally but nevertheless vital to certain activity sectors in this country. That is why, since we have been considerate and have shown respect for this institution, and since we have allowed debate on major issues despite the Opposition's often provocative attitude, we are asking Opposition Members for their cooperation regarding debate on less controversial measures. Now what happened then? Even before we could implement the parliamentary reform which we managed to get approved by the House because of a committee that worked in good faith and the cooperation of the House as a whole, and in spite of the unacceptable objections of a few senior members of the Progressive Conservative Party, we were able to carry out the present experiment, Mr. Speaker.
However, even before we proposed this parliamentary reform to the House, I had suggested to the Progressive Conservative Party and the New Democratic Party that we have a rational debate on a number of bills. I refer to last fall, to October 1982, when I submitted a list of 16 bills to the two House Leaders of the Opposition, and more particularly to the present Leader of the Progressive Party, the Acting Leader, the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). There were 16 bills about which I said: "Listen, the session has been going on for two years, a reform is forthcoming, a committee is working on it; let us show that we want Parliament to work, let us forget the silliness of the bell-ringing incident that you, the Progressive Conservative Party, brought about, let us forget your filibuster during the constitutional debate, and let us try to show the people that parliamentarians on both sides of the
June 6, 1983

House can agree so that Parliament may work in an efficient, civilized, modern and productive manner."
The Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party never agreed to negotiate any aspect of a single of those 16 bills, neither to draw up our work schedule and to determine the length of the debate nor to decide how much time the various stages of those bills required, quite the opposite! Undoubtedly that was not in keeping with the strategy of the Progressive Conservative Party which had to come to grips with its internal leadership problems and which opted instead for making every attempt to catch the Government off guard in a vote so as to trigger an election before having to decide the fate of their leader in Winnipeg and at the Civic Centre in a few days.
It is unfortunate that the Official Opposition chose to undermine the parliamentary process as a result of its internal squabbles. It is a sad comment, Mr. Speaker, but I think that was the real cause of the shameful incidents we have witnessed. Members of the Progressive Conservative Party have been frustrated, first in December 1979 when they lost power after only 37 days into the session, and ever since in their internal leadership crisis which has dictated their approach, their outlook and their behaviour with respect to the parliamentary system. For the first time in our history, we saw a party resort to such drastic means as the bell ringing incident to prevent rather than promote debate, to undermine the very essence of Parliament, in short, to torpedo Canada's democratic system by putting an end to any constructive debate in the House and systematically preventing this institution from tackling major issues.
I conclude by expressing the hope that after my remarks Hon. Members will keep in mind the fact that we have shown respect for Parliament and that we want to do even better, but that calls for co-operation from both sides of the House and not only from the Government. That cannot be achieved without good will on the part of the Opposition, and we are always prepared to do our best so that Parliament will be ever more efficient, humane, modern and respected by the people.


Mr. Lewis:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question. One wonders, when one hears the Government House Leader, with all of the confidence he has about the many things we are doing wrong, why he does not simply call an election and take the issue to the polls, to the people.


Yvon Pinard: That's exactly the problem.


Philip Derek Lewis: Why does he not do that right now? I would invite him to do it right now. Mr. Speaker, the Government House Leader has continually referred to what he feels was unanimous support for the rules passed in 1969. I want to draw the Government House Leader's attention to the book by John B. Stewart entitled "The Canadian House of Commons, Procedure and Reform", specifically to page 250. The Government House Leader has continually suggested that these rules
Supply
were passed unanimously. On page 250, Mr. Stewart makes the following point:
Six months later, on 20 June 1969, the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization fulfilled the order of the House by recommending three new standing orders: 75A, 75B, and 75C. These were adopted, without alteration, by the House at the sitting of 24 July 1969, but only after closure had been used to terminate a filibuster by all the opposition parties.


Yvon Pinard: Standing Orders 75A, B and c? You're not talking about the same thing. That is not supply.


Philip Derek Lewis: I would refer to Hansard for July 24, 1969, at page 11619, wherein it is reported there was a vote in which the yeas and nays were recorded. The Government, the majority, steamrollered through the closure and then on July 24, 1969, the rules were finally passed, on closure, on a recorded vote in which the Opposition of the day voted against the rules.
I want to ask one simple question of the Government House Leader. Should we change Hansard and the book by John B. Stewart, or should the Government House Leader revise his version of what happened when those rules came in, in order to comply with the truth?


David P. Smith: You're all mixed up, Doug.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, just one point. One simply has to read and understand. The Hon. Member is talking about a vote after closure that took place merely to implement Standing Order 75a, b and c. That is absolutely not what I was talking about and that is absolutely not what his interim leader was talking about in his speech. We were talking about Opposition days, the Business of Supply. That is the reform and those are the rules to which I was referring and to which his leader was referring when I quoted Hansard and the Journals.
I would seek unanimous consent to table the proper extract from Commons Debates and the House of Commons Journals that very clearly demonstrate that in fact the Business of Supply, the Opposition days, were adopted unanimously by this House of Commons. I hope this consent will not be denied.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) asks unanimous consent to table a document. Is there unanimous consent?


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to give unanimous consent if first I can see the documents ahead of time and, second, if we can also have unanimous consent to table the truth in the matter.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the President of the Privy Council to table the document?


Philip Derek Lewis: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.


David P. Smith: They do not like the truth.

June 6, 1983
Supply


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the galleries are empty.
Let me refer to Hansard at page 4230 and House of Commons Journals, page 554, both dated December 20, 1968. Those records are public. Since the Opposition does not want the truth to be obvious today, let those interested people refer to that.
At the beginning of the Hon. Member's question he remarked that all we have to do is call an election. That is exactly the point I was making in my speech. Since this session began a little more than three years ago, the Opposition has kept exactly that in mind all the time. They were frustrated by their defeat after 37 days in the House and frustrated by the continued division within because of their leadership crisis. All they had in mind was to use Parliament to catch the Government by surprise and force an election.
That is why it is an insult today to see the interim Leader of the Opposition, who himself instigated the undermining of Parliament by ringing the bells for 16 days, come here today with a motion asking that we respect Parliament. The Opposition has been undermining Parliament. They have been stopping Parliament from working exactly for the reason indicated by the Conservative House Leader (Mr. Lewis) at the beginning of his question. He said "Call an election; that will solve the problem". That is wrong. That is bad for democracy and is bad for the proper functioning of Parliament. Under our Constitution, elections are due every four or five years. It was not a means of allowing Parliament to deal with the problems of Canadians.
Despite all this we were more than generous. We consulted Parliament at length on the Constitution. We consulted Parliament at length on energy. We consulted Parliament at length on the economy. The situation is now improving because we had respect for the institution and were able to assume our own responsibilities.
It is a shame that the Opposition today is very hypocritically saying that Parliament has been undermined. They have caused this problem and are responsible for it. Despite their attitudes, we are still making efforts to make this Parliament work and to support parliamentary reform.
[ Translation]


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Do other Hon. Members want to ask questions?


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, there can be no doubt that this institution is in trouble. For any further proof of that one has only to listen to the debate today. But while I believe that the institution is in trouble, I also believe that it is the responsibility of all of us in this place to try to do something about it. We have lost confidence as an institution. Parliament has lost the confidence of the Canadian people. It has become irrelevant in the process of Government and has become irrelevant in the process of accountability.
While I do not want to enter into an unduly partisan exchange with the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard), I would ask him when he is making the case that the Government is not trying to undermine Parliament to explain to the House and the country why we never have a statement from a Minister in this House. Why are statements on important national issues no longer made in the House? Ministers now go across the street to the National Press theatre, downstairs to Room 130S or to other cities to have a press conference. They actually leave this place to go elsewhere to make a statement that should have been made to the elected representatives of the people in the House. That is Exhibit A to my argument and upon which I could rest my case.
I strongly believe that if the Government does not show that it has respect for, or confidence in, this institution, then that lack of confidence and respect will permeate throughout the entire land. That is the message which I will leave here. When the public see the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) writing a letter to the Toronto Star to give the Government's position on the Cruise missile, they would naturally ask why that statement was not made in the House of Commons since it is in session. The House of Commons is sitting and the elected representatives of the people are there. Its sessions are nationally televised and the national press is here. Why was that statement not made in the House of Commons under the provisions of the Standing Orders which make allowance for that type of situation?
Perhaps the reason we are not receiving statements in the House is that while Standing Order 18(4) permits the Government to make statements on major issues, it also allows Opposition Parties the opportunity to respond briefly and to question the Minister on the particular statement that he has made. I will admit that the latter part of that Standing Order is a new procedure. Previously, a Minister could make a statement in the House which had to be brief or the Speaker would intervene. Each Opposition Party was allowed to make a brief response to the statement. Our new procedure allows for questions, and perhaps therein lies the mistake. If we were to return to the old procedure through which the Prime Minister's or a Minister's statement with replies would last about a half hour, perhaps we would then have more statements in the House. I do not know but I want to give the Government the benefit of the doubt.
I say to the President of the Privy Council, the Government and its supporters that as long as the Prime Minister and Ministers make statements in a place other than here, whether at the National Press theatre, downstairs, outside in the foyer or in other parts of the country, it will, more than anything else, telegraph a message to the country that we are in fact irrelevant to the process.
I remember when the Prime Minister said in this place a few years ago; "You want to keep the House sitting because when you get 50 miles from here you are nobodies". I do not believe the Prime Minister was correct in that statement. The fact of the matter is that we are nobodies here and somebodies when we leave here. This is where we are irrelevant and this is where
June 6, 1983

we are nobodies. We sit here and have to listen to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) making a statement on the Crow in Winnipeg while depriving our Members from western Canada of an opportunity to respond to his statement in the House of Commons where they are charged with the responsibility of doing so. We must sit here and watch the Prime Minister take pen in hand and write a letter to the Toronto Star to make an important statement on the Cruise.
The point was made that we could use one of our allotted days for a foreign affairs debate. I can merely repeat what the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Nielsen) said. It used to be a well established convention of the House that there would be an annual debate in the House on external affairs under Government Orders. It was a two-day debate which took place every year without fail. We are now expected to give up one of our Opposition days in order to allow for a debate on foreign affairs which would presumably give the Prime Minister an opportunity-that is the logic in the intervention-which he never had to make his statement on the Cruise. I cannot follow that at all.
The Liberals are saying, why do we not give up one of our Opposition days? Why do we not designate one of our allotted days for a foreign affairs debate? Why should we? Our allotted days were given to us in exchange for giving up Committee of the Whole and allowing the estimates to go out of the House. The Opposition gave up a great deal in giving up supply in the House. The Leader of the Opposition referred to the Liberal Opposition during the days of the Diefenbaker Government. That was a Government with 208 seats with a combined Opposition of 58 Members. If ever there was a Government with a mandate, it was the Diefenbaker Government. But that Government saw the Opposition of the day holding up supply and the estimates of the House for a period of 49 days. Parliament was held up to the point where it was necessary for the Government to go to the Governor General to get a Governor General's writ in order to meet the Public Service payroll and you, Mr. Speaker, remember it very well. It was one of those situations that brought about the reform that we now have whereby estimates are dealt with by committees of the House.
To give up the estimates, we had to be given something in return. What we were given were 24 allotted days. The Government is suggesting that if we want a debate on foreign affairs we use an alloted day. I would expect the Government would want to hear input once a year from the elected representatives of the people on foreign policy as well as allowing the process whereby it would have its own input through foreign policy debate. This should be a matter of Government business. It should be done on the Government's time; it should not be done using the time of the Opposition.
I believe we have to work together if that is possible, and I have grave doubts about that in this Parliament. I believe we have to try to restore this institution to a place where it will once again have some relevancy in the country. I repeat, we have to start somewhere. I suggest as firmly and sincerely as I can to the Government that the place to start is by having the
Supply
Government come into this place when the need arises to make statements and allow the Opposition Parties the opportunity, as provided for in the rules, to make a response. I firmly believe that if the President of the Privy Council were to come to the Opposition House Leaders of both Parties and tell them that the Prime Minister had an important statement to make that he wanted to make in the House, and that if they would give an undertaking to be brief in their responses and not get carried away with the question period, I am sure there would be agreement. We would want his statement made here in this Chamber where it should be made. But there has to be a start. There is the bottom line, and I hope the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure will deal with it.
One of the changes that should be made, and I say this as an Opposition Member, is to give up the question period on statements and get back to the system whereby statements were brief with no opportunity for questions except for the response of the Opposition Parties. If we get back to that process perhaps then the Government might look upon this place as being more relevant than the National Press theatre across the street or the scrum room downstairs.
I was interested in the remarks of the President of the Privy Council. I believe I did not hear him make any reference to the reform process now under way, although it might have escaped my attention because I had to leave the House for a few moments. Credit has to go to the Government for instigating that reform process in the form of the Special Committee of the House. We know why it started: it was a direct response to the ringing of the bells. But we have to ask ourselves, why did the bells ring? In my view the ringing of the bells was a symptom of the problem, a symptom of the disease that has caught hold of Parliament and is causing it to become irrelevant.
The mistake started in the first instance with the Government bringing forward an omnibus Bill on a major energy policy for this country. It had eight or nine different provisions, many of them unrelated. The Government came into this Chamber with an omnibus Bill, expecting the Opposition to buy it holus-bolus with time allocation. Once the Government did that it seems to me the responsibility was on the Chair and the Table, and I say this with respect, to treat seriously the arguments put forwarded by the Opposition to have that omnibus Bill split. If the decision had been made to split that Bill by the Chair, and there were ample precedents for it, and if the Chair had been given the correct advice-and I say that without any disrespect-then the bells would not have rung and we would not have had the problem.
This was the ultimate example in the practice of using omnibus Bills. I suspect that as a result of the ringing of the bells the Government will think twice before it brings forward another omnibus Bill similar to the national energy policy Bill.
We have a committee on procedure, a great committee. In the few moments I have left I want to speak about that committee. The Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the

June 6, 1983
Supply
Privy Council (Mr. Smith) is a member. I think he will agree with most of the things I am going to say. The Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure was struck and had its first meeting on June 22, 1982, just about a year ago. Since that time we have had 62 meetings. We have heard from 42 witnesses. We have travelled to Westminster where we saw firsthand how the mother of Parliament works. It seems to work very efficiently. We travelled to Washington and studied the U.S. committee system. We have heard all the expert witnesses, the so-called expert witnesses and the scholars with respect to Parliament. We have made reports to the House. We are now operating under provisional Standing Orders as a result of our third report.
This, I believe, has brought debate back into the House. Before that debates were becoming structured and stunted. We had procedures which really could not in any way be described as debate. We had set speeches. But now at least there is an element of debate. If a Member speaks for 20 minutes, that Member knows he or she is to be accountable to the House for what has been said. For a period of ten minutes that Member can be cross-examined by the House. Comments can be made on statements in the speech. I think it is a marvellous innovation. If the committee accomplishes nothing else except that, it will have been well worth the exercise. Our innovation has been admired by other Parliaments. I suspect we will see other Parliaments adopting the procedure before too long.
Of course, we are all aware of the change in Parliament's sitting hours. I will not go into that except to suggest to those who are skeptical about giving up evening sittings that they take a look at other Parliaments. The U.S. Congress does not sit at night, for example. I say to the President of the Privy Council that by giving up evening sittings I believe this Chamber has become a little more efficient in terms of debate. I do not believe that evening sittings, quite frankly, were all that productive, not that these morning sittings are more productive. I believe they are.


Yvon Pinard: Yes, they are.


James Aloysius McGrath: Certainly they could be more productive.


Yvon Pinard: What about Wednesdays?


James Aloysius McGrath: The President of the Privy Council asks about Wednesdays. We attempted to elevate Private Members' Business in this place to give it some importance in the parliamentary calendar. I believe our work is incomplete in that regard. We have taken three hours, which would normally be from five to six three days a week, and lumped them together on a Wednesday afternoon. I believe we have to go a step further. Private Members' Business has to become more a part of the business of this House, and in so doing there has to be proper planning. There has to be adequate notice given in the House as to which Bills are coming forward. The Government has to be disposed on certain Bills to allow them to come to a vote and not to get into a situation where the order is discharged and the subject matter referred to a committee, but where there can be a vote on a Private Members' Bill and it
has some chance of emerging as statute law. That is the next stage in elevating the role of the Private Member in this House.
The third report of the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure is the substantive report, the first two reports being perfunctory. We are now operating under the third report until the end of the year. What about the fourth report? It deals with the Speakership. I believe the House should debate the Speakership, the role of the Speaker and how the House goes about electing a Speaker. I think we can do that without making any inferences or reflecting in any way upon the present distinguished incumbent of the Chair or yourself, Mr. Speaker, as Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not think you would be sensitive to a debate like that. I do not think Madam Speaker would be sensitive to that kind of debate. For the life of me I do not understand why we have not moved on the fourth report.
More important, what about the fifth report? I believe it to be a very important report because it deals with the new committee structure whereby standing committees are now reduced to a membership of ten. The recommendation of the Special Committee was not less than ten and not more than 15. By the way, no one envisaged that the Government would take the minimum and use it as the norm. That was not the intent at all. As a result of ten-member standing committees, it means that the Official Opposition only has three Members on a particular committee. Under the present system we have to consider the chairman of the committee as being one of the Government supporters on the committee. That is another question which is dealt with in the sixth report.
The fifth report has not been concurred in. It makes provision whereby it would be necessary under the rules for the Clerk to convene a meeting of all standing committees within ten days of Parliament sitting, so that they can get on with electing chairmen, vice-chairmen and get off the ground. That, on the basis of it, may not seem very important but let me give an example of the kind of abuse it was designed to correct.
The Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration did not meet this year until April 19. That Committee has the responsibility of dealing with the estimates of the Department of Labour, of the Department of Manpower and Immigration and of the Unemployment Insurance Commission. For one reason or another-and the Government may or may not have good reasons-that Committee was not struck. It did not hold its organizational meeting until April 19, notwithstanding the fact that on May 30 all estimates are deemed to have been reported back to the House. Other committees were well under way by April 19, but that Committee had not even met. That should not be allowed to happen, but it can and will happen again unless the Government acts on the recommendations of the fifth report. We are waiting for the Government to stand and move concurrence or
June 6, 1983

allow the chairman of the Committee the right to stand and move concurrence in that report.
Now, what about the sixth report? It is critical to the recommendations we have made. What have we done with the committee system? We have gone for the British system of select committees. Our standing committees are now select committees. Under the rules in which the Government has concurred on a provisional basis, these standing committees-cum-select committees now have the annual reports of departments and agencies referred to them so that there is an ongoing order of reference and an ongoing investigative role. As well, they are charged with the responsibility of examining the estimates of departments, the idea being that small committees would develop a degree of expertise in the area with which they are charged and a degree of collegiality which is just as important in my view as expertise. As a result they would be able to give a more meaningful examination of the estimates referred to them.
The next step which the Government has failed to address by dealing with the sixth report is the establishment of ad hoc legislative committees. A very important reform is contained in that recommendation concerning a panel of chairmen. This is something about which we have talked for a long time but have never acted upon. Why cannot the Government act on legislative committees? It would go a long way toward deflecting or reducing our concern as an Opposition Party that somehow we have been had by virtue of the Government holding standing committees down to ten members.
I hope the Government gets on with legislative committees. I believe they are very important. I hope the Government agrees with the Speaker appointing a panel of chairmen to be an impartial presider over committees, just as you are, Mr. Speaker, in the House. I hope it goes one step further and gives us adequate committee rooms with proper decorations and proper furniture so that there will be a proper sense of decorum. I believe we now have the opportunity to complete what the Government initiated in June in terms of parliamentary reform. I hope the Government is not going soft on reform. I hope the Government will see it through, but it must send a signal to the Committee that it will see it through. The signal it can send is by getting on with concurrence in the fourth report, fifth report and sixth report of the Committee.
Mir. Pinard: Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of his speech the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) referred to the fact that there were less and less statements by Ministers. That is a reality. Under the Standing Orders we know that a Minister may-he does not have to-make a statement. I understand in not too ancient times but many years ago that perhaps the Standing Order was used more often. I am sure the Hon. Member is honest and will understand that the situation has changed somewhat since we have been dealing with major issues, as I stated in my speech, which required a lot of time and provoked in some instances what I qualified as unjustified resort to tactics such as the bells, fallacious points of order and so on that wasted the time of the House. Thus we have had less time to deal with Government business. In fact
Supply
that time has been reduced to three days a week with our experiment on parliamentary reform. Wednesdays are not to be used by the Government any more. I am not against Private Members' Business, but it could be dealt with otherwise. Also one day per week must be given to the Opposition, so there are only three days a week available to the Government.
I am sure the Hon. Member understands that is a problem we have to face. When a Minister makes a statement in the House, time is required for an exchange of questions and answers. That is normal. But if we do it on an Opposition day, we hear complaints. If we do it during Private Members' Business, we hear the complaints: "Don't interfere with Private Members' Business"; "Don't interfere with time available for the Opposition"; or "Do this only on Government time". We have no time; that is the real problem we must face.
I welcome suggestions. I am sure the Committee, of which the Hon. Member is a member, will look deeper into this problem. There is a problem with available time because days are short and they are not numerous. This is one of our concerns. If we had more time we would be tempted to make more statements in the House; it would be easier.
It is frustrating when we are trying to introduce legislation and we see an Opposition Party preventing leave to introduce a Bill and having the bells ring for five hours or six hours. This time could have been used efficiently for statements by Ministers. There are Members on both sides of the House who are interested in having Parliament work and would like solutions to the problems.
The Hon. Member attended with me a seminar in Westminster in approximately 1977. He knows very well that if we compare our Parliament with others, including our mother of Parliament in Westminster, London, we have the best Question Period in the world. Of all Parliaments of the world ours is the most lively. Most of the Ministers are here. We do not have pre-notice of questions. We do not have only a third of our Cabinet showing up once every week or so. To replace statements by Ministers in the meantime, at least Hon. Members have an opportunity, if statements are made outside the House, to ask questions of the Ministers who are here every day and are willing to answer without pre-notice. Also the Opposition have 25 Opposition days. All this explains the situation, but I agree with the Hon. Member that we should try to find a solution, not only at the expense of Government time.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the intervention of the Minister because it gives me an opportunity to make a suggestion. He does not have to await a recommendation from the Special Committee; he can act on this himself. The proceedings of this place are now televised. Why could the Minister or the Prime Minister not make a statement at six o'clock? That is prime time. It would not interfere with the business of the House. Statements could be made at six o'clock and it would go live across the country, at least in the eastern part of the country.

June 6, 1983
Another option would be that the Government could bring the House back and make tax statements at eight o'clock. In my view it does not have to cut into its time by taking an hour out of Government business at three o'clock, as is the custom. The situation has changed with television in the House. I believe the system could become much more relevant and more meaningful and that this institution would have a role to play. I make that as a suggestion to the Minister.


Mr. Simmons:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on debate. May I call it one o'clock?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until 2 p.m.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed a 2 p.m.


Mr. Gaston Gourde (Levis):: Madam Speaker, Federal Business Development Bank authorities have shown reecently that they have much to learn about consultation in the areas they serve.
For the last several years, a branch of this bank was located in Levis, in my constituency. Last week, this branch moved to Quebec City without properly informing the public. I was personally informed on June 2 by a senior official in Ottawa that the transfer was effective as of June 1. I find it hard to understand this so-called rationalization effort when the south shore opposite Quebec City is experiencing a major population increase and when several departments are now decentralizing their activities. If public servants now admit that it was a mistake to locate an FBDB branch on the south shore several years ago, they should also recognize that some consultation would have been helped prevent such a mistake.
I therefore ask the Federal Business Development Bank authorities and the minister responsible for this agency to reconsider their position immediately on the FBDB branch in Levis.
Madam Speaker, I feel that two wrongs don't make a right.



WESTERN GRAIN TRANSPORTATION ACT


Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Lethbridge-Foothills):: Madam Speaker, I am asking Liberal Members to help convince the Cabinet that its decision to reject both the Gilson and the Pepin proposals was terribly unwise and must be changed. If all of the money goes directly to the railways, then the grain producers are locked even more tightly under a large multinational monopoly. The whole collection system will remain locked into the ancient horse-and-wagon mode rather than a modern system which can compete against the United States, Australia, and Argentina. The livestock producers, feeders, and packing plants will be effectively blocked from obtaining access to the vast meat market in the western United States.
The Gilson proposals were a western solution to a western problem, and the Quebec caucus was simply wrong in caving in to the propaganda of the PQ Government and the UPA union. Just as we stand and defend the S2.8 billion of equalization money which flows into Quebec, as well as the separate Quebec Pension Plan, a separate French language TV system, a separate French radio system, and official bilingualism, they must stand and defend the amendment to C-155 which would give western farmers the freedom to choose.
On Friday last in my riding, at a public meeting 230 farmers voted for the choice option versus three who voted for paying 100 per cent to the railways.



POLITICAL PARTIES


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Madam Speaker, the former Leader of the Conservative Party, the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark), has again demonstrated his inability to provide leadership and to combat the right wing reactionaries of his caucus and Party. In the past he has said that he is against capital punishment but would allow it to be reintroduced in Canada. This last week he has refused to endorse the Pawley Government's courageous decision to provide bilingual services in Manitoba. The former Prime Minister is quoted as saying:
If I had been Premier of Manitoba and faced with this threat of a Supreme Court judgment, I would have waited for it, to indicate to worried citizens that unhappily they didn't have a choice.
This indicates again his willingness to do only what is politically expedient rather than what is right and honourable. For almost 100 years the French-speaking population of Manitoba were deprived illegally of their rights. Steps to redress this wrong should be applauded and encouraged. The former Leader of the Conservative Party should recognize that it is necessary to have courage to be a leader in this nation.
June 6, 1983



AIR SAFETY


M. Henri Tousignant (Temiscamingue):: Madam Speaker, some time ago, I rose in this House to speak publicly about what I consider the ridiculous and unacceptable treatment given to non-smoking air travellers.
I then said that smoke must be more intelligent than man as it must inevitably obey non-smoking signs.
Any air traveller knows how easy it is to throw a cigarette butt inadvertently in the washroom trash can. In fact, this possibility has not yet been totally ruled out in the investigation of last Thursday's tragedy in Cincinnati.
In view of this, it is perhaps time to look straight in the eye those who persist in claiming the right to indulge in their little whims, not to say the right to endanger the life of their fellow travellers.
What is the Canadian Transport Commission waiting for to ban this cannibalistic practice outright or at least to charge $20 extra to those who think nothing of endangering the life of others?


An Hon. Member:: Hear, hear!



ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY INTRODUCTION OF FLAT RATE LOCKAGE FEES

Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Madam Speaker, the shipping industry is in its worst crisis since World War II. What has been one of the most successful transportation industries in Canada, and one of the few industries in which Canadians have been internationally competitive, is now in serious trouble. To make matters even worse, the St. Lawrence Seaway has introduced a flat rate lockage charge, introduced to discourage the use of existing smaller ships on the Seaway. However, neither market conditions nor Government support warrant the carriers getting into a new larger ship construction program. Furthermore, few of the 40 or more community ports around the Great Lakes can handle ships the size contemplated by the Seaway.
As a result, there are fewer transits on the Seaway, resulting in a higher deficit to that agency than need be, and because of this shortsighted policy, port communities are threatened with job lay-offs and plant closures. Studies show the need for both small and intermediate sized ships to ensure the efficient transportation of bulk cargoes. Why, at a time when the sluggish economy of the nation has eliminated the reason for imposing flat rate lockage fees, does the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) not reverse this decision of high tolls and lockage fees, or does he really want to bring the industry to its knees?



LEAVE OF ABSENCE URGED FOR POLITICAL PARTY LEADERSHIP CANDIDATES

Mr. Stanley Hudecki (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, during a leadership convention of any of the federal political parties, a number of the candidates who are Members of Parliament completely withdraw their services from the House of Commons for as long as four months in order to run for the leadership, or else to lobby on behalf of one of the candidates.
In that period their campaign is one of directing their skills and their drive for personal gain and personal promotion. They do not generally participate in the day to day business of the House, nor do they debate the many important issues that must be settled for the good management of the country. Their attention to constituency business is also curtailed. Yet in this interval they draw full pay and allowances as parliamentarians.
I feel that the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections should consider looking into the possibility of having MPs who are leadership candidates for the various Parties declared to be on leave of absence for the period of their campaigning, and study whether they should be paid on a per diem rate for the occasional days on which they appear in the House or undertake their constituency duties.



GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING


Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Madam Speaker, according to a paper presented to a Learned Societies Conference at the University of British Columbia this week, the Government pays twice as much for the preparation of a public advertisement as does a private advertiser. The paper goes on to observe that this over-payment may in effect be compensation for cheap or even free services rendered to the Liberal Party at election time.
It has long been obvious that the vast majority of Government advertising served no public function other than to emphasize the benevolence of the Government and the governing Party and its omnipresence in our daily lives. It has been a burr under the saddles of all of us who have been concerned about Government waste and needless expense. Now the reason for it, and for the Government's refusal to cut back on it, is revealed. It is a reason that is repugnant to the vast majority of Canadians, to people who believe that morality in Government remains a valid requirement, one that is not overridden by the immediate interests of the Liberal Party. As has happened so frequently in the last three years, the Government stands condemned by its own actions, in the eyes of all of Canada.

June 6, 1983



MARITIME FREIGHT RATES ACT


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Madam Speaker, just as the statutory Crowsnest Pass freight rates are of vital benefit to western Canada, so is the Maritime Freight Rates Act of benefit to Atlantic Canada.
The federal Government would like to change the maritime freight rate subsidies if it succeeds in cancelling the Crow rate. A similar policy to increase Maritime freight rates in the 1920s to commercial levels, cost 20,000 manufacturing jobs in Atlantic Canada. Reducing the subsidies today means that industries in the Atlantic region will move their operations closer to major markets.
Is it fair to change the industrial base and employment opportunities for those who located in Atlantic Canada with the understanding that freight subsidies were permanent? Are we prepared to pay the social and economic costs of increasing unemployment in Atlantic Canada? This nation has an obligation to provide low cost transportation to Atlantic Canada which gave up a prosperous trade with the United States when it entered Confederation.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. Mel Gass (Malpeque):: Madam Speaker, I would like to address the serious unemployment situation which exists in Prince Edward Island. P.E.I. is experiencing an unemployment rate in excess of 11 per cent, according to April statistics.
I have recently received a telegram from the President of the P.E.I. Building Trades Council expressing great concern over the unemployment situation which exists among labourers on the Island. He indicated that it is imperative that proposed construction jobs commence as soon as possible.
Out of a union of 150 labourers on the Island, only 90 are currently employed. There is also a 75 per cent to 90 per cent rate of unemployment existing on the Island for carpenters, electricians, and plumbers. This is a drastic situation, and measures must be taken to help alleviate this serious problem.
The proposed projects for a veterinary college and construction of a new Charlottetown airport terminal must be started as soon as possible. Without a doubt, Islanders must feel some anxiety over the starting of these projects as the Charlottetown airport terminal construction has been delayed since 1974. The Federal-Provincial Planning Committee agreed that a new air terminal building would be constructed in 1974 but nothing has started yet, and it is 1983.
I urge that these projects be started without further delay and that the construction of a veterinary college, for which an agreement was signed over the weekend, begin immediately.



SERVICE RENDERED BY PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE PARTY LEADERSHIP CANDIDATES

Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member for Hamilton West (Mr. Hudecki) chided those Members of the Progressive Conservative Party who are Members of the House of Commons, and who are out seeking the leadership of the Party. I should like to suggest that they are doing a service to their country at the present time by letting their names stand for leadership of the Party. All of us in the House know that the next leader of the Conservative Party will be the Prime Minister of the country.
I should like to suggest also that people from coast to coast in Canada are waiting in anticipation for a certain number of Liberal Members, particularly those on the front bench, to withdraw completely from the House of Commons, and would encourage them to do so.



POLITICAL PARTIES


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Madam Speaker, to respond to what has just been said, I think it is appropriate to point out that however good it may be that certain Members of the House have let their names stand for the leadership of the Progressive Conservative Party, it would be better for the whole country if they would also stand for something.
In that context 1 should like to call to the attention of the House and of all Canadians who might be concerned about the future of medicare that we do not know-except for Peter Pocklington who would like to get rid of the whole thing- where the various candidates stand on the future of medicare. Should any of them become Prime Minister of Canada, we do not know if they will stand up to what the Provinces are doing to medicare, or whether they will be patsies for the Provinces that are eroding medicare.
Like many other Canadians I should like to know where the various candidates for the Prime Ministership of Canada stand on important social programs like medicare. So far those who are really against it have not had the guts to come out and say so. No doubt there are many of them, because that is where the Tories really stand on medicare. And if there are any who are for medicare they have not had the guts to say so either, because then there would be visited upon them the retribution of the various right wing elements in the Conservative Party who would like to do away with medicare altogether.
June 6, 1983



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Lome Greenaway (Cariboo-Chilcotin):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue. It concerns, once again, the unfair application by Revenue Canada of Section 31 of the Income Tax Act.
The answer to my Order Paper question No. 4,766 reveals that 9,355 Canadian farmers were audited in the 11-month period ending February 28, 1983. Many Members of the House are receiving information on cases that indicate that Revenue Canada is disallowing farm losses and is reassessing four years in back taxes, penalties, and interest. The majority of these farmers use chartered accountants and follow their advice on tax matters.
I should like to ask the Minister why it is that farmers and chartered accountants who, according to Revenue Canada auditors, in past years have obeyed the tax laws implicitly, are now suddenly finding that the interpretation of these laws has been changed by the Government.


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of National Revenue):: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member has raised this question before in this House and, if I remember well, at that time I suggested to him that he check the facts. Once more I would urge him to do so, because I know he is not in the habit of checking facts and having his questions based on factual data.
The Department of National Revenue has not changed anything with respect to the interpretation or implementation of the Income Tax Act. However if the Hon. Member will take the time to read carefully the provisions of Section 31 of the Income Tax Act, and especially the criteria for eligibility as a farmer, he will see that there is a certain period of time allowed to taxpayers in order to qualify as farmers, if they own property that may be operated as a farm, and taxpayers are allowed this period of time in order to submit such evidence. Unless this evidence is submitted, we must collect the taxes owed to society by those taxpayers.


Lorne Everett Greenaway: Madam Speaker, the reason for this, as the farmers of Canada will tell the Minister, is that this is nothing but a tax grab by a bankrupt Government. That is what this is all about.


STAND TAKEN BY FARMERS-MINISTER'S POSITION
Lorne Everett Greenaway: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Farmers across the country are presently banding together to fight Revenue
Oral Questions
Canada over this issue. Over the past weeks I have provided the Minister with 36 typical cases but, as far as I have seen so far, no action has been taken by the Minister on these cases which he asked me for in the House.
Is the Minister of National Revenue not going to get Revenue Canada off the backs of Canadian farmers? Is he simply going to sit and take the responsiblity of Canada's first major tax revolt?


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, if I suggested in my previous answer that the Hon. Member was not the most industrious of fact finders, it was because I went to the trouble of making a careful study of each and every case he has submitted to me. It is my view that he is not properly using the term "farmer", because there is no obligation to own property or land that can be farmed in order to qualify as a farmer. But in order to qualify, one must comply with very strict provisions in the Income Tax Act, and this is to prevent a lot of abuse the Hon. Member is perfectly aware of. I would therefore invite him to exercise a little more patience, and I can then show him exactly that in the cases submitted by him, the Act has been implemented in a very fair way as far as the taxpayer is concerned.


Lorne Everett Greenaway: Madam Speaker, we are all aware that there are abuses of Section 31. Be that as it may, there are lots of legitimate farmers being attacked under this unfair and ambiguous Section of the Act.


DISALLOWANCE OF WIVES' LABOUR
Lorne Everett Greenaway: Madam Speaker, my final supplementary question is directed to the Minister responsible for the Status of Women. We have heard from farmers across the country that Revenue Canada auditors appear to have a list of arbitrary criteria that they use to classify farms. One such criteria is the number of hours per year spent working on a farm. In recent years many farmers have been forced to work off the farm because of unexpected high costs. Many farm wives have had to take up the slack. Is the Minister responsible for the Status of Women aware that Revenue Canada auditors are rejecting and disallowing the hours of labour of these women? Is this not rank discrimination against women?


Hon. Judy Erola (Minister of State (Mines)):: No, Madam Speaker, I am not aware, but it is true that the Government made some changes some time ago to allow the salaries paid to farm wives as a deductible expense. I am concerned that there is some misuse of this, and I would appreciate very much if the Hon. Member would bring the matter to my attention.

June 6, 1983
Oral Questions


LABOUR RELATIONS
James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, I have a related question directed to the Prime Minister in the absence of the Acting Minister of Labour and of the Minister of Transport. Would the Prime Minister tell the House what the Government intends to do about the grain handlers' dispute in Vancouver, which is going from bad to worse and which resulted over the weekend in no grain being moved through the Port of Vancouver? What steps does the Government intend to take to ensure that grain continues to move and that the farmers of western Canada will not be help up to ransom?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, I believe the Hon. Member heard the answer from the Minister of Employment and Immigration last week, who was, I believe, answering on behalf of the Minister of Labour, that the Government is monitoring the situation and that we are happy at this time to see the parties themselves engage in an attempt to solve their problems. If it ever should happen that the public weal calls for government intervention, we would then consider intervention.


REQUEST THAT MEDIATOR BE APPOINTED
James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, government intervention perhaps can be avoided if the Government will take its responsibility now. I ask the Prime Minister if the Government intends to move in to try to mediate this dispute before it goes from bad to worse. Obviously, the next step will be a work to rule situation by the grain handlers, which will again slow down the movement of grain out of Vancouver. Does the Government intend, at least at this stage, to give consideration to appointing a mediator because, as the Prime Minister knows, the basis of the dispute goes back to the conciliation report on the last work stoppage in Vancouver in 1974?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member heard the Minister answer that it would not be appropriate nor conducive to a settlement at this time to bring in the services of a mediator. However, I repeat, the Government is following the situation.


CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. The Minister knows that when a state grants to security services new powers of intrusion in the name of protecting freedom, the result is that there actually is less freedom to protect. For this reason
Justice McDonald recommended certain crucial safeguards which the Minister has discarded. I would like to ask him about some of these. Why did the Minister discard the requirement that the Security Service would have to meet very specific tests in applying to a judge for permission to do certain acts which otherwise would be quite illegal? And why did the Minister abandon the sensible anti judge shopping clause which Justice McDonald recommended?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General of Canada):: Madam Speaker, to take the last first; as far as the anti judge shopping clause is concerned by requiring reference to a federal judge, there was already a considerable limitation of the number of judges who could be approached since there are only 16 federal judges and there will only be a small increase in that number in the foreseeable future. My anticipation also is that the Chief Justice of the Federal Court will develop a duty roster type of system so that it will be a matter of a small number of judges available at any particular time. In other words, there is no counterpart in this situation to the situation which exists within the Criminal Code, where I do not believe judge shopping occurs to a degree which amounts to a serious problem but where, nevertheless, structurally there are hundreds and hundreds of judicial officials available who can authorize the issuance of the judicial warrant.
On the question of the balance between the safeguards which are required for the exercise of obtaining a judicial warrant, and the effectiveness of the Service, I will simply say that I recognize very well the need for a balance. However, at the bottom of it Hon. Members of the House must recognize that national security is an intrusion on privacy and on civil liberties. Our goal is to try to develop a system of safeguards and controls which do not exist under present arrangements. We are seeking to create them, which will ensure that the intrusions are the minimum and that the safeguards and controls are adequate to ensure that the service will not unduly violate the privacy and civil liberties ofthe Canadian people.


ACTIVITIES WITHIN CANADA OF FOREIGN SECURITY AGENTS
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, it was precisely to deal with that important realm of freedom, at the same time as meeting the security requirements, that Justice McDonald laid down very specific tests which security agents should have to meet before they are given such extraordinary powers. It is those specific tests which the Minister has discarded, and he has not told us why.
I would also like to ask him why he provided a clause in the Bill which will permit foreign agents, for example, from the CIA, to act in Canada in a way which, if they acted in terms of Canadian laws which exist now, would be perfectly illegal, but in terms of the new Bill would be quite permissible. Why did he do that? In answering that, would the Minister also acknowledge that this Bill permits security agents in Canada,
June 6, 1983

in asking for these exceptional powers, to ask them of a judge without even telling the judge all the laws they intend to break?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, on the first point, I believe the Hon. Member is referring to Clause 18, which has been pretty widely misunderstood. I would ask him to read it-


John Edward Broadbent: I have read it.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: -because the purpose of Section 18 is to give authority to the agency, with the approval of a judge, to carry out certain intrusive operations.


John Edward Broadbent: Right. Including activities by foreign
agents.
Mr Kaplan: I can assure the Hon. Member that that authority will not be given and cannot, under law, be given to anyone but an employee of the agency. Certainly, it cannot be given to some foreigner and there is no suggestion in the legislation that that power should be given to one.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER WITHDRAW LEGISLATION
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, the agent applying for the authority has to be a Canadian. The Minister is right in that. However, the Minister also knows that another agent of a foreign country, acting with a Canadian agent, can do acts in this country which now would be illegal. That is the point of the question.
Considering that the Minister himself last week acknowledged that there are serious flaws in the Bill, considering that all of the provincial representatives, equivalent to his office at the provincial level, the Attorneys General of all the Provinces, are opposed to the Bill, and that the professors of law at the universities have spoken out against it, as well as the civil liberties groups, will the Minister admit that he has brought in a seriously flawed piece of legislation, and withdraw it completely?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, one must examine the proposals in this Bill and compare them with present arrangements where there are no legislated safeguards, although there are administrative safeguards. One must recognize that we are proposing to tighten the mandate, to describe it for the first time in the history of our country according to legislation of this Parliament, and to provide for a judicial pre-clearance of warrants, which has no counterpart today.
Any warrants which can be issued are issued by me and I am subject, unfairly I would say, to being guilty of partisanship or interest in the success of operations. In any event, a judicial warrant procedure is provided. And one must consider the creation of the office of Inspector General outside the service, an auditor with full power to review any operation and
Oral Questions
conduct an audit of it, and one must look at the review committee, where we are proposing to bring in three respected outsiders-not Members of the Government and not former Members of the Government, but outsiders with no vested interest in success-who will be there as a safeguard representing the public interest.
I know there has been some criticisms of the Bill, and some serious criticisms of the Bill, but if one compares the Bill with present arrangements, something which is understandably difficult for Parliament to do, and when one recognizes that national security at the bottom is an intrusion on the privacy and civil liberties of individuals, one which goes on now under present arrangements without these legislative safeguards, I believe the reasonable thing for the Hon. Member and his Party to do is to agree that this issue should be brought before Parliament, that the Bill should have second reading, and go to committee. Let us hear from all these experts who have comments to make to improve it, and comments to make to amplify it. Let us proceed and act as a Parliament to improve the arrangements which, twice in the past, have led to Royal Commissions.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PROPOSED REVIEW PROCESS
Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Madam Speaker, I wish to ask the Solicitor General a question about the review committee. Would the Solicitor General consider, if necessary, amending this process to make sure that Canadians, who, through honest mistake or human error are singled out by the new Service and suffer damage to their reputations or property, could get more speedy access to relief and that there would be more accountability than presently appears in the Bill?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, there are specific provisions for review in the Bill, and they have no counterpart now. An individual denied citizenship on security grounds, an individual denied immigration status, an individual denied employment or promotion in the Government on the grounds of national security, will have a right of review if this Bill is passed. Not only that, in response to the Hon. Member's question, there is already a complaints procedure provided in the Bill, which has no counterpart today, where anyone in the country who feels he or she has been victimized by the Security Service has a right to a hearing if that is what the review committee decide, and it is up to them to decide. Such a person will have the opportunity to get the records corrected and have justice done with respect to his or her case.


REDRESS FOR INNOCENT PERSONS
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the Minister's answer, but I think he will recall, for example, when a member of the Protective Staff some

June 6, 1983
Oral Questions
years ago, one Paul Debien, was wrongly singled out by the RCMP drug squad and he had a very difficult time getting redress. In fact I am not certain if he ever did.
I come back to my first question. Is the Minister prepared to strengthen the process of accountability so that agents who make an error, supposing it is an honest error, will have it duly noted and the people affected will have an apology and some measure of quick redress by the Government, rather than having to go through a lengthy court process with a lot of dissembling as has been the case in the past?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, if it is a complaint affecting national security and this agency, you do not have to go to court, although at present, as the Hon. Member knows, the redress is to the Solicitor General. There is less of the appearance and apparatus review and safeguard in that way than this Bill would propose. I draw the Hon. Member's attention to clause 37 which says that any person may make a complaint to the review committee with respect to anything done by the Service. I would urge the Hon. Member and his party to support this Bill as it is in principle, and take it to committee for a full hearing. The situation he has raised with me I think is covered by the Bill; whether additional machinery could be provided is something I think the committee should examine.


INCOME TAX
Miss Pat Carney (Vancouver Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Finance who is present but not in his seat. To save the time of the House, may I defer my question until he is in his place?


Mr. Paproski:: He is only half present.


Pat Carney: Madam Speaker, many Canadians are facing possible double taxation of their pensions because the amount of pension contributions they are required to pay exceeds the limit they may deduct in calculating their income taxes. That means they are being taxed on both their contributions as well as the benefits when they take them. What steps will the Minister take to rectify this unfair situation?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member knows that at the present time there is a tax exemption for up to $3,500 for contributions to pension funds. There are certain groups, comparatively better off, who obviously have more money to contribute to pension funds than the maximum $3,500. These are subject to taxation, as she knows. I am examining this situation. The limit of $3,500 has not been increased for some time.
I have asked my officials to review this situation and I would intend to publish a working document in the next few months which I would like to see addressed and examined, particularly in the context of the review of pensions that Parliament is
proceeding with at the present time, to try to ensure that there is equity in the treatment of all concerned.


Erik Nielsen: Will there be a photo opportunity?


REQUEST THAT TAX EXEMPTION LIMIT BE RAISED
Pat Carney: Madam Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the same Minister. I would hope he addresses the limits for people who are self employed and whose pension fund is their only source of pension. Would the Minister consider raising the limit on an interim basis until the pension review and reform work have been completed?


Marc Lalonde: No, Madam Speaker.


CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE
Hon. Walter Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Madam Speaker, my question is supplementary to those put to the Solicitor General with respect to the security Bill.
It is interesting, Madam Speaker, that almost each group in the country who has commented on the security Bill has been very much concerned about it and has raised some grave questions about it. The Minister himself has questioned the Bill and some of its provisions by saying that he is open to amendment. Would the Minister not consider it appropriate if, rather than proceeding with the Bill at this time, the subject matter could be sent to a committee of this House to be reviewed over a definite period of time in order that those groups could be heard, Parliament be consulted with respect to the Bill, and time would not be wasted? There are many who do not question the necessity of a Security Service for Canada but do indeed question the methods adopted by the Minister. Would he consider that?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Well, I would like to have some time to consider that and know if that is the position which would commend itself to other Members of the Hon. Member's Party and other Parties on the floor.


John Edward Broadbent: Yes.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: But I must say at the heart of it a Security Service is hundreds and hundreds of men and women who are working in the interests of the national security of the country. I think Royal Commissions have recommended that they and their work, and national security in general, require a much greater degree of direction and control from Parliament than the national security agency has received in the past. I would not want it to be taken, by agreeing to such a proposal, that the Government was not committed in general, and to a rather
June 6, 1983

large degree in detail, to the proposals I have put forward. I think we owe it to them and to the national security of the country, and to the Canadian people in general, to provide leadership in this area as a Government. That is the reason for this Bill.
I do not agree with most of the criticism I have heard. If a method could be worked out for Members of this House to consider the Bill, it would be something I would like to look into. But I want to make it clear that this is the direction in general terms, and in a considerable amount of detail, that this Government wants to lead the Security Service. I think much of the criticism is totally off base and I would not want any decision to refer the subject matter of the Bill to be taken to indicate that 1 think this Bill is wrong and that carte blanche is being given, or doors are being opened, or civil rights are being abused by the Bill. In my view the Bill does the opposite. I believe that in fair hearings of the committee that will be seen to be the case.


MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY
Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, the whole purpose of such an inquiry would be to examine the very things the Minister asserts, for which there is some support in some parts of the House and no support in other parts of the House. The Minister has indicated his willingness to discuss that possibility and I will arrange to have that discussed with my colleagues.
In the meantime would the Minister consider that very important substance of our parliamentary system which has been eroded, that is the concept of ministerial responsibility? Would he indicate to the House that his mind is not closed with respect to a review of the question of ministerial responsibility for security matters, which strikes to the heart of our parliamentary system and which may very well be important to the acceptance of this legislation generally, and the creation of a Security Service in Canada?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Well, on that subject the Bill has sought to create a balance with, on the one hand, full ministerial accountability for the operation of the Security Service and, for the first time in legislation, a requirement that the Minister be fully informed and ready to respond to Parliament about all of the matters being carried out or not being carried out by the Security Service.
So far as the limitation in Clause 6 is concerned, to which the Hon. Member must be referring, that the Minister should not be enabled to overrule the director with respect to a particular case or report, I think that is a wise safeguard because it assures that the agency will not be used for partisan or improper purposes by the Government and that it will not become the private police force or private agency of the Government. To me, that is an extremely important safeguard in the interests of our democracy. It is also the system that commended itself to Australia, another parliamentary democracy, which has adopted, in virtually the same terms, exactly
Oral Questions
the proposals which I believe the Hon. Member is condemning. Therefore, one can have a parliamentary democracy which provides that safeguard, but I have certainly heard him and I have heard the other criticism on that subject.


Yvon Pinard: He should read the Bill.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I think it would be a good issue to explore in committee. I think it is one which ought to be preserved.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Terry Sargeant (Selkirk-Interlake):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence who, 13 months ago, in reply to a letter of mine, wrote that the purpose of the joint Canadian-American research project being conducted in the prairie Provinces, ostensibly on radar ground clutter, was to improve the capabilities of civilian and military radar at low levels. On Saturday I learned that that may well have been a sham, and that one of the main purposes of this project is to improve the survivability of U.S. Cruise missiles. Will the Minister tell the House what is the real story? Is this a radar improvement project or is it a Cruise missile development project?


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, I think I did answer the Hon. Member on June 16, 1982, very clearly explaining the purpose of the program. It has nothing to do with the Cruise missile. It is related to the testing of the low level radar. As the Hon. Member knows, when any missiles or any low flying aircraft comes over Canadian airspace it mingles with clutter on the radar screen. What we are trying to do-


Erik Nielsen: It is happening on the Treasury benches.


Mr. Lamontagne:: -by this test program across Canada and the United States is to try to find out how we can eliminate this clutter on our radar so that we can identify these missiles or low flying aircraft, and in so doing identify the low flying object, thereby improving the security of the country.


INQUIRY RESPECTING COMPUTER PROGRAMMING FOR CRUISE MISSILE TESTING
Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: Madam Speaker, for the last number of months in Alberta, where the tests have been going on, experts from the Cruise Missile Technology Group of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology have been going in on a weekly basis to monitor the testing. They are of the opinion that this testing is being done to prepare computer software to help the Cruise missile to fly over terrain in western and central Europe. I would like the Minister to comment on that situation. People who are conducting these tests right now are saying that this is to prepare computer

June 6, 1983
Oral Questions
programs for the Cruise missile. Is the Minister saying that this incorrect?


J. Gilles Lamontagne: Madam Speaker, I said that the object of the testing is to try to find out how we can best detect a low flying object. It could be a missile. It could be any kind of low flying object. It could be an aircraft. It could be something coming from the United States or from Russia or from anywhere else. So, it is just a question of clarifying and improving our means of detecting whatever could come over Canada at a low altitude. It is as simple as that.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Prime Minister concerning the travel activity of this Minister of State for International Trade. I am sure, in the light of the controversy which has arisen, that he has taken a look at the guidelines and the records involving that travel. Did the Prime Minister authorize his Minister of State for International Trade, who was then Secretary of State, to travel to Denver, Colorado, on March 4, 1982? I remind him that that was when the House of Commons was awaiting the decision with respect to the bell ringing incident. All Hon. Members, of course, were in Ottawa waiting to vote on a controversial Bill.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I cannot recall having authorized that particular trip at that particular time. However, there is a rule that, when Ministers want to leave the country, they do inform my office. If I see any objection to it, I make it known to them. They are also asked to check with the Department of External Affairs. That is the rule. As to March 4, I see no particular relevancy to the tail end of the question relating to the bell ringing incident. I am not quite sure what the Hon. Member is worried about in that regard.


PURPOSE OF TRIP
Howard Edward Crosby: Madam Speaker, perhaps I should tell the Prime Minister, in the presence of his Minister of State for International Trade, that-


Marc Lalonde: You could ask him a question.


Mr. Regan:: You don't have the guts to ask me.


Howard Edward Crosby: -a Halifax newspaper has suggested that the Minister travelled to Denver, Colorado, to attend the World Cup skiing match on March 4, 1982, to see Mr. Podborski win the World Cup. I would like to confirm whether the Prime Minister had given him permission to do that when there was such controversy in Parliament. Was the Minister's presence
not so required that he could be in Denver, Colorado, on a flighty activity of that nature?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, as to the Minister himself, we remember that he was Minister responsible for sports at that time. I am sure he went in relation to preparation of sports events, notably the Olympics to be held in Alberta. However, as to the relevance of the bell ringing incident, I suppose the Minister made a judgment that most Canadians made, that it was a mindless ringing of bells by an opposition Party which did not know how to make up its mind on anything and was just trying to tear down Parliament. He thought he would be more useful to the country there than in assisting in the destruction of Parliament by the Conservative Party.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE
Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Madam
Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General, but I see that he is not here. I will direct my question to the Attorney General in his absence.


Marc Lalonde: He'll be back. Here he is.


David Kilgour: Maybe they can decide which one of them wants to answer it.


Mr. Cousineau:: You decide.


David Kilgour: The Minister will know that most people have criticized his security package on the basis that it allows people to break the law. No one is above the law in our system. Will the Minister tell us what he means by the "rule of law", whether he agrees that it authorizes people to break the law and, if so, what he intends to do about those aspects of the Bill?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, it certainly does not allow people to break the law. It does not increase the authority of the agents in any way, beyond the authority and protection which they now enjoy as members of the RCMP, under the Criminal Code. I have heard all those people who have criticized it. I would ask the Hon. Member to take out the Criminal Code and read Section 25, which now provides for the limited protection that peace and police officers have in the exercise of their duties, and compare it with what I propose in the Bill. The words are not the same. The effect is the same. Members of the new agency will have no more power or authority than they already have in carrying out duties in national security under the Criminal Code.
June 6, 1983


PROVISIONS STIPULATED IN LEGISLATION
David Kilgour: Madam
Speaker, as the Minister will know, all of the Attorneys-General of the Provinces have said that the Bill gives the SS carte blanche to break any law completely free from any independent, publicly accountable scrutiny or review. I take it that he disagrees with that. Will he tell us whether Clause 21 does not authorize law breaking? Would he also tell us in passing how, under his Bill, the Eiugh Hambleton affair would have been handled any differently than it was at the time without the Bill?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Again, it is a reiteration of the first question. It does not authorize lawbreaking. They have no immunity at all. There are some democratic countries where the security service in those countries is not subject to the rule of law and where they have immunity in court. We rejected that because we feel that, in a democratic society like Canada, those powers would be widely excessive. Therefore, we have confined them and have proposed that they be confined to exactly the same limited protection under the new Bill as they enjoy under the Criminal Code.
Another part of the Hon. Member's question concerned the Hugh Hambleton case, a case in which the relevance of the Official Secrets Act was being considered. The Official Secrets Act has not been changed by the Bill. It is a measure being reviewed by my colleague, the Minister of Justice and, in due course, amendments to that legislation will be brought forward.


CANADIAN BILL OF RIGHTS-ABSENCE FROM DISPLAY WITHIN PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS
Mr. Bill McKnight (Kindersley-Lloydminster):: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Prime Minister as to why the Diefenbaker Bill of Rights which, since 1967, has been on constant display in one form or another to the public of Canada in the Parliament Buildings of Canada, is no longer on display in the Library of Parliament for the people of Canada.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I know of no action taken with regard to the Diefenbaker Bill of Rights. I have often referred to it as being the guarantee of property rights which 1 would like to see in the Canadian Constitution.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The Party opposite is not prepared to cooperate in that regard. However, as far as the Bill is concerned, as far as it goes, it is a good Bill of Rights.
Oral Questions


REQUEST THAT BILL OF RIGHTS BE DISPLAYED
William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: May I ask
the Prime Minister, Madam Speaker, when the Bill will again be displayed to the public of Canada along with the Union Act, the Quebec Act, the Constitution Act of 1982, and the Flag Proclamation, which are now presently displayed? This is still a statute of Canada, and a very historic one.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, all statutes of Canada are not displayed, that I know of, in Parliament, except in the volumes that contain the statutes. I think that Mr. Diefenbaker himself very properly regretted that the climate in Canada at that time was such that his Bill of Rights could not be constitutionalized. I remember very clearly that he expressed those regrets in hearings before the House of Commons and the committee.
It is not a constitutional Bill of Rights. Perhaps that is the reason why it is not displayed with the other constitutional bills. I can assure the Hon. Member that I have no authority to decide whether or not the Bill shall be displayed in Parliament. That is not a matter for the Government, and the Hon. Member knows that.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture who has been promising to reach a solution to what he calls provincial top loading before he will implement any red meat stabilization program. Can the Minister tell us why he is so insistent upon doing away with the provincial power to top load before he will agree to any stabilization program for red meats?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member knows as well as I, if he reads the record, that at one time all of the provincial Ministers said that they did not want any top loading.
At the present time the Canadian Cattlemen's Association does not want any top loading, as is the case with several other farm organizations. Some have some reservations. It causes inequity, inequality and economic disparity that one can hardly describe in the House in the short time one is given to answer a question. I would say that the Hon. Member himself knows what economic disparity it causes. For instance, the Province of Alberta could have one of the richest top loading programs, the Province of Saskatchewan probably second, and some could not afford any.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: I was pleased to hear the Minister outline his philosophical reasons for his commitment to attempt to wipe out top loading.

June 6, 1983
Oral Questions FREIGHT RATE SUBSIDY


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Madam Speaker, with that commitment, why does the Minister support the current Crow rate changes in light of the fact that the proposals do nothing about the current top loading that exists of some $40 per tonne plus an additional $8 per tonne leased railway car subsidy which the Province of Alberta is paying to the rapeseed and canola crushing industry in that Province, which has virtually shut down crushing in Saskatchewan and Manitoba? Why is top loading so unacceptable to red meats but not in the oil seed crushing industry?


Eugene Whelan: That is strictly a provincial program that I have very little to do with, Madam Speaker. If I were having a program for all of western Canada for canola production, I certainly would not condone that kind of action. It appears to me that Alberta wants to take over the canola industry. It can do it by financing it in the way it is doing it now.


AUDITING OF FARMERS' INCOME-MINISTER'S POSITION
Jack Wendele Shields: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. I am sure the Minister realizes by now that the Department of National Revenue is targeting farmers for audit this year in order to determine whether they are full time, part time, or hobby farmers. This is at a time when the income of farmers is at an all time low and their expenses are at an all time high.
Has he made representations to the Department of National Revenue on behalf of the farmers who have to go out to work and who are now being downgraded from fulltime to parttime, and indeed as hobby farmers in some cases, because they have to take another job to survive in the farming community at this time?


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member knows as well as I that farmers are very ambitious people. If they can do two jobs they will do it. In my constituency, 80 per cent of my farmers have other occupations besides farming. They have fulltime jobs, they are academics, they are professional or semi professional people, factory workers, and others.
I am as concerned as anyone in the House about the rules and laws by which we have to abide. The rules and laws concerning taxation come under the Minister of National Revenue. Some of those Members make out like they are saints looking after the people of Canada. Some of them have done no more than to make a lot of noise about it when their own provincial Governments have taxing systems that are just about as unfair.


Jack Wendele Shields: None of us on this side of the House are making us out to be the saints or upholders of farmers. We are the upholders of fair play.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER MAKE REPRESENTATIONS ON ISSUE
Jack Wendele Shields: Madam Speaker, I would suggest to the Minister that farmers are now being audited and agriculture is an industry that has been targeted by the Department of National Revenue. They are being audited because some of them have had to take jobs off the farm just to survive on the farm. It is the responsibility of the Minister of Agriculture to help the farmer, and surely he must recognize that. Will he take his responsibility and make representations to the Department of National Revenue to cease and desist, and end this horrible situation that exists in the farming community because of the Department of National Revenue's action?


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member knows that I am as law abiding a citizen as he is. The laws are such. For him to try to say that the farming population is being singled out any more than any other business operation in this country, is just not so. Audits took place with the fishermen and they are going on with the fishermen at the present time, as well as with farmers and other small business people in Canada.


FINANCE
Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. I gave the Minister notice of this question some weeks ago. He will recall that the Auditor General recommended in 1976 that the Saint John Harbour bridge debt be forgiven and the bridge be turned over to the provincial authority which is now willing to accept it. It has imparted that information to the Department of Finance in successive years. Is the Minister now prepared to take a decision that is positive to the Province and forgive that debt on the Saint John Harbour bridge?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, that matter is under review.


PARLIAMENT
Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Right Hon. Prime Minister. He has been musing about making the Senate an elected body. Does he have other electoral reforms in mind before the next general election?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the matter of Senate reform is before a joint committee of both the House and the Senate. It is following its course there. I attach a great deal of importance to that committee
June 6, 1983

Point of Order-Mr. Blenkarn
work. One of the possibilities for a reformed Senate would be to have them elected, directly or indirectly. There are various ways in which the Senate can be reformed. The Hon. Member has mentioned one which I certainly would want to see considered. But it is not a decision or matter of policy by the Government that that should happen. The policy now is that the committee should look at every possible reform, and report to both Houses.


EXAMINATION OF ELECTORAL SYSTEM-THRONE SPEECH DECLARATION
Claude Girvin (Girve) Fretz: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. In the Throne Speech of April, 1980, the Prime Minister said that he was going to:
-appoint a committee of Parliament to examine the electoral system in order to ensure that the highest degree of representativeness and responsibility is achieved and that the confidence of Canadians in Parliamentary institutions is strengthened.
Does the Prime Minister have in mind the appointment of such a committee in the next session, and does he have in mind general elections by proportional representation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Madam Speaker, that provision has now been met, at least in part, by the setting up of the joint committee of the House and the Senate to look into the matter of Senate reform.
The Minister of Justice informs me that a green paper which we have been preparing will be put before that committee to indicate the various options for Senate reform. As far as reform of the House of Commons is concerned, apart from the electoral reform bill which has already been dealt with, there are no plans that this Government intends to proceed with at the present time.
The Hon. Member will recall, however, in days following the 1980 election that there had been a discussion between the then Leader of the Conservative Party, the Leader of the New Democratic Party, and myself, as to the possibility of seeing some elements of proportional representation introduced for a limited number of Members to be added to the present number at the beginning of this Parliament. That was not done because there was no agreement between the three leaders as to how it should be proceeded with. As far as I am concerned and, as far as I know, that matter is no longer current with this Party.

[ Translation]


PETITIONS
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions presented by Hon. Members on Friday, June 3, 1983, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



POINTS OF ORDER


Madam Speaker:: The Chair is prepared to rule on the point of order raised by the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) on Wednesday, April 27, 1983, concerning the procedural acceptability of two Votes and one statutory item in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1984.
At the outset, I would like to observe that, although this matter was raised by the Hon. Member some weeks ago, I was unable to respond until now because at that time the Main Estimates were referred to the various committees and were therefore not before the House. As a matter of courtesy, however, and remembering that in the past I have suggested that Hon. Members would be helpful by raising points of order on the estimates in sufficient time to allow adequate study, I did not interrupt the Hon. Member. I thank him for having presented his point at that time. The estimates have now been reported or are deemed to be reported in accordance with our Standing Orders and, therefore, I am in a better position and I think I should rule on this particular point now.
The first two objections raised by the Hon. Member relate to the Export Development Corporation and appear under External Affairs in the Blue Book of estimates. They are Vote 40-Payment to the Export Development Corporation for operating losses in the amount of $35 million and a statutory non-budgetary item of $164 million for the purchase of shares and provision of loans and guarantees and export credit and foreign investment insurance.
The Hon. Member argued that, because the Export Development Corporation's financial statement for the year ended December 31, 1982, indicates that there are no losses, Vote 40 should be deleted from the estimates. If Hon. Members examine last year's estimates as approved by the House in the Appropriation Act No. 2, 1982-83, Chapter No. 103 of the current session's statutes, they will see, in Vote 65 under Industry, Trade and Commerce, that an amount of $58 million was voted as payment to the Export Development Corporation for operating losses. The same description is used for this year's Vote 40.
Hon. Members will understand and rightfully agree that the Chair cannot be asked to and will not elaborate on the matter of the Corporation's losses or on the propriety to ask Parliament for money to cover unexpected losses or even on the utilization or non-utilization of that money once granted. All this is irrelevant to the function of the Chair which is to determine that the correct procedure is followed in dealing with the estimates. I see no flaw with Vote 40 and must rule that it is properly before the House. The objection raised by

June 6, 1983
Point of Order-Mr. Kristiansen
the Hon. Member for Mississauga South is strictly a matter of debate which ought to be discussed during the regular time allotted to the consideration of supply.
In so far as the statutory item is concerned, the authority to spend is provided by the Export Development Act which gives the Minister and the Governor in Council the power to act. Again, the Chair cannot be asked to give an opinion on the legality of the Government's request through a statutory item in the estimates. As explained in Citation 484 of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, and I quote:
The purpose of the Estimates is to present to Parliament the budgetary and non-budgetary expenditure proposals of the Government for the next fiscal year. These Estimates include Votes, which Parliament is asked to approve through Appropriation Acts, as well as other items called statutory items, for which the required expenditures have already been approved through existing legislation and are included only for information purposes.
Therefore, I cannot agree with the Hon. Member's request that this statutory item be treated as a budgetary matter in order for the House to express its opinion as to whether the amount should be granted. Citation 498 of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition is quite clear on this subject. It reads:
Statutory items which are included in the Estimates for informational purpose may be amended only by the introduction of amending legislation.
The third objection raised by the Hon. Member for Mississauga South concerns Vote 25 which appears under Industry, Trade and Commerce in the Main Estimates. It is a request for an amount of $185 million for payments under the Small Business Investment Grants Act. The Hon. Member asked that Vote 25 be ruled out of order on the grounds that the Act expired as of April 1, 1983.
In examining the Act, which was passed by this Parliament as Bill C-136 and is now Chapter 147 of the Statutes of Canada 1980-81-82-83, I find that this date of April 1, 1983 is mentioned only in Section 3(3), which indicates that the Minister may make grants only for investment debt obligations incurred prior to April 1, 1983. There is no indication as to the expiry date.
I cannot agree therefore with the Hon. Member and must rule that Vote 25 is also properly before the House.



MR. KRISTIANSEN-ALLEGED UNPARLIAMENTARY LANGUAGE OF MR. NIELSEN

Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. You are undoubtedly aware that Beauchesne's Fifth Edition at page 104, Citation 320(l)(y), reads:
320. (1) It has been ruled unparliamentary to refer to a Member as:
(y) attempting to distort the facts as he had in the past-
I would ask you, Madam Speaker, to screen the blues of today's Hansard because in an answer to a question of mine at
approximately 11.30 a.m. on the matter of Cruise missile testing and the two-track system, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Nielsen) said something akin to the following, that "since coming to this House the Hon. Member for Kootenay West has been prone to twisting, distorting and changing colours on any matter". Further, he said that my opinion "should not be accepted on any matter" and that all I do is "twist, ride and distort" on every issue.
I would simply ask you to review the blues, Madam Speaker. This attack on my character and reputation, which used designated unparliamentary words, in my view demands either a retraction, a withdrawal by the Leader of the Opposition, or a temporary eviction from the House.


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member mentions that this happened in this morning's sitting. I would remind Hon. Members with regard to unparliamentary language that two conditions have to be met; that is to say, that the language is unparliamentary, and that it creates some kind of disturbance in the House. Certainly the most important point is that these questions must be dealt with as they occur. I do not know whether the Hon. Member raised his point of order this morning but I will certainly look at the blues and try to determine whether there has been any use of unparliamentary language. I will check the language against the list.
I must say that the list is a bit contradictory and again I would ask Hon. Members to refrain from using language which might be offensive. I understand in the course of debate that one sometimes goes beyond one's thoughts, but a bit of discipline from all Members is certainly a good thing to try to achieve.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker-


Madam Speaker:: If the Leader of the Opposition wants to speak on this point, I must say that I will look at the blues. 1 do not think it is necessary to have a discussion.


Erik Nielsen: I am sure you will insist upon hearing me, Madam Speaker, particularly when I rise to assist the Chair-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: -and to say that while I did not hear in its entirety the submission of the Hon. Member who complains, what I did hear was uniquely accurate.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Madam Speaker, I rise on the point of order, not to the substance of the words used but to the matter of disturbance.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.
June 6, 1983



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Madam Speaker, I have the honour and the duty to present a petition to the Hon. Members of the House of Commons in Parliament assembled. This petition is signed by 37 residents of Canada from Dauphin, Manitoba, Gilbert Plains, Swan River and Valley River, 32 of whom are members of the Manitoba Wheat Pool. They say that farmers paid $131 million to move export grain under the Crow freight rate in the 1981-82 crop year and that this grain in turn contributed $6.3 billion to the balance of trade for Canada. The undersigned believe this is the farmers' fair contribution to the Canadian economy and that western farmers should pay one times the Crow.
Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, members of the Manitoba Pool Elevators, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to maintain the presence of the statutory grain rate. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Madam Speaker, I have a petition signed by some 33 residents of the Hepburn area of Saskatchewan, 30 of whom are members of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool. They are petitioning the House of Commons in the Parliament of Canada assembled and are exercising their right to present a grievance. They humbly sheweth that western Canadian farmers paid $131 million to move export grain under the Crow freight rate in the 1981-82 crop year, and that this grain in turn contributed $6.3 billion to the balance of trade.
The undersigned believe that the farmers' fair contribution to the Canadian economy should be one times the Crow rate and humbly pray and call upon Parliament to maintain the present statutory grain rate.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Madam Speaker, it is my honour and duty to present to the House of Commons in Parliament assembled a petition signed by a number of the members of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool who are farmers in the Asquith, Saskatoon and Hepburn areas of the Province of Saskatchewan.
These petitioners want to put before Parliament their wish to maintain the present statutory Crow rate.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Madam Speaker, I happen to have another petition signed by some 37 residents of the Province of Manitoba, at least 18 of whom are members of the Manitoba Pool Elevators. They humbly petition the House to maintain the statutory grain rate and say that they are willing to pay one times Crow.
Introduction of Bills
Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to maintain the present statutory grain rate. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever and forever pray.


Madam Speaker:: I would have hoped that they would all pray at the same time.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: Since the two petitions were exactly the same, they could have been presented at the same time to save the time of the House. Hon. Members know that the time of the House is really precious and that the time in which to present petitions is normally quite limited in our procedures. Of course they are allowed, but there is another method by which to present petitions, and that is to file them. In cases where they are exactly similar, I think the Hon. Member could have mentioned them both at the same time.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. What do Hon. Members of Parliament do when they receive separate, individual petitions signed by Canadian citizens and Canadian residents in hundreds of locations in Canada which arrive on different dates?


Madam Speaker:: Order. Hon. Members may present those petitions, but there is nothing against presenting them together or even filing them with the Clerk. There has been no denial of that liberty on the part of Hon. Members, just a little admonition to try to save some of the time of the House; but obviously we are not saving much.



SENIOR CITIZENS ADVISORY ASSEMBLY ACT


Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-686, an Act to constitute a senior citizens advisory assembly.


Some Hon. Members:: Explain.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Madam Speaker, I am sure the Hon. Member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon) is indeed pleased to second this Bill. It would establish a senior citizens' advisory assembly to assist the federal Government in developing policies and providing services for Canada's ever-increasing numbers in this segment of the population.
As the number of senior citizens is increasing at a rate of 3 per cent per year, so are their problems. This Bill would allow senior citizens' groups to meet once a year in this Chamber to discuss collectively their problems, make recommendations and present proposals to the Government. This senior citizens' parliament has been in effect in a number of American states and has proven very successful.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
[Stage Direction]
June 6, 1983
Order Paper Questions

['Madam Speaker, since the passing of the Elon. Member, the Government has answered questions on the Order Paper standing in his name. We will continue to do that. We fully respect the fact that those questions were asked during the course of this session, and throughout the balance of this session, as answers are provided by the various Ministers, they will be tabled in the Elouse.']
Hon. Serge Joyal (Secretary of State) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-161, to amend the Canada Students Loans Act (No. 2).


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Cargo - flight arrived empty for purpose of transporting remains of Soviet victims of the sinking of the soviet merchant vessel Mekhanik Tarasov to the U.S.S.R. for burial.
Ferry Flight - disabled Aeroflot aircraft en route to Moscow. No passenger or cargo on board.
4. No.
*
* *

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, the following question will be answered today: No. 4,106.


Mr. Wenman: 1.	In (a) January (b) February, 1982, how many landings categorized by passenger and transport aircraft were recorded at (i) Gander Airport (ii) Mirabel Airport (iii) other Canadian airstrips for flights originating from the U.S.S.R.?
2.	What was the destination of each flight?
3.	What was the nature of the cargo contained in the (a) passenger (b) transport flights?
4.	Were any on-board inspections made of the cargo contained in any of the flights and, if so, in each case (a) did the cargo manifest match the actual cargo on board (b) were any military supplies including arms, ammunition, explosives, uniforms, or parts for military vehicles or equipment included on any cargo manifests or discovered by any on-board inspections (c) what was the destination of any aircraft that had military equipment for cargo (d) did the aircraft reach its targeted destination?


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, if question No. 2,720 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.


Madam Speaker:: The question enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary has been answered. Shall question No. 2,720 be made an order for return?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Beatty: 1.	Since March 1, 1980, when the Prime Minister came to office, how many persons were engaged in public relations on behalf of the Government for each (a) Department (b) Agency (c) Board (d) Crown corporation and, in each case, what was the cost?
2.	For the same period, what amount was spent on advertising on other information programs not covered in Part 1 and what were the component parts of the costs?


David P. Smith: I am informed by the Departments of External Affairs, National Revenue and Transport as follows:
Return tabled.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
1. (i) Gander
(a)	None
(b)	1-passenger 1 -cargo
1-ferry flight
(ii) Mirabel	(iii) Others
(a)	8-passenger	None
(b)	4-passenger
2. Gander	Mirabel
Passenger - To Montreal/Mirabel	Mirabel for all flights
Cargo - To Moscow Ferry flight - To Moscow
3.	Gander	Mirabel
Passenger - refueling	General cargo
stop only - general cargo


Madam Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Stand.


Mr. Oberle:: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Parliamentary Secretary which relates to numerous questions on the Order Paper dating back to 1980 and 1981 in the name of the late Hon. Member for Leeds-Grenville. At that time two-thirds of the questions on the Order Paper were in the name of the late Mr. Cossitt. Is it the intention of the Government to answer any of those questions? If so, to whom will the answers be given?
June 6, 1983


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, since the passing of the Elon. Member, the Government has answered questions on the Order Paper standing in his name. We will continue to do that. We fully respect the fact that those questions were asked during the course of this session, and throughout the balance of this session, as answers are provided by the various Ministers, they will be tabled in the Elouse.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Nielsen:
That this House condemns the Government for its deliberate and persistent undermining of the parliamentary process, for its flouting of parliamentary traditions and for its continuing attempts to reduce Parliament and parliamentary government to an irrelevant appendix in the formulation and application of major national policy decisions and the expenditure of public funds, and demands that the Government immediately reverse its attitude of regarding Parliament as the private preserve of the Liberal Party thus hastening the restoration of respect for and the dignity of this institution.
Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, it was the Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Nielsen) who earlier today set down this motion. 1, as others in the House, listened with great interest to his speech this morning, in the fond hope that somehow we would hear from him why he had chosen so scandalously to waste the time of the House with this absolutely silly and frivolous motion.
He did not do that, but he did achieve a record of sorts. He managed to deliver the worst speech ever delivered by any Opposition Leader in this House or in any legislature anywhere. What a hypocritical pack of nonsense we heard from the Hon. Member for Yukon this morning. I say to him: "Get yourself a new ghost writer; the present one has failed you miserably". What a terrible excuse for a speech we heard this morning. Surely he, with all of his years in this House, could have done a lot better than that.
On a more compassionate note, it is surely a sad spectacle to sit here and watch the Leader of the Opposition in his present frame of mind. John Donne, I think it was, said that no man is an island. It is true that the Hon. Member for Yukon and I sit in different caucuses, support different Parties and for the most part hold widely divergent views on many issues, but it is nevertheless painful to sit here and watch his virtual demise. Despite our adversary relationship, I find no particular joy in his ever lessening grip on reality. It is not a pleasant matter to watch a fellow human being struggling to adjust to what must be a diminished use of his God-given faculties.


Mr. McKinnon:: You ought to pass out bags for this, the airlines do.
Supply


Roger Simmons: In that context, it is difficult to muster the bile, the hate, the scorn, to match what the Leader of the Opposition metes out every time he opens his mouth, as he did this morning with such consistency. Indeed, I feel no particular desire to try and match his bile or hate. We on this side do not reciprocate with hate. We are too preoccupied with pity for that gentleman, pity for his one-track mind, pity for his lifelong obsession with revenge, pity for one of God's own creatures, a man who in earlier times had made such a significant contribution to this country, a man who in more recent times has allowed his talent to become the servant of his temper, a man who has allowed his benevolence as a human being to play second fiddle to his bile.
I feel no particular desire to attack the Leader of the Opposition. I do want to attack some of his ideas, and I shall. In the debate this morning, the outgoing Leader of the Opposition, the temporary Leader of the Opposition, the soon-to-be decapitated Leader of the Opposition, talked about running everything from the Prime Minister's office. I say to him and his Party that they should know.
1 suggest that they get out the estimates, that they look at the actual expenditures for 1979, 1980, 1981 and 1982. They will find, as I found and pointed out in the Miscellaneous Estimates a few weeks ago, in the presence of some Opposition Members, that it was during the period of the short-lived Clark Government that the numbers in the Prime Minister's office escalated and the expenditures for the Prime Minister's office escalated. It was after that period when the present administration took over in February or March, 1980 that the numbers came down in both respects. The number of people employed in the PMO came down and the expenditure on that Department of Government came down. The Leader of the Opposition will well know what he is talking about when he says there has been an effort to run things from the PMO because he was part of that effort during the days of the shortlived Tory administration.
He also talked rather fervently about Parliament being shunted to the sidelines. I say to him, not quite. I recognize, as he does, that there has been quite an effort to shunt it to the sidelines. I recognize that it is he and his co-artists who have been trying to do that shunting. Yes, there has been quite a manipulation. They have done everything in the book, and some things not permitted by the book, to shunt Parliament to the sidelines to the extent that this Government has been obliged to find other mechanisms to get its messages across, to tell the people of Canada what it is doing as the Government and answering to the people of Canada.
It is true the Government has had to go across the road to the Press Club theatre or downstairs to the scrum room. We have had to go across the country calling press conferences, doing things that normally should have been done in this House. We recognize that. We also recognize the realities in this House, some very unpleasant realities because of the effort

June 6, 1983
Supply
of the gentleman from Yukon to shunt Parliament aside, to use his own words.
If ever there was an example anywhere in the free world of parliamentary terrorism, this is it. What we have seen under the guise of fighting for people's rights under the leadership of the gentleman from Yukon has been nothing short of parliamentary terrorism. The people elected us to come here, not because they want to see institutions destroyed, including this institution. They elected us to come here to operate within the rule of law, to see to the proper functioning of the nation's institutions. I find it difficult to see how Members of the Official Opposition can take much credit for aiming at that kind of functioning and facilitating it.
The Leader of the Opposition pro tern talked about the occasion on which the Government thwarted the parliamentary process. Then he fumbled around for examples. It is significant that he did not cite one example. In fairness, he did cite one: he did go back to 1963 and tried to justify the Tory action which he condemns in the Liberals. He said that the big bad Liberals of 1963 forced the then Prime Minister, Mr. Diefenbaker, to use Governor General's warrants. Put that side by side with what they say when we use Governor General's warrants. That is the only half example we heard from that member all morning.
He spoke of undermining the parliamentary process. I say to him and his colleagues that Governments which propose policies and responsible Members who debate and vote on them are not the people who are undermining the institution of Parliament. It is people like him who obstruct, obscure, mislead, hurl insults and contempt at the Chair, the symbol of respect in this House. We have seen him do that. He is the person who undermines the parliamentary process.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: No, he is not.


Roger Simmons: It is people like him and the Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) who in the absence of ideas substitute hoots and disorder, act like infants and try to shout down Members, as he is doing now, who have something worth while to say.


Mr. Cooper:: Then let's hear it.


Roger Simmons: I say to the Hon. Member for Peace River (Mr. Cooper) that they are the people who undermine the system. He is the person who undermines the system. These people waste the taxpayers' money through mindless delay. They are the people who undermine the parliamentary process. Idiots who ring bells unnecessarily are the people who undermine the system. If anybody here is trying to make this institution irrelevant, it is the Hon. Member for Yukon and his Party.
Many taxpayers were not amused when their refunds were delayed this year. Why were they delayed? It was because an irresponsible Opposition filibustered the fund raising legislation mindlessly, without purpose. The five major budget Bills from 1982 took no fewer than 72 days, 53 in this House and 19
in committee, over 236 hours. This came after a full six-day debate on the budget and a mini-debate on an economic statement. They succeeded in paralysing the House for an entire winter. The Opposition insisted on this kind of obstruction even while hundreds of farmers, fishermen and small-businessmen were losing their livelihood and their homes. The Opposition was blocking consideration of the bankruptcy Bill and it has been obstructed for close to a decade by the Opposition. That is what undermines the parliamentary process, Mr. Speaker.
The claim that the Government is reducing the role of Parliament in the formulation and application of major policy is almost too absurd to repeat but it needs a response. It is the Government which has enacted and will shortly proclaim the Access to Information Act. The Government initiated the allParty parliamentary task forces and special subcommittees that have played such an important part in policy development.
The Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) may not go to committee now because there is not always a headline there to be scared up, but he must be aware of the excellent work being done on the disabled, acid rain, native self-government, pension reform, to name a few, by the special task forces.
What matter could be more important than the Constitution? In this Chamber we spent more than 38 days and scores of hours in public and in the committee whose proceedings were broadcast writing the Constitution in detail. We have not only a Constitution that is Canadian made, we have one made in this House. The problem is that the Hon. Member for Yukon wants to eat his cake and have it too. His Party is famous for being unable to make up its mind. It is often badly split on issues. Unlike the Liberal caucus, of which I am proud to be a part, it cannot even resolve its differences in an intelligent manner behind closed doors. There is only one rule-


Mr. Taylor:: We do not have a dictator.


Roger Simmons: -for uniting that bunch-the rule of political expediency. We see that rule in play this very moment, Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) comes awake for a moment to get into the issue. He sees that somehow there may be an opportunity for some political expediency.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Hon. Member has no right to tell a lie. I have been awake all day. I am wide awake all the time I am in the House. Why try to mislead people?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member is not rising on a point of order. The Hon. Member for Burin-St. George's (Mr. Simmons) has the floor.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, there can be no question that the Hon. Member for Bow River is now awake. That is exactly what I said a moment ago.
June 6, 1983

I invite the Hon. Member to look at the western grain transportation legislation. His Party is so divided between the people who are in the pockets of the railways on the one hand and the people who are in the pockets of the cattle barons on the other, that when they try to please everyone they wind up opposing mutely and supporting nothing whatsoever.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Go and talk to the people.


Roger Simmons: 1 am talking to the people. I am not hiding on the other side of the camera like the gentleman from Bow River.


Gordon Edward Taylor: You are hiding under the Prime Minister's coattails.


Roger Simmons: He will get his opportunity in this debate. I am standing in front of the camera; he is hiding behind it. When he gets his chance I invite him to get up and make the kind of speech he is making now. On second thought, he should not make the kind of speech he is making now because he would make an awful show of himself. He should make an intelligent speech as soon as I am through with my few remarks.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Then mind your own business.


Roger Simmons: This is my business.


Gordon Edward Taylor: We will look after the West; you look after Newfoundland.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Burin-St. George's has the floor.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, that is the kind of regionalism that is tearing the country apart. I am a Member from Newfoundland but I have concerns for other parts of the country. If the Hon. Member for Bow River had the same kinds of concerns for my part of the country-


Gordon Edward Taylor: Telling them what is good for them.


Roger Simmons: -we would have a much more united country.


Gordon Edward Taylor: If you would listen, we would have a much more united country.


Roger Simmons: It is a fundamental principle of Parliament that there be an informed, well-intentioned Opposition. That is what this Parliament lacks. In its place we have an Opposition that is obsessed with power, obsessed with bile, obsessed with regionalism, obsessed with hate.


Gordon Edward Taylor: We listen to the people.


Roger Simmons: It is a Parliament with an Opposition which is still fighting the 1980 election; an Opposition which refuses to accept the electoral decision of the Canadian people made in February, 1980. When will this Opposition stop shouting across the aisle and tell us in cool, candid terms what it stands
Supply
for? It stands for democracy-yet it deals with its own members in the most ruthless, undemocratic manner. Ask the Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark). Ask the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington) how it feels to be dealt with, in a ruthless, undemocratic manner. That Party stands for PetroCan-and against it; it stands for social programs, but it wants to cut them; it stands for bilingualism-and against it.


Gordon Edward Taylor: We stand for honesty.


Roger Simmons: It stands for a united country, yet it works day and night to divide it and fragment it, to play one region against the other. It stands on a fence.


Gordon Edward Taylor: We stand for everything above the table, not under it.


Roger Simmons: It stands on a fence. Fences have a way of doing painful things to those who stand on them too long.


Walter David Baker: Or to those who try to jump over them.


Roger Simmons: Where does that Party stand on Canadian-American relations?


Gordon Edward Taylor: Above the table.


Roger Simmons: Ask the Hon. Member for St. John s West (Mr. Crosbie), then the Hon. Member for Yellowhead, and you will get two different answers about where they stand on Canadian-American relations.


Gordon Edward Taylor: They will both be honest.
[ Translation]


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, what is the Tories' position concerning the Constitution in relation with Quebec? When the Hon. Member for Yellowhead and the Hon. Member for St. John's West are asked the question, we get two entirely different answers.


Gordon Edward Taylor: They won't be under the table. They won't be sneaking around.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, does the Hon. Member opposite become unwound sometimes or does he talk like that all the time? Does he make some sense sometimes?


Gordon Edward Taylor: We are above the table all the time; we are not sneaking around.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, I will send the Hon. Member a throat lozenge in a moment because he is going to need it.
I listened with great interest to the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) and I have two points to make, in conclusion.


Gordon Edward Taylor: You have not said anything yet.

Supply


Roger Simmons: First, he asked why the Tories should give up an Opposition day for foreign policy. Why, indeed? If they do not think foreign policy is important, then they should not give up a day. I always understood that those debates were put down on important issues. If Hon. Members opposite believe foreign policy is important, let them use an Opposition day to debate it. They cannot have it both ways. It is the old Tory tactic again, however-the old business of trying to have their cake and eat it too. Having said that-


Gordon Edward Taylor: The cake is always above the table, never under it.


Roger Simmons: -I assure my good friend from St. John's East, who has just come into the Chamber, that my notes clearly reflect the following.


Gordon Edward Taylor: You have notes? You needed notes to make this speech?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Burin-St. George's has the floor.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, I want to say to my good friend from St. John's East that I felt he made several excellent observations and constructive suggestions for change. Indeed, his colleague from Yukon could take a page out of his book. I would say the same thing for the hon. gentleman for Bow River, but that would require some ability-


Gordon Edward Taylor: Whatever we say will be above the table, not sneaking around. I won't be full of hatred.


Roger Simmons: I want to say to the Hon. Member for St. John's East that it was a real pleasure to work with him on committee and it continues to be a pleasure. Unlike some Tories I know, he has the ability, learned over long years in this Chamber, to put his partisanship aside sometimes, as he did in this debate today-


Gordon Edward Taylor: I wish you would follow his example.


Roger Simmons: -and to come before the committee on parliamentary reform with some constructive ideas. It has been an absolute pleasure to work with him, the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker), and several other Members who are not in the House.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Why don't you follow their example?


Roger Simmons: I share the guarded optimism which the Hon. Member for St. John's East brought to the debate this morning. There was a constructive tone to his remarks. If I may paraphrase his remarks roughly, he said he is not very happy with many things he has seen in the House. I agree with him on that. Then he said in effect, "I believe there is some hope if we do this and this and this." The ideas expressed here this morning, he and I and others have already expressed in the parliamentary reform committee, and I expect in time many of these ideas will come forward by way of recommendations from that committee to this Chamber for implementation.
June 6, 1983
I want to make one other point to the Hon. Member for St. John's East. The Hon. Member made much of the fact that certain of the reports of the committee had not been concurred in. I am not disturbed about that particular issue because I understood that what was really needed in this House we already have, that is, a concurrence on those measures which were proposed on an interim basis. We have concurrence on that and we are working under those interim arrangements for the balance of this calendar year. In the meantime, we have literally many months in which to address the issue of whether we will concur in the subsequent reports which will come forward from that committee. Therefore, I would say to that Hon. Member that I am not particularly concerned that the House has not seen fit at this point in time to concur in those reports, although I would say to him that if he is really concerned about the issue, as I believe him to be, he should talk to the interim Leader of the Opposition because in many of these matters, I understand from our Government House Leader, we are waiting for the signal from the Tory Opposition House Leader so that we can seek concurrence in several of those reports.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, would the Hon. Member for Burin-St. George's (Mr. Simmons) be prepared, as a Government supporter, to take the initiative and move concurrence in the fifth and sixth reports? He can forget the fourth report dealing with the speakership, but the fifth report and sixth report are critical to what we have already done. Is he prepared to move concurrence and test the House? That is the true test. It is not whether or not Members opposite are waiting for a signal from us. The initiative has to come from the Government.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, I say to my friend, the Hon. Member for St. John's East, that that would certainly be the "grandstand" thing to do. I have never been known for a lot of grandstanding. I would rather await the process. If this were the end of the calendar year and we were coming close to the new year in which we would have to revert to the old rules or anticipate some new ones, then I could see the urgency of doing something and I would be urging the Hon. Member to get up and move a private resolution, or I would think about doing it myself, for that matter. What I am saying now is that we have six months before the end of the year and certainly in that time either the interim Leader of the Opposition and the Government House Leader, or the successor, the gentleman from St. John's West, next week, will be able to do that. Perhaps the individual from Baie Comeau, Antigonish, or whoever becomes the Leader of the Party will be able to do it. However, I say to the Hon. Member that I see the need for a change because I participated in the committee proceedings which recommended that change. I do not see the need for a stampede. It is going to be a number of months before the interim rules run out in terms of the sunset clause on them and in that time, surely, we can get heads together, the new Leader of the Opposition with the Government House Leader.
June 6, 1983


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, 10 per cent of the Hon. Member's speech was devoted to the issues and during the other 90 per cent he attacked personally the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Nielsen), but during that 10 per cent of his speech he mentioned that the reason we do not discuss foreign policy very often here seems to be the fault of the Opposition. 1 am sure he is aware that we could discuss it any time that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen), or the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), chose to make a statement on motions on any of the international conferences they attend. However, they prefer to make them, as the Hon. Member knows, at press conferences. I wonder if the Hon. Member could tell us the last time that the Government side made a statement on motions on anything to do with external affairs?


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the specific last question, I do not think they have made one for a long time, and I will go further and say that they would be crazy if they tried to make one under the present circumstances in the House. You cannot make statements by Ministers with the bells ringing and when we have some Government business we have to get through. We have very little Government time in which to get it through.
The Hon. Member for St. John's East made a suggestion this morning which is worthy of note and will be taken under advisement, which is whether we should be making statements at six o'clock or at eight o'clock. The crux of the issue is not whether the Government wants to make statements, I say, but whether the Government can find a way to do so without eating too heavily into Government time which is so badly needed to expedite Government business in this Chamber.
With respect to the Hon. Member's earlier comment, Mr. Speaker, as to how much of my time was spent on the issues and how much time was not, I say to him that I scarcely see how he could hear what I was saying in any event because he was being harassed from behind by his friend, the Hon. Member for Bow River. How he could hear anything I said I am at a loss to understand. Obviously, he has good ears and he has the earpiece in his ear, and it makes all the difference, and I thank him for listening to me.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I awakened this morning with the resolution in my heart that I would say or do nothing partisan this week.


Mr. Johnston:: That's a precedent.


Walter David Baker: The Minister of State for Economic Development (Mr. Johnston) says that that is a precedent. He may be right or wrong with that resolution. I would like to start off by congratulating the Hon. Member for Burin-St. George's (Mr. Simmons) on the very high quality of his speech. In fact, it is of a higher quality than we usually hear from the Hon. Member for Burin-St. George's and for that I believe the House should be extremely grateful. I know they were thrilled in the gallery with the speech he made. In fact, I understand they left before I got up and as he was
Supply
sitting down. I did not want to be partisan and that is not my intention. I want the Hon. Member to know that I as well accept kindly and warmly his expressions of goodwill toward the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Nielsen) in the House of Commons. I am sure that, although the Chamber is awash with his crocodile tears worrying about the Leader of the Opposition, all of it will be taken in the best of heart, and that the Leader of the Opposition has his own way of expressing his grateful thanks for such warm words as he is about to depart. I am certain that the Hon. Member for Burin-St. George's will be sending the Leader of the Opposition an autographed copy of his speech which the Leader of the Opposition can hang up in the place where he usually keeps these memorials and testimonials to the work he has done in the period of time he has been Leader of the Opposition.
As a matter of fact, I believe, we are going to have an evening for the Leader of the Opposition within the next day or so. I feel it might be a good idea to read the speech of my friend during that evening, which will indicate to the Leader of the Opposition just how effective he has been in this interim period, and I want to take this opportunity to congratulate the Leader of the Opposition for the work he has done in this Parliament in a very difficult situation, and in dealing with a very difficult Government.
I wanted to begin my remarks in that ecumenical sense with respect to my friend, the Hon. Member for Burin-St. George's.
I want to say to the people of Burin-St. George's that he is not always like this.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: He is asleep part of the time.


Walter David Baker: Yes, perhaps he is not that way when he is asleep, but I see him under other circumstances. I just want to say that he is not always of such a high quality. In fact, there are occasions when he is of much higher quality in terms of his contribution to the Parliament of Canada.


Donald W. Munro: When?


Walter David Baker: Well, I share with him a membership on the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure, and 1 must say that he has made a good contribution. And it was because of the contributions he has made on these occasions, away from the spotlight, away from the television cameras, and away from the Press Gallery, very constructive contributions, that I became a little concerned about my friend from Burin-St. George's as I listened to him today. I felt only that he had been overcome by the atmosphere in this House of Commons today and by the people who were here to listen to him, those who did not leave. I sat through it all and that is why I am prepared to say, Mr. Speaker, and prepared to attest anywhere, that his speech today is of higher quality than he has delivered on other occasions in the House of Commons, and he is to be congratulated. We have sat together on committee, and I want to talk about that committee because, frankly, it was one of the most rewarding experiences I have had since I came to Parliament, bar none. I

June 6, 1983
Supply
believe that has been the experience of all Hon. Members who have sat or are sitting on that Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedures which has examined the rules and procedures, and we have some reports which I hope that the Hon. Members of this House of Commons, and the Government, will consider very carefully. They are there on the record.
There have been some fundamental changes made in the operation of this House of Commons. Members of the Committees understand the powers given to smaller but I believe more effective standing committees, at least potentially so. It will come as some surprise to Members as they begin to realize the scope of the work open to private Members with respect to those reforms. Some of the members of the Committee travelled to the United Kingdom and watched committees in operation and talked about special kinds of committees. It became apparent that we had just taken the first step and that the second step was to ensure that somehow or other, while Members of the standing committees of this House would exercise their function examining the Estimates and beyond that to exercise their right to investigate, there was a necessity for the Government to be assured that its legislative program could proceed. There could be some conflict between the Members' work on Estimates in the standing committees and their investigative capacity and the initiative the House gave them by accepting the third report and the necessity of this House being able to deal with legislation in a sensible way.
I do not think any Member has spoken yet, Mr. Speaker, about the sixth report in which the Special Committee considered one of the fundamental tasks of Parliament, that is the examination and consideration of legislation. What we in the Committee presumed to suggest to the House in our sixth report were two fundamental changes which will allow private Members of Parliament to undertake the expanding workload the Committee members feel is going to be pressed upon Parliament as a result of the reforms. Dealing with legislation, the Special Committee proposed that we establish what are to be called ad hoc legislative committees which would work this way: upon second reading of a Bill and the reference to committee, there would be established by the striking committee a representative committee of Members from all sides, the size and composition of which would represent the Party strengths in the House which could vary from Parliament to Parliament. That committee would have all the powers to examine legislation that our standing committees now have for the period of time necessary, and then the committee would dissolve itself.


James Aloysius McGrath: Changeability.


Walter David Baker: My friend, the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) has reminded me that that would allow consideration of legislation to go on while standing committees were dealing with Estimates and matters flowing therefrom. More than that, it would allow Members with interest and expertise to be taken from the standing
committees of the House to be placed on the legislative committees. I believe that would get away from the conflict which can sometimes exist when the standing committees are dealing with Estimates and dealing with legislation at the same time. It would allow the best expertise of the House of Commons to be free, Bill after Bill after Bill, to deal with the principles set forth in particular Bills. They would then dissolve, the next piece of legislation would come forward, another committee struck, and it can be dealt with in that way.
This was the unanimous opinion of the Committee. The report of the Committee, under the very able chairmanship of the Hon. Member for Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle (Mr. Lefebvre) is there to be read, and we hope it will be adopted.
The other aspect of that report which was missed completely in the press reports at the time is the creation of a system of so-called neutral chairmen. A panel of chairmen would be chosen by the Speaker in the House who would become from time to time the chairmen of these legislative committees. The Committee thought that the composition of that panel of chairmen would be more or less proportionally equal to the physical division of the House of Commons. There would be representation from Members of the Opposition, who have the same interests in legislation but maybe from a different point of view, as well as from the Government side on a more or less equal basis. The Speaker would have the responsiblity of assigning from that panel, presumably after some consultation if that was the particular style, a chairman of the legislative committee to deal with Bill No. so and so. That person would act in that capacity and that committee would have all the powers of a committee of the House of Commons.
Our hope is not only to establish a sense of impartiality in dealing with legislation so far as the chairmanship of these committees is concerned, but to develop within the House of Commons men and women who could be seen by Members of the House of Commons over a period of time to be training themselves for the office which you hold, Mr. Speaker, the office that Madam Speaker holds and the office that the Hon. Member for Lachine (Mr. Blaker) holds. That ties in with the hope of the Committee that those who aspire to the job of Speakership do so for the job itself and go into that role with that objective in mind, namely that of becoming the first commoner in this House of Commons. We believe that not only would legislation be better considered by Members who are interested in the legislation, because a striking committee would decide what Members would be on the particular committee, but that those committees would be chaired in a neutral way so that this Government's legislative work could be facilitated. At the same time we would be strengthening the institution of the Speakership.
I ask all my colleagues in the House of Commons to consider that sixth report, particularly the last part dealing with the neutral chairmen, which has never been considered. I would ask the press to consider it as well as it has not been considered by them.
I never cease to be amazed, Mr. Speaker, at the capacity of this partisan House, from time to time, to do things and act in
June 6, 1983

a worth-while way. People do not believe it. They watch Question Period and think that is all that occurs. They never watch debates in the House of Commons. They never see a committee operating. They had one good occasion to do that during the constitutional committee hearings in the course of this Parliament, but normally they never see it. When you tell them there are standing committees and Members labouring day and night, week after week, on the standing committees, they do not believe it at all because they do not see it on television. It is my hope that sometime, without destroying the committee system, there will be opportunities for the committee meetings to be televised. I hope that will be the case.
I was truly astounded at the results of the work of the subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs under the chairmanship of the Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan), who is now the Attorney General and the Minister of Justice, with respect to prison reform. As a result of the non-partisan "seek the truth" approach that subcommittee took, there is a process in place in the Department concerning prison reform. All the special committees have worked well, with the objective being to seek the truth and make the best recommendation. Those special committees were established under this Government and were foreseen by our Government with our select committees on volunteerism and a host of other subjects.
Today I asked a very serious question of the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) in the House of Commons with respect to the security legislation in the House. There is a great deal of controversy in Canada over the Government's proposal with regard to the new security service. There are problems within the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. There are problems within the House of Commons. I say to the Government of the day, as I would say to any Government of the day, that among the private members of this House of Commons, the ones who do not hold office, those who are not House Leaders, Cabinet Ministers, Parliamentary Secretaries or Speakers, there is a great deal of expertise. There are numbers of inquiring minds and there is an ability to work hard.
Today I suggested very seriously, and the Solicitor General seemed to take kindly to the suggestion, that perhaps it would be appropriate if the subject matter of the Bill, which I believe is Bill C-157, were sent to a special committee of the House of Commons. There should be a simple reference of the Bill to the committee, having attached to the reference the actual text of the Bill itself. That committee, whatever it is, should be given a specific time within which to report, a reasonable time not a long time so that those who are interested in it could be heard.
Does Your Honour remember that the last time that was done concerning a major piece of legislation it was with regard to the immigration Bill, before 1979? That was a controversial piece of legislation, legislation so fundamental that it had the potential to change the complexion of the country. My friend, the Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen), was the Minister at that time, I believe. What occurred was that the Government of the day was wise enough, smart enough and, I
Supply
guess, even political enough to recognize the problems. There was a special joint committee which went across the country and spoke to the interest groups, allowing the public to be heard and submissions to be made to Parliament before the Government had taken a hard and fast position, as it invariably does on second reading under our rules, which are silly from time to time. They are positions which cannot be changed. The results and report of the committee went to the Department. The Bill was vastly rewritten. It followed many of the recommendations from Members of Parliament.
If Your Honour will recall, the second reading debate on that fundamental position, that fundamental piece of legislation, did not amount to 10 days or two weeks and the bells were not rung. It was not a case of the Government trying to shove a piece of legislation down Parliament's throat, as it is trying to do with regard to the Crow rate. It was not a case similar to the omnibus Bill. It was a sensible seeking for the truth by a parliamentary committee, with the result that truth was found and considered. As a result of the process involving what started off as being a very controversial Bill, it took only four days to complete the second reading debate. There were some amendments later on. However, to my mind, that was a sensible operation within the parliamentary system.
It is amazing how the task forces have worked within this Parliament, when Members of Parliament have been asked to concentrate together on a particular matter and to seek the truth. Members of Parliament are capable of some great things. This is an opportunity for the Solicitor General, his colleagues and the Government to emulate a process which had worked before. I hope they will consider it.
I do not speak in any partisan terms with respect to this motion. Our process with respect to motions requires them to be dealt with in partisan terms. One motion may be less partisan and another one more partisan. However, that is the kind of process we have in this House. That is why it must be reformed and changed.
I say to Your Honour that I worry about what the wellmeaning, well-intentioned democracy thinks of Parliament. I am worried about the regard for Parliament in the Privy Council Office from time to time. Why should I not worry? I have been reading a report which appeared in the Vancouver Sun by Mr. Jamie Lamb of Ottawa. There is a requirement for Crown agencies and corporations to file annual reports and to file them within a certain period of time. The Canada Post Corporation has not filed its annual report and financial statements within three months of the end of its fiscal year. It is not the only offender. The column states that according to the latest report by the Auditor General, not a single Crown agency filed its report within a three-month period after the end of its fiscal year, not one.
Every Member of Parliament, including Your Honour, and every person who cares about this place must be concerned about that kind of regard for the law which is passed here. That is the purpose of this motion. That is why I believe that

June 6, 1983
Supply
the motion is supportable in allowing the Elouse to advance some positive improvements to the institution to make it much more responsible, not only concerning Members of Parliament but also concerning the requirements of the Canadian people.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are there Hon. Members rising to ask questions? If not, the Chair recognizes the Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen).


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I give thanks to the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Blais) for that round of applause.
My first words must be words of compliment to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) who had an awesome task, a very difficult one, in very difficult times, in endeavouring to pass legislation, motions or budget through this particular House. Those of us from both sides of the House who have been here for some time are quick to mention to almost anyone who asks that the mood in the House has been sour, bitter and certainly inappropriate if work is to be done on a co-operative basis. Therefore, the President of the Privy Council, faced with that particular hurdle, has done a commendable job when one considers the volume of legislation that he has been able to get through.
There are good reasons why this session has had to be extended. To be fair, as my friend, the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) said, trying to be non-partisan, there are difficulties or faults on both sides. What we must do in this Parliament is to strive the best we can to overcome that kind of bitterness. For that reason, I was a little sorry that the motion was in the name of the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Nielsen) because his very nature, his very style in the House, is pretty partisan, whether as the Hon. Member for Yukon or as House Leader or as Leader of the Official Opposition. That is his way of doing things and he is very tough in his approaches. However, his kind of introduction to a speech on Parliament and how Parliament should operate gives us certain vibes, on this particular side, which make us want to respond in kind.
I have written my comments at least three different times because of the tone of that particular speech. With the number of years of service he has had in the House of Commons, particularly having served as a House Leader for the Official Opposition, I thought that in addition to his criticisms about the things that are happening now, we might have heard some more positive approach as to what he would like to see, rather than only those things which are disturbing him. However, I waited, as my friend and colleague did, to hear something in a positive vein from the Leader of the Official Opposition, something that he might have had to lend to the debate. After all, this is his motion, standing in his name. However, his speech was badly lacking.
I listened very carefully to the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans). He gave the impression that because the Government has the majority, that Government has no right to believe that it should be able to get its legislation
through and that, in effect this should become a sausage factory, with a quick and easy debate and, bang, the legislation going through. He and I both know that this is not the idea of this Government, a majority Government, in this House or in any particular legislature. However, I think we must recognize that a Party is elected to govern a country and has the right, as accepted in the mother of Parliament, Westminster, to get its legislation through.
What we are entitled to in this House as backbenchers, whether we be on the Government side or the Opposition side, is a good ventilation of a particular piece of legislation, even to the extent that the debate may establish, in the mind of the Government, that the particular Bill should not go through, that it should be changed, or that amendments should be made at the committee stage. That is what debate is all about. That is what the Government believes when it puts forward a particular piece of legislation. Always remember that when legislation comes forward, it is not a measure that the Minister or the Government has dreamed up overnight. It is legislation that has taken a lot of work by departmental people, Ministers' advisers and others. It goes through caucuses and Cabinet committees before it sees the light of day in the House. Legislation has already had a fair amount of debate even before being introduced in the House.
This is not to suggest that legislation is perfect, because much of it is imperfect. Changes were made to much of the legislation I had the honour of introducing in the House, and it was better legislation as a result.
The Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton mentioned the immigration situation. I do not want to take credit for the splendid work done by the late Bob Andras. He initiated the idea for this particular committee to travel across the country to hear the views of the people. Unfortunately, I think too many Canadians missed a glorious opportunity to voice their opinion. Many people came to those meetings with a particular axe to grind and disrupted many meetings.
I will never forget the Hon. Martin O'Connell who chaired that particular committee. There was no one more dedicated to doing something for the immigration procedures in Canada than Mr. O'Connell. All too often his committee came up against people who were abusive, loud and ill-prepared to make a cogent argument. In the final analysis, that committee submitted a splendid report.
I want to say that I believe that many cheap shots are taken at the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), saying that he is in fact downgrading Parliament. I think we should remember that it was this Prime Minister who realized that Governments and Cabinet Ministers had access to the civil service and substantial back-up information which was not available to the Opposition Parties. He saw fit to make research money available to the Opposition Parties so that they could have better research facilities to ask more informed questions on the Order Paper, make better speeches and have more informed
June 6, 1983

positions. This could be done rather than a Member of Parliament having to rely on one or two persons or a small over-all group to give assistance. This was done with the purpose of making the Opposition better informed and to give them a greater opportunity to have access to more information on a particular subject before the House.
The Prime Minister is here for every Question Period which it is possible for him to attend. He consistently attended even when there was a trial system in place some years ago when half the Cabinet would attend one day and the other half of the Cabinet on the next. This was somewhat similar to the British system where certain Cabinet Ministers and junior Ministers are there only on certain days of the week. My colleague referred to that earlier. I believe that our Question Period is better. However, it was proper to experiment because a lot of Ministers' time is in fact wasted in the House of Commons when they sit here day after day without being asked a question. They conceivably could be working on other projects. In any event, that experiment failed and we returned to the practice of having all Cabinet Ministers in the House when they were in Ottawa. It was only an attempt to improve the Question Period.
One area for which we come under criticism from time to time concerns the trips that Members of Parliament make, whether it is to Commonwealth parliamentary associations or Canada-United States meetings. I hope that we will not bow to the pressure from people who say that these trips are merely junkets which are not worthwhile. In the approximately 15 years that I have been here, I found that I have learned something on every trip that I have made. One of the significant things I have learned is that there are many fine people on the other side of the House. When we leave the country, we do not go abroad as Liberal Members of Parliament, NDP Members of Parliament or Conservative Members of Parliament; we go outside of the country as Canadian Members of Parliament, and very often that is when we do our most effective work.
I want to compliment the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) for raising the level of the debate. In his way I think he tried to convey some of the ideas that he, the Member for Nepean-Carleton, and those of us on this side who served on that particular committee felt were necessary in order to make Parliament more relevant and efficient, in order to give the ordinary Member of Parliament more responsibility and relevance.
In this respect, many of us came here from businesses, busy law practices, medical professions and farms. We were busy people doing important things and believed we could do something more important by coming here. It is a frustrating experience to find that the work one has done, speeches and the representations one has made and the questions asked, are seemingly ignored. The frustration builds to a point where a Member from either side feels that all the work that has been done with the best intentions does not have the significance or importance that it should in fact have.
Supply
I agree with the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton that the Committee has presented some significant reports. However, I am somewhat apprehensive about the fact that the Member for St. John's East and the Member for Nepean-Carleton may be pushing these reports too quickly. While these are excellent reports that can be applied, I believe they need further study.
I am particularly supportive of the concept of a committee of chairmen. I am also in favour of the idea of a legislative committee that studies various pieces of legislation. There may be Members who serve on committees now but who are not interested in a particular piece of legislation.
There are areas in the report for which we were able to obtain great co-operation. I recommend these reports to all Members of the House, particularly to the backbenchers on both sides, because they are particularly significant for them.
In small tribute to the class of 1968, the group which came here at that particular time, I would like to read a few comments made by a very nervous Member of Parliament who was moving the Address in Reply back in 1969. It is rather interesting to quote the Governor General at that time who said:
-the possibilities for good for Canada of my new office and duty-
That is what we took as a particular tone. This Member said as reported at page 6 of Hansard of October 23, 1969:
Some in this House may have to be reminded from time to time that we are here for the good of Canada and that is our prime responsibility. No one is asked to lose sight of the fact that we are politicians and that we have obligations to our respective parties nor that we, as individuals, are accountable to our constituents. But, in the final analysis, Canada and the betterment of Canada must come first.
He went on to say:
We in this House have an awesome responsibility and it far outweighs the immediate responsibility imposed upon the Prime Minister and his cabinet to deal with present day legislation. We, and I mean all members of this House, have an obligation to make the House of Commons more relevant, to establish to the satisfaction of the citizens of Canada that the government has the single, most important role to play in the development of our country. Our legislation, our conduct, our rules and our dedication all receive the daily scrutiny of the press, radio and television. The legislation of the present Liberal government receives the criticism, constructive and, unfortunately, sometimes otherwise, of the opposition parties.
In the various committees of the House this legislation is reviewed, critized, amended and reported back to the House. This legislation is then subject to amendment and these amendments are debated. There are many safeguards before proposed legislation becomes law and this is as it should be.
It is difficult however to explain to the citizen of Canada who is not familiar with these procedures the necessity for taking time and having safeguards. But that self-same citizen has a good point. I think we must be careful in the House of Commons that we do not take too much time. We must look at the program of legislative proposals, establish the priorities, and then calculate the time which is available to us if we are to ensure that this legislative program will be adopted within the time available.
It is interesting to note that the Sarnia Observer in an article in July, 1969, said this:
The real threat to parliament isn't the possible danger of cutting off productive and informative debate on a measure, but the steady erosion of prestige by tiresome speeches, lack of decorum, obstructionism and poor attendance in the House. The House of Commons is its own worst enemy and every time it aids its own weaknesses it chips away a little more of its own fabric.

June 6, 1983
Supply
That was written in the Sarnia Observer some 14 years ago.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Who said what you quoted earlier?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: I know those asking will want to get a copy of it. If they go back to Hansard of October 23, 1969, they will find that the Hon. Member for Sarnia that day made those particular comments.
One comment particularly made by Members opposite concerns the so-called lack of accountability as a result of the Estimates. I would invite those Members, if they will take the time, to look at the Estimates presently being studied before the various committees. They will find that very few questions are asked about the Estimates. The only questions asked are on issues that happened to be particularly attractive on that particular day. They do not concern whether a Minister has ten more person years in his Department or why so many people have been added or subtracted in management. Those questions do not ask why a departmental budget has risen by $100 million or $200 million. Usually it is a political question that is asked. I am not being critical, although I sometimes think there is a bit of hypocrisy when I hear the Government is not being held accountable. We now have the Estimates before several committees. All kinds of information is made available by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Gray) and by Treasury Board. There is an opportunity to do an effective examination of the accounts of the Government. That opportunity is not taken in too many cases. Here is an area where, if Members of the Opposition feel they do not have an important enough role to play because they are not introducing legislation, they might give some thought to using the committees as they were meant to be used.
Our special committee had the opportunity to visit Westminster. One of the areas that impressed me was the idea of communicating through the usual channel. House Leaders do not work one with the other; they talk in the House, they debate in the House. The usual channel is a civil servant, the Government House Leader, the Whip of whoever is handling the matter who moves a particular program for the week. The usual channel discusses the program with the Opposition. Perhaps the Opposition says; "We do not like this, move it to another day." Negotiations take place in that particular atmosphere. I often wonder how House Leaders for the Government side and for the Opposition Parties harangue one another in a debate and then immediately move into a House Leaders' meeting and try to resolve something in a co-operative way. It seems to me the whole atmosphere is poisoned from the standpoint of working out some co-operative method whereby House business can be moved forward. On that basis I think there is something to be said for the British idea of the usual channel.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: You know better than that.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: I am happy this particular debate was initiated today. I believe the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton
indicated that probably there would not be many people listening to it or for that matter interested in it. But those of us who have a feeling for this place, and particularly for the House of Commons, have an obligation to read some of the reports put out by our Committee. We have an obligation to try to determine how we can make a better and more important contribution, how we can make this place more relevant for people who come after us and serve in this capacity. If the motion put forward by the Leader of the Opposition does not do anything more or accomplish anything more than that, if we have done that, we will have fulfilled our obligations.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen), who has been here as long as I have. I look forward to June 22. Does the Hon. Member think it proper that when a House Leader for an Opposition Party submits a proposal in writing to the Government House Leader on how to deal with a Bill in a much more expeditious manner-or deal in a much more expeditious manner with at least parts of it-that it deserves the courtesy of a reply, yes, no or maybe, and that it deserves some further discussion? If the Hon. Member agrees with that, then would he also give us a commitment that he will talk with his own House Leader? I am speaking about Bill C-155 on the statutory grain rates in particular.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: First I must say to the Hon. Member that I have not been in the House as long as he has. He may have forgotten that I lost my seat in 1979, so I have a gestation period shortage of about nine months.
At the beginning I thought the Hon. Member was making a case. Then he said "if we are prepared to put parts of a Bill through." I think the House Leader has to worry about all of the legislation. During the bell ringing on the energy Bill, the House Leaders did meet and did work out a scheme whereby that very controversial and difficult piece of legislation became pieces of legislation which were passed before the end of the year.
We have not finished the debate on the Crow by a long shot. It may be the Government House Leader is looking at it. I am not being paid even a Parliamentary Secretary's salary so I do not want to usurp the role of a Minister, but I have so much respect for the House leader we have that I expect the Hon. Member will get a reply soon.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: That is what he said.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to enter the debate today. This debate is one of considerable interest to me. I am pleased to follow the Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen). I served with him on the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure. I have enjoyed his contributions in the Committee and his comments here today.
I was going to comment on the remarks made by the Hon. Member for Burin-St. George's (Mr. Simmons), but I think the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) did a
June 6, 1983

most adequate job and made the point very effectively. Therefore I will not comment.
I will speak briefly of the Committee. Serving on this Committee has been an exciting experience for me as a new Member of this House. I have had an opportunity to look at the rules, learn about them and to learn of their implications. Essentially, I have been able to get a better feel for this House than I would have otherwise had I not been a Member of this Special Committee.
I have been listening to the debate with interest today, in particular the comments made by the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton, the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), and other Members.
I want to approach this subject on three different levels. The first is to look a little bit at what I see as the historical purpose of Parliament. Second, I will look briefly at the way I see the present situation and outline some of the concerns that I have with it. Third, I will look at what I perceive as some potential for change and relate some of the ideas we have been debating in Committee.
Looking first at the history of Parliament, we find that the purpose of Parliament, our Parliament's mother, really grew out of the frustration of a people who had rulers with absolute power. The king and Parliament could not agree on the role of one or the other. Parliament had control of taxation and the king had control of virtually everything else. Because Parliament did not co-operate and grant the king excessive taxation, he turned around and suspended it. A revolution took place that displaced the king and we ended up with a fellow by the name of Cromwell, who eventually became a dictator. That era was followed by a king with fewer powers, and Parliament began the long evolution that brings us to where we are today. Parliament has moved toward becoming both the representative and the governor of its people, which is a unique role, and is in some ways a profound contradiction. However, we as parliamentarians must do all we can to preserve both of these aspects.
Lately I have had some concern. I can speak only as a Member of this House since 1980. This Government has ignored its task of according Parliament the respect it is due. First, in some cases I think it has ignored the legitimacy of respresentation, and I think in some other cases it has been concentrating Government power outside of Parliament.
We have seen demonstrations of limited debate, which tend to reduce the function of representation for which all of us have a responsibility. Also, some of the decision-making process has been removed from Parliament, and that diminishes Parliament as governor.
I have some concern that Parliament has had its procedures undermined at the expense of traditions by having the importance of its conventions ignored, conventions which are a large part of our history and are of fundamental value to the way Parliament works and functions. Second, the vitality of the House is dependent upon a free and lively debate. The rules and procedures are backed up to a great degree by unwritten
Supply
laws, conventions and things that we simply cannot put down in clear language.
I think this Government has ignored the history of the House, through its use of written rules. This Government has used them in certain ways in a spirit that is in contradiction to the conventions that were established. It is not in a sense doing anything illegal but very often it is doing something that is in fact excessive. I guess it very simply boils down to-and we talk about it often in Committee-the entire issue of attitude. Attitude is the difference between making a rule work, abusing a rule or just generally breaking down a rule. The question of attitude has been one of my concerns.
I would like to give some examples to demonstrate this. The first one was that which brought about the bells. This has become a significant matter. I guess it was the reason we then proceeded with the establishment of the Committee which has been very important to all of us. I am referring to the omnibus Bills, national energy Bills. They caused a great deal of concern to Members of the Opposition and all of us are familiar with the net result. Of course it then led to the formation of the Committee. The omnibus Bills are the first example I give of an abuse of Parliament.
The second example of that is so-called incomplete Bills. The most recent demonstration of that is the one now before the House in the Crow debate. The Minister amended the Bill outside the House, so on and so forth. There are many difficulties.
The third example is vague Bills. The most recent example would be the so-called spy Bill about which there were several questions today during Question Period.
The Government seems to resent-and I know it is a fact because I have heard several comments about it; in fact we heard comments about it today-the fact that we as an Opposition resist bad legislation. As a result, it has turned around and invoked, or at least threatened to invoke, closure or time allocation in some 22 instances since 1980. Two particularly significant debates on which the Government brought in closure were both on very important issues. Of course the first one was the Constitution. I found it quite unacceptable to see closure introduced on something as fundamental as the central laws or the rules by which the country will be operated. It was unacceptable to see closure brought in before many Members of the House had an opportunity to speak on the particular issue. The second one-and we will see evidence of it again tomorrow-was Canagrex. This Bill has a significant impact on a very large part of the country. In fact, it will ultimately affect all Canadians.
It becomes very much a concern of Members of the Opposition when the Government beings in closure, particularly when we think that in the present situation the Goverment does not have any representatives in a large part of the country west of Winnipeg. The Government has no Members from that area. Thus it is necessary to have time to debate issues which are

June 6, 1983
Supply
very important to the people of that area in the House of Commons. Of course the two most recent examples were the Constitution and Canagrex. To have our opportunities to debate important new laws frustrated by closure is an abuse of Parliament.
There are a number of danger signals of which all Member should be aware. We have some conerns when the highest Government Members do not have much regard for our parliamentary tradition. One of the most recent examples was the budget leaks. We know from looking at British examples that there have been resignation for the most minute leaks, but in this case there was no resignation or admission that anything out of the ordinary had been done. According to the Government everything was fine.
Also we have seen the Government allowing non-Mem-bers-in this case the Party President-to pass out Government cheques at a particularly partisan function. People who wanted to receive cheques had to attend the partisan function to collect them. This happened in the riding of the Hon. Member for Bruce-Grey (Mr. Gurbin). That is the kind of danger signal at which we in Parliament should be looking. We should be worried about this type of thing and it should cause us some concern. It is the type of thing that can erode Parliament.
Another example was the Coalgate affair. Also we have seen favours bestowed upon people such as the architect about whom we recently talked in the House of Commons. Another area of concern was that of the executive being held accountable to Parliament. We have seen different ways in which the Government has managed to get around this. The first may well be that of attempting to overborrow. We have seen this in some of the borrowing Bills that have come before the House. We have seen letters of comfort being given to companies such as Canadair and Consolidated Computer. Of course, the net result is that we as Opposition Members and Parliament as a whole do not have a full opportunity in which to debate such issues.
Another would be the loose reporting rules for Crown corporations. Several Crown corporations have not been reporting although they are obligated to do so on a once a year basis. We are not seeing that translated into action. Another method of the Government's avoiding accounting for its actions in the House is the entire area of advocacy advertising.
I refer to the advertising we have seen recently on the Crow issue and that on the Constitution. I believe they are examples of abuse of Parliament and of the rights of Members of Parliament. It takes away our opportunity to debate an issue thoroughly, clearly and freely in a forum which was designed for that purpose. It is an abuse of power and an abuse of Parliament.
Then there is the area of the agents of government policy which are beyond the scrutiny of the House. Recently we saw the formation of CIDC, a master Crown corporation, which is causing some concern. There is no authority from Parliament for that particular organization. In fact, it is operating by taking funds and channeling them through other Crown
corporations. It is managing to survive, keep afloat and grow without Parliament's having had an opportunity to debate it.
Then we have the whole area of secrecy, those areas in which parliament has not been able to touch the Government. There have been Orders in Council. Probably one of the most significant ones debated in a while was the War Measures Act and the changes made to it behind closed doors without any debate in Parliament. This was a concern to people. Also there is the area of ministerial discretion which was clearly demonstrated in Bill C-48. I sat in on the committee which looked into that matter. We talked about some of the areas which gave Ministers so much power, latitude and freedom. Perhaps that abuse of Parliament is beneficial to the administrators, to Government Members and to Cabinet, but if the trend continues we will eventually have a Government without meaningful representation of the elected people. We will have government in secret, Cabinet-made law, laws made by bureaucrats and Crown corporations which have a significant impact upon the economy and upon the country, without any opportunity for debate in the House of Commons. Therefore, essentially Parliament will not be the source of law because it has no meaningful debate or representation on central issues. In fact we will have created a mere shell of a great institution.
Canadians are beginning to realize that many of the forces affecting them are government and that they are no longer Parliament. In other words, as individuals or as representatives of a given area, we do not have an opportunity really to influence or have an impact upon matters which will dramatically affect our people. Canadians have the right to expect democratic representation in institutions which have or should have control over government. Potentially we could return to much the same situation about which I talked in my earliest example of the reasons Parliament came about. We now have Cabinet gathering into its hands unlimited financial control, as well as control over everything else.
In the last part of my remarks I want to touch upon some of the things that have been done to effect some changes in this institution. 1 want to refer to two examples which we are practising right now in the House that are demonstrative of the things the Committee has been attempting to accomplish. The first item which caused concern in the House was the moving of Private Members' business to Wednesday to provide an entire day exclusively for Private Members' business. The purpose was to raise the profile of the private Member because as a Committee we have been struggling to see private Members take their due place in this institution and begin to have an impact. This can only happen when we as Members of the House of Commons become involved in the process and when it becomes alive and begins to function. This is very demonstrative of what the Commitee is trying to do.
The second change has been really quite exciting. I have heard a lot of comments from Members on both sides of the House. I refer to the 20-minute speech with the 10-minute question period. That has allowed some spontaneity in the
June 6, 1983

House. It has allowed an exchange between Members. As a result of that, it tends to make us all a little more careful about what we are saying. We have to think a little more about what we are doing. The net result, hopefully, will be, as time goes on, a higher quality debate. Those are the kinds of things the Committee was trying to address. In December we will have to make a decision on the rules that are presently in force.
I want to look at a few things that I think are needed. Some of them have been talked about by previous speakers. One I have not heard anyone mention, and which I think is important, addresses some of the concerns of the Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lambton. I refer to the legislative timetable. It would allow Members on both sides of the House to come to grips with some of the concerns that we have as a Parliament. It would give the Opposition an opportunity to look at legislation that will be coming forward. We would know approximately when it would be coming forward. At that point we could sit down and discuss where we want to dig our heels in and what legislation we want to go through quickly.
There would be a sense of co-operation, a sense of give and take. In Britain they have that system. It is the so-called "usual channels" system. It seems to work fairly well. There is considerable agreement from all sides of the House about the legislation to go forward. We cannot write something like that into the rules, but it is something that can be brought forward with the proper attitude. I would like to see it done.
The second point I would like to see utilized in this House is the paper that has been under discussion for quite some time by various Members of the House, the Huntington-Lachance paper. It was written by these two Members on opposite sides of the House. They have done a great deal of work. They put a great deal of effort into the concerns that we have about Parliament and this institution, having a dramatic impact on the financial control of the House of Commons or the financial control of Government expenditures. That, of course, goes into all things like Crown corporations and agencies. I think it could become particularly significant and of concern to all Canadians. That is the second matter I would like to see the House deal with. Of course, we are now dealing with it in Committee. Hopefully we will have a chance to have it brought forward and the House will have the opportunity to make a decision on it.
Third, and I will not go into much detail on this because the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton spoke very clearly about it, is the whole area of legislative committees, those committees which deal with specific Bills. They are set up by a striking committee. Hopefully, there will be representation of the talent on both sides of the House in relation to a particular piece of legislation. That would have a positive effect on the way that we deal with legislation, the debate put forward on it. It could be a very positive move which this House can take.
The fourth point has become really exciting. It is very important. It would have a dramatic impact on the way that we approach our committees and quite an impact on that which is so fundamental to this House, namely, attitude. I refer, of course, to the chairmens' panel. We have heard
Supply
mention of it. What it boils down to is that you have several Members from both Opposition and Governmnt who would become part of the Chairmen's panel. From that panel the Speaker would choose a chairman to be the chairman of a particular legislative committee to look at a particular piece of legislation. We could well have an Opposition Member as chairman of a particular committee. What you do is break down the partisan elements of the debate and you tend to focus on good legislation. That is something this Government, this Parliament and this House was designed to accomplish in the first place.
The fifth item is really the whole matter of attitude. That is the wide-ranging authority of this House to investigate executive action and related bodies' action, essentially anything that goes on which comes under the umbrella of the Government of the country. That is what we as Members of Parliament, no matter what Party or region we represent, were elected to do. That is the whole purpose and reason for a parliamentary government.
In conclusion I should like to say that this is an important institution. It is worth protecting and worth fighting for. We have to look very closely at the danger signals. That is why I mentioned some of them in my remarks. They are in fact dangerous signals and we should look at them. They should be flagged. We have to maintain with a vigilance the responsibility which we as elected Members have to ensure that the power of authority really does rest within this House and not within a select group of people.


Mr. Harquail:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct one short question to the Hon. Member regarding Wednesday afternoon. I agree with him about the importance of Private Members' Hour, but it does break the momentum of the regular business of the House. Would the Hon. Member be good enough to elaborate on this? He stated that he had discussed this with a number of people. I would like to hear their view about taking up the heart of the week in this way. Members travel on Mondays and Fridays. I feel it breaks the momentum of the business of the House to have this in the very important middle part of the week, that is, on Wednesday. Could the Hon. Member elaborate a little more on that? He said that Private Members' business on Wednesday was the best solution and that it was the best time. I would like to hear his comments on how it affects the continuity of the business of the House, being in the middle of the week, and his comments on having Private Members' Hour on either Monday or Friday. I support him in the fact that Private Members' business is a very important element of the proceedings of this House.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question. It is a legitimate one. I was not a Member of the Committee when the decision was made, but I know from discussions with Members on both sides of the House who were members of the Committee and Members at large that the reason for having it on Wednesday, as I mentioned earlier, was to raise the profile. In other words, putting it in the middle of the week would

June 6, 1983
Adjournment Motion
make it a significant and important debate. As the Hon. Member mentioned, Members travel on Monday and Friday.
The Committee realizes that this may not in fact be working. The House will have the opportunity to look at this in December. It may want to change that rule. I hope all Members will very carefully think through the importance of this. Some of the changes that have been made are very good. Some of the things we may wish to change, such as having Private Members' hour on another day. I have no objection to that as long as we accomplish what we set out to do, namely, raise the profile of the backbench Member.


Maurice James Harquail: Mr. Speaker, since this began I have observed that there is a considerable decrease in attendance in mid-week. With the location of the nation's capital here, people go to Montreal or Toronto. They come back for a day or two.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: That is not the whole country.


Maurice James Harquail: No, but it involves a significant number of Members. The Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lambton talked about trying to bring importance back to the House. We are all very much interested in that. However, it seems to be counter-productive to have Private Members' business on Wednesday afternoon. Has the Hon. Member any further comments on that?


Albert Glen Cooper: Once again, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Hon. Member's comments. I am reminded by the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton that the Committee is prepared to look at that matter. In fact, it is encouraging Members who have a concern to address it to the Committee. They would like to know about the various problems and difficulties and some of the purely logistical questions regarding timing. That is important. What we want to accomplish is an authoritative report. We would like to raise the profile of the individual backbencher. That is what is important, not whether it be on Wednesday or a Friday. The Hon. Member's question is legitimate. I am certain the Members of the Committee will have no trouble considering it.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 45, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald)-Criminal Code-Pornography-inquiry respecting ministerial action-Introduction of legislation-Definition
of obscenity; the Hon. Member for Cariboo-Chilcotin (Mr. Greenaway)-Income Tax-Auditing of farmers' income- Interpretation of law-Stand taken by farmers-Minister's position-Disallowances of wife's labour; the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr.	McKenzie)-Veterans
Affairs-Review of War Veterans Allowance Act.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Nielsen:
That this House condemns the Government for its deliberate and persistent undermining of the parliamentary process, for its flouting of parliamentary traditions and for its continuing attempts to reduce Parliament and parliamentary government to an irrelevant appendix in the formulation and application of major national policy decisions and the expenditure of public funds, and demands that the Government immediately reverse its attitude of regarding Parliament as the private preserve of the Liberal Party thus hastening the restoration of respect for and the dignity of this institution.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Chair will recognize the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council (Mr. Smith) and thereafter the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin).


David P. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to participate in this debate. It gives me the opportunity to discuss the atmosphere and climate in the House. I am a relatively junior Member of the House but I enjoy spending time here trying to learn the rules and get a feel for the House. Unfortunately I cannot say that all Hon. Members have the same interest in the House, but many who do are present today.
The motion is in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) who still has one week to go before the gong rings on his current role. This gave him an opportunity to play the role of the parliamentarian, perhaps even the role of statesman. I regret that he missed that opportunity. I think he injected into this debate a tone that was not very healthy. He huffed and puffed and, in my view, misled the House in the way of a brawler, rather than a parliamentarian. I think the level of debate picked up the moment he sat down.
I thought the contribution made to the debate by the Hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Deans) was worth-while. The Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) also made a worth-while contribution. I enjoyed the remarks of the Hon. Member for Peace River (Mr. Cooper). I thought my friend, the Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen) made a contribution, as did my great friend, the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker).
June 6, 1983

Regrettably, however, the motion stands in the name of the Hon. Member for Yukon. We heard a lot of hollow bravado from him today. I think I should set the record straight on some of the points he made. He accused the Government of deliberately and persistently undermining the parliamentary process and flouting parliamentary traditions. First of all, he spent a lot of time complaining about the role of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) with regard to a debate on international affairs and the fact that he released a public letter on the subject of the Cruise. Let us see whether that is a legitimate point. I do not think so.
The Government House Leader (Mr. Pinard) pointed out that there are 25 Opposition days per year and this subject could have been chosen at any time and we would have had a debate in the House. There have been 11 supply days since Easter, but the Opposition always opted for something else. That is fine, but it is difficult to have it both ways. In the old days, I am told, we used to have a two-day debate on international affairs. I suggest that the Hon. Member for Yukon has a selective memory. I pointed out to him that in the early part of this session, last July, we had a two-day debate on international affairs, and that it was taken from Government time. The Hon. Member for Yukon jumped up and said that what I was saying was a crock of rhubarb. He did not dispute its validity or veracity, but he injected that silly little note into the debate. As far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, next week cannot come too soon if that is the level of debate we are going to get from the Leader of the Opposition.
There was also a Private Members' debate on the subject of the Cruise. The motion stood in the name of the Hon. Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Anguish). On this side of the House we gave unanimous consent to allowing that matter to go to the top of the list. One Conservative Member, I believe it was the Hon. Member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) objected and so we could not go that route. When we got to the other Private Member's Bill that was set down for that day there was a vote that we go to another one, and we on this side supported that vote unanimously.
With regard to the letter the Prime Minister released, it is on record that he has received thousands and thousands of letters regarding the Cruise, so he wanted to send out a statement that responded to them in a comprehensive way. That is a legitimate action and he would probably be criticized if he threw all those letters in the garbage and did not respond. It seems that you cannot have it both ways.
The Leader of the Opposition complained about the role of the Prime Minister at Williamsburg as if this had something to do with flouting parliamentary tradition. He said it was unbecoming of the Canadian Prime Minister to play the role of an umpire between the two super powers. I think he is a little too close to the action to be objective about that. In response to questions almost daily in the House in recent months, particularly in answer to questions from the NDP, the Prime Minister has reiterated that there is Canadian Government support for remaining in NATO, and he has reiterated our support for the Western Alliance. I feel proud that the Prime Minister and the
Supply
Government remain firm on our role as part of the NATO Alliance while, nevertheless, wanting to exercise a moderating influence on issues relating to disarmament.
Perhaps the world press is more objective than the press at home but it has said that the Prime Minister was one of the leading figures at the Williamsburg Summit. Quite frankly, I was proud of the role he played there.
The Leader of the Opposition complained that after we had a budget the ink was hardly dry before we had another. That is a bit of an exaggeration; it is what he said, but he is used to exaggeration. I can hardly recall a day after recent budgets when he was not on his feet demanding a new budget, so he cannot have it both ways.
The Hon. Leader of the Opposition complained that the Government is too interventionist, yet he is always complaining that we did not intervene enough with regard to unemployment. Does he think that everyone should be put on the Government payroll in order to solve unemployment? He complained that we were not intervening enough on interest rates either. Does he suggest we should be subsidizing them? Is this what we get from the Leader of a Party that is supposedly a great free enterprise Party, one that believes in market forces?
Those are the points the Leader of the Opposition made today. It was a lot of hot air and not worthy of someone who holds what I believe to be a very important position in our Parliament, that of Leader of the Opposition.
The Hon. Member for St. John's East pointed out that Parliament is in trouble. I think there are a number of reasons for that, Mr. Speaker, and I shall try to be objective. Part of the problem is that the Official Opposition has never been able to forget the last election. It has been demoralized by it to some extent; it has been divided; it has had leadership problems, and I think the outcome of the election in which this Party won all seats in Quebec but one, and was blanked out in the three most western Provinces, has to some extent contributed to regional divisions in the country. This has shown up on such matters as the Constitution and the Crow rate.
The Official Opposition has tended to distract public attention from its internal problems by precipitating crises in the House. I refer to such things as the ringing of bells, over 100 points of order, spurious questions of privilege on the Constitution and slowing down the legislative process to a crawl. Yet, if one reads the polls, perhaps it has been done with apparent immunity and impunity, because it has been doing well in the polls. I hope that Hon. Members opposite will not think that this is because of the Opposition's tactics. I think it is doing well in the polls in spite of those tactics and because we have gone through a very rough economic period. Any Government which would be in office would probably suffer the fate we have. I do not believe it is because of those tactics. I feel that when we move into a new phase, after the events of this weekend have occurred, hopefully that approach, trying to make Parliament work or not work, will be forgotten and it will be approached with a more positive attitude.

June 6, 1983
Supply
We have been accused of flouting the parliamentary tradition. Mr. Speaker, what is the legitimate role of the Opposition? On March 2 of last year it set the bells ringing for 14 days and 22 hours. On March 9 of this year the bells rang for seven hours and 40 minutes; on May 10, for 13 hours and 45 minutes; on May 17, for five hours and 54 minutes; on May 24, for over three hours. Is that the parliamentary tradition? I do not believe anyone who is trying to be objective about what legitimate parliamentary tactics are would defend that as falling within parliamentary tradition.
At Westminster, in the British House of Commons, which is the mother of Parliament, when the bell starts ringing it rings for eight minutes. It rings for eight minutes in the mother of Parliament, and here it rings for 14 days. Who was it that raised during the Constitution debate over 100 spurious and specious points of order and questions of privilege? It was not the Government, it was the Official Opposition. That sort of thing is unheard of at Westminster. That is not within the parliamentary tradition. I believe that the end result of these tactics has been a divisive House and bitter debates. I feel that to analyse it and attribute it all to this side of the House in a tirade such as we heard from the Hon. Member for the Yukon is not coming to grips with the problems at all; it is simply fanning the flames to make them worse.
I happen to feel that one of the biggest problems we have in this Parliament is the inability of the Government to get a reasonable legislative program through the House. What happened when we entered into the recent interim trial on reforms of the Standing Orders? This side of the House entered into those reforms in a spirit of good faith. There are a number of changes in there which could prove quite difficult and tricky for a Government. I am referring to something like the changes in Standing Order 69, Subsection 3, which obliges the Government within 120 days to report in response to a report from a committee. I believe that is a good experiment but that it can be tricky for a Government. It can be awkward and embarrassing for a Government. Notwithstanding that, we entered into that agreement.
Standing Order 46, Subsection 4, automatically refers annual reports, which are obliged to be tabled with the House, to standing committees for scrutiny, so you can get the bureaucrats and the senior mandarins in any Department before committee and ask them questions on policy formulation. I happen to feel that is a good thing, regardless of who is in power. The point I am trying to make, Mr. Speaker, is that we have entered into some of these changes.
Another experiment is changing Wednesdays so as to give an entire day to Private Members' Business. The end result of that is that there are only four days a week-and when you consider all the supply days, we are really only talking about three days a week-in which we can deal with Government business. There are disadvantages to that for the Government. I believe for Parliament as a whole it may well be an improvement. However, we entered into all of these things and,
hopefully, we were going to try to get a spirit in which the legislative program of the Government would move along with some degree of reason. What happened was that instead of that being the case, we have found even more obstruction and more filibustering in recent Bills than had occurred before.
Let me go back to the period prior to the changes in the Standing Orders and look at some of the Bills. On Bill C-48 we spent six days. On Bill C-54 we spent six days. On Bill C-58 we spent five days. On Bill C-89 we spent eight days. This was all at second reading stage. That was before the experiment. We wanted a legislative timetable. In October of last fall the Government House Leader wrote the Opposition and gave it what our proposed schedule of legislation was for the fall session. In January of this year the Government House Leader wrote the Opposition and set out what was going to be a reasonable legislative timetable. In March he did the same thing with regard to a spring timetable. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that there has not been any meaningful effort on the part of the Official Opposition to come to some agreement with regard to a timetable.
The New Democratic Party, by and large, with the exception of the Crow Bill, has been pretty responsible and reasonable, but not the Official Opposition. What has happened since the experiment? Let us look at three very recent Bills, and I am referring to Bill C-139, Bill C-143 and Bill C-151.


Walter David Baker: Which ones are they?


David P. Smith: These are the two borrowing authority Bills and also the amendments to the Income Tax Act. Of course, those who are familiar with parliamentary practice know that second reading is debate of a Bill in general principle. In Westminster, the mother of Parliament, second reading debates take one day. It does not have an automatic adjournment hour and often there is not a vote until the wee hours of the night, but it takes one day. On Bill C-139, at second reading, there were 102 speeches; there were nine Government speeches and 75 Conservative speeches. No reasonable person could deny that that was a filibuster. There were 17 speeches from the New Democratic Party and one speech from the Independent Member. On Bill C-143 there were over ten speeches on a point of order introduced by the Hon. Member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) before the Bill was even introduced. When we got to the Bill there were 114 Tory speeches, 31 Government speeches and 32 New Democratic Party Speeches, for a total of 187 speeches.


Walter David Baker: You are trying to gag Parliament.


David P. Smith: On Bill C-151 there were three Government speakers, and 54 Conservative speakers-54-and we are accused of flouting parliamentary tradition! There were 15 New Democratic Party speeches. There was a total of 72 speeches, of which we on this side provided three, and there were 54 Conservative speeches. Who is being unparliamentary?
June 6, 1983

I would like to refer to a speech given by the Late John Diefenbaker in 1949 to the Empire Club of Canada. He said this:
If parliament is to be preserved as a living institution, His Majesty's Loyal Opposition must fearlessly perform its functions. When it properly discharges them the preservation of our freedom is assured .. .It finds fault; it suggests amendments; it asks questions and elicits information; it arouses, educates and moulds public opinion by voice and vote. I must scrutinize every action by the government.
Mr. Diefenbaker concluded:
I would like to conclude by emphasizing that the opposition, whatever its policies and tactics may be, shares with the Government and, of course, with the electorate, the responsibility of making our form of democracy, based on parliamentary institutions, work for the welfare of all the citizens.


Walter David Baker: Diefenbaker is absolutely right.


David P. Smith: I would like to refer to the comments of Sir Ivor Jennings, the great constitutional expert, when he talked about the Opposition. He said this:
The Opposition's task is not to prevent the Government from carrying out its policy but to criticize that policy in the hope that the electors will choose a different Government next time.


Walter David Baker: Ivor Jennings is right also.


David P. Smith: I could go on quoting from Sir Ivor Jennings. However, it is important to realize that the Opposition has a very responsible role to play which, quite frankly, under the leadership of the Hon. Member for the Yukon, it has not been living up to. I feel that he has not been a positive influence. It is not the Government, Mr. Speaker, which has tried to prevent debate in this House. It is not the Government which has refused Hon. Members the right to vote. It is not the Government which has refused to allow Bills to be introduced, and it is not the Government which rang the bells for over two weeks, although we are not without fault. We have entered into these recommendations as an experiment.
I believe that the point made by the Hon. Member for St. John's East with respect to Ministers' statements is a valid one. I feel that if we could come to some reasonable agreement on whose time it would be taken from, if anyone's time, perhaps we could see more of that. However, there must be a desire on the part of every person in the House to make Parliament work for the benefit of all Canadians. I for one am very anxious to see that happen. I for one am anxious to see us perhaps enter into a new era, after the events of this weekend have occurred, regardless of what the outcome may be. Can we not pull together and try to give Canadians a House which functions, a House which works, regardless of our partisan differences? Some of these points which have been made have been valid, but when the Official Opposition is putting up over 100 speakers on Bills-and we have had three examples of that in recent months alone-no one can suggest for a minute that that is not probably the most outrageous flouting of parliamentary tradition which we have ever seen in the House.
So, Mr. Speaker, I think this motion standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Yukon has brought about useful debate.
Supply
I think his contribution to it was very negative. I do not regret the fact he will not be in that role next week because when he is gone I hope we will have an occupant of that seat who will approach this House with a positive attitude and, in contrast to the Hon. Member for Yukon, try to make it work.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I notice my friend referred to the speech of the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) and the problem with respect to ministerial statements. I take it he is anxious that there be some way in which this would be preserved, and the Government wants to preserve it but not at the price of losing legislative time. Let me just say that I am not going to lay a trap. I happen to agree with that. I was Government House Leader once and I understand the concern over time, but I also think there is some importance to Parliament that statements be made in this House rather than outside at press conferences and in other places.
Would the Parliamentary Secretary agree that it is reasonable for us to consider, having regard to the fact that we have vacant time, so to speak, at nights, that statements might be made in the latter part of an afternoon, after markets have closed if necessary? It could be perhaps at 6.30 or 6 o'clock, perhaps during the period of the adjournment debate. Would he agree that we begin the practice of having statements made in the House, perhaps using the free time which the rule changes have made available to use for House time for a limited purpose and without interfering with the work of committees?


David P. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Hon. Member for that question. I think the point he makes is a valid one. I think it is desirable to have more major policy statements made by Ministers in the House. But in order to do that we have to have a reasonable agreement that this is not taken from Government time. The current system is such that by and large if we were to have Ministers make statements on either Opposition days or private Members' days, the Hon. Member knows full well that there would be an outcry.
The real problem is that in order to reach an agreement there has to be a mood, atmosphere or climate of good faith and good will on both sides of the House. Until there has been a demonstration of that on the part of the Official Opposition with regard to second reading debates, where they are not putting up 50, 60, 70 or 80 speakers, I am afraid I could not sell that to my colleagues. I had to work quite hard to sell this experiment to some of my colleagues on this side of the House. The Hon. Member knows that. I did it because I believed in it, and I would happily do the same thing again, but I say to the Hon. Member that in order for that to be brought about we need some reasonable attitudes to be shown on the part of the Official Opposition with regard to second reading debates. This sort of obstruction-and it is on the part of the leadership, not the rank and file; I am not accusing anyone present in

June 6, 1983
Supply
this House of doing that-where the House Leader and the Whip are told to go and round up 30, 40 50 speakers for second reading debates on numerous occasions, and anyone who looks at Hansard knows that is the case, that has to stop if we are going to have a climate in which we can achieve some of these worth-while things suggested by Members such as the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I want to participate in this debate because some parts of the motion I can agree with, but for entirely different reasons than those put forward by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Nielsen). The motion refers to the Government's:
-deliberate and persistent undermining of the parliamentary process-
I do not know about the word "deliberate", but it certainly has been persistent. Quite often it might have been only by accident because Members opposite did not know what the hell they were doing. The motion continues:
-and for its continuing attempts to reduce Parliament and Parliamentary government to an irrelevant appendix in the formulation and application of major national policy decisions-
I want to start off, Mr. Speaker, on the premise that we are sort of a child or creature, successor or inheritor, of the British parliamentary traditions and practices. But over the past four or five years I do not believe there have been any statements by Ministers on motions. There is the matter of Cabinet Ministers being present to answer questions in the House. It seems to me that a Government of whatever political stripe has to be forthright and forthcoming, and it should present a policy or Bill to Parliament first before anyone else. The practice, which has become somewhat endemic over the last several years, of holding press conferences and flitting around the country to announce the Government's intentions surely can be nothing more than a depletion and may be an accidental, if not deliberate, downgrading of Parliament and the parliamentary system.
I submit that when the Government refuses to announce policy in the House of Commons and chooses instead a press conference across the street or somewhere else in the country, it in fact becomes a victim of its own actions and the complaints, as has just been enunciated by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader, about the Opposition taking up inordinate time making speeches, have been incited by the Government. A Minister could have got up in the House, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) or the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), and announced the Government's policy and intentions regarding the statutory grain rates. I recall under Speaker Lamoureux and for a while under Speaker Jerome that the Minister made a statement, it took him 10, 12 or 15 minutes, and one spokesman from each Party responded for not more than the same length of time, but most often less. One or two questioners from each Party could ask questions of the Minister. I am quite agreeable to our setting aside one hour for one, two or three days a week for statements by Ministers, and we used that time to obtain in Parliament first the Government's policy and legislation. I have often
wondered whether there should not be some questions at first reading, but I will leave that aside.
Going to another aspect, Mr. Speaker, I often wonder what would happen if we could reach unanimous agreement that none of us will make a statement or announcement or send out a press release until we actually did it in the House of Commons. There would be a few exceptions to that on minor details when a backbencher wanted to send out something to his constituents and the local media about a private Bill he is proposing. It would be interesting if the Press Gallery had to wait like MPs do on both sides of the House to hear what a Minister has to say at a press conference in Winnipeg or Gopher Gulch or wherever else. But there is the media getting the news while MPs are sitting down here wondering what it is he is going to say. Surely a Government of any political stripe doing that is evading and avoiding the parliamentary system. In fact, I submit that the Minister of Transport would have had much less difficulty if he had been more forthright and forthcoming in this Chamber over his proposals on Dominion coal lands, rial line upgrading, statutory grain rates, and if his four predecessors-and I have been through five Ministers of Transport since I have come here-had been more forthright and forthcoming in this Chamber. They would have had a lot less difficulty in subsequent dealings with whatever it was he was bringing forward in Parliament.
It seems to me, involving the matter of the presence of Cabinet Ministers, that there is an onus on Members of the Opposition, as a matter of courtesy as well as for the sake of obtaining information, to give notice of it to Cabinet Ministers. If it is something that just came up in the hour before Question Period, it could be a hurried phone call or a note across the floor. If it is a matter in which one has tried, through one's caucus, to be recognized in Question Period for several days, one could give several days' notice. However, once the notice is given, the Minister should be here to answer or he should provide the answer to the acting Minister or to the Parliamentary Secretary.
It is common practice and knowledge amongst Members of the Opposition and, I suspect, amongst backbenchers on the Government side, that if the Minister to whom one wants to direct a question will not be present that day, one will not ask the question. We have all phoned up a Minister's office to ask whether he will be present during Question Period that day. If he will not be there, one will not ask a question because otherwise it is a totally wasted question. Lord knows how many more days it will be before one is recognized. Therefore, the presence of Ministers should be a requirement, particularly when they know, either by notice or because of something very obvious, such as a disaster, that they will be asked questions the next day by the very first questioner. I appreciate the fact that Ministers cannot plan their schedules very well, but who the dickens can in our type of job? It is part of the hazards of the occupation.
June 6, 1983

I also want to suggest that when a Party House Leader makes an alternative proposal to the other House Leaders, it is worthy of at least the courtesy of a reply, which, by the way, our House Leader has yet to receive to a letter which was written something over two weeks ago to the Government House Leader on Bill C-155. Whether they like, dislike or are willing to discuss the alternate proposal, they should have done it.
I do not want the Progressive Conservative Party to become all that holy on a matter of bypassing Parliament. I have done a little research since I received notice of the motion yesterday. For example, on September 6, 1917, the Robert Borden Government of the day took over the Canadian Northern Railway by Order in Council and there was no statement on motions and there were no announcements of any legislation, so there is nothing unusual about this matter. It goes back a long time in the Canadian Parliament. It does not go back a long time in the British House. Therefore, the practice here has been endemic for decades. In fact, it not only took over the railroad, but it also appointed a board of directors. By Order in Council, it appointed a board and amalgamated Canadian Northern Railway with other Government-owned railroads. It was not until almost three years later that it brought in legislation which formally announced Government policy about the Canadian Northern Railway. If one wanted to do some more research, one could come up with countless instances of the Conservative Party in the House when it was governing doing just as well as one could expect from the Liberal Party. Therefore, it is a case of the pot calling the kettle black, and they both need a thorough cleaning.
Parliament must be primary. It must be first. Anything a Member of the Government wants to do should be said here, first, before anywhere else. If he wants to hold a press conference an hour later or go out and speak at a public meeting and issue written statements, that is fair ball. I think the same applies to Members of the Opposition.
Frankly, considering the way all of us turn out press releases here, most of which are not covered, and if they are covered, most of them are at the back with the hemorrhoid ads in the fourth or fifth section of the paper. When I think of the amount of time we spend doing that, when we save that material for presentation in Parliament as and when the opportunity permits, we should make the gallery do its own work for a change instead of MPs and Cabinet Ministers having their staffs writing the copy. 1 would like to see how good some writers would be if they had to sit down and write out their own stuff.
However, the main point of the motion is that through habit, through the efforts to obtain political advantage, through reasons of secrecy, most of which are totally devoid of any kind of reason or validity, Governments in the Parliament of Canada have made deliberate or other kinds of efforts to detract from Parliament, to govern by public relations exercises. They have tried to manipulate the media which, in turn and as a result, would deliberately or inadvertently end up trying to manipulate public opinion. The media should obtain
Supply
its coverage from what occurs in Parliament and obtain further follow-up coverage as a result of what occurs in Parliament. Would Governments use advertising agencies, press conferences, consultants who divulge reports before Parliament knows about them or has an opportunity to ask about them? Surely that is some kind of denigration of the parliamentary process.
I think that there is an onus, first, on the Government, because it is the one which initiates. Except for Private Members' Hour and the odd motion by unanimous consent, only the Government can initiate. However, there is also a responsibility on Hon. Members in the Opposition Parties to conduct themselves in the same manner, through notice to Ministers, presenting a Bill for first reading, making a speech in the House in debate, which does not go out to anyone else until one has started making a speech. Therefore, there is a responsibility on both sides to make this place function in somewhat the tradition of the British House, although it cannot be exactly the same.
The subject of the Estimates was mentioned by the Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen). We all know that that is a total exercise in futility. Committees are not provided with the expertise to really go into what is behind those numbers and those man-years. One can move to remove an Estimate by a certain amount or reduce it to a dollar, and that might be fun and games in the committee. It would be interesting to see what would happen if a Government Member felt free to reduce an Estimate because of an item that he thought to be inappropriate, and one which some Opposition Members thought to be appropriate. Estimates would be dealt with in a much more neutral and effective manner.
1 believe it was the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) who used the word "neutral". Around here, neutral is like trying to be half pregnant. There ain't no such thing.


Walter David Baker: At the moment.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: There ain't such a thing, and there hasn't been since I came here in 1968.


Walter David Baker: We always hope for improvement.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I suggest the question concerns neutrality versus accommodation. I would rather use the word accommodation because it would be totally in error to expect any person in this place to be completely human and neutral on any subject raised here. A Member might try to have a balance of bias, but he will not be able to be neutral. Therefore, I suggest that the word "accommodation" is more suitable.
There are rare occasions in Parliament when one or more of the Opposition Parties will go to extraordinary lengths to take what appear to be obstructionist measures such as filibustering. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) made a very appropriate remark earlier today

June 6, 1983
Supply
when he said that the Opposition not only has a duty to oppose and question but also the obligation to propose. The Opposition has a responsibility to try to accommodate.
I can think of some other examples besides Bill C-155. 1 think of the Criminal Code amendments in 1969 and 1970. I think of the War Measures Act of 1970 when attempts were made at accommodation. I am reminded of the first grain stabilization Bill when my Party, I think with deliberate honesty, put up speakers and had the same Members speak again a second and third time. We took the Government to court and it had to withdraw the Bill. When occasions like this occur only four times in 15 years, it can hardly be called abuse by the Opposition. Even under the British rules the Government may be intent upon passing legislation that is so exceptional that the Opposition has no other choice but to use whatever method it can under the rules to obstruct or prevent a Government from taking that action.
Like my colleague, the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain said, simply because the Government has the majority does not mean that it has that majority every day on every issue all year around. I am sure the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton would agree with that as a result of episodes in 1979. In fact, the most outrageous and disastrous statement of policy ever made by a Prime Minister in this country occurred in June of that year when the then Prime Minister said in a minority Parliament that he would govern as though he had a majority. I phoned the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) to ask what that meant. He said, "That means that this Parliament will not last very long." He was perfectly correct. A Grade 6 social studies student would know that if you have a minority Parliament you cannot govern as though you had a majority. I hope those who are the manufacturers of their own demise should have learned something from that, although I predict that they will be condemned to repeat it following this weekend.
If there is anything Parliament should know it is that the tail cannot be wagging the dog. No longer can heads of Royal commissions, Department heads and deputy ministers make announcements and speeches which should properly first be made by the Minister in charge in this place. Whatever happens after that is fair ball.
My final point, which I make for the benefit of the Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lambton and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader (Mr. Smith), is that omnibus Bills incite many speeches. Our written proposal to divide Bill C-155 into three parts would reduce the number of speeches on two of those parts incredibly. It could be dealt with and become law of the land by June 30. Similarly, when the Official Opposition succeeded in having the Government divide a Bill into several parts, it was amazing how quickly some of them passed. The minute the Government tries to cover the waterfront in a piece of legislation, do they expect the Opposition to sit back and vote in principle for two items which they may favour while also voting for three or four other items which they do not like? That is too much to ask and is
the reason why the word "accommodation" should be used instead of "neutrality".
I submit that that accommodation can be arranged. We could even start with Bill C-155. There are several other proposals that the Government is contemplating. It is trying to include matters in the same Bill which are not remotely related. When it does that, the number of speeches will multiply, which is a natural reaction which can be expected from any Opposition that is worthy of the name.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a comment. I think that my hon. friend has misinterpreted what I said in the course of my remarks. I want to make sure that the record is clear.
He talked about the issue of neutral chairmen of committees. He said that he would rather deal with this under the term "accommodation". I can understand the use of accommodation between House Leaders and amongst Parties in terms of what might happen to a Bill. But I want to make it clear to him that the use of the term "neutral" or "neutrality" was used from the point of view of the attitude that would prevail by the chairmen of parliamentary committees. 1 did not mean that a Member of Parliament who was chosen chairman of the legislative committee from a panel of chairmen would hang his principles on the coatrack before coming into the House of Commons. In terms of the operation of a committee, the hearing of witnesses, the witnesses who would be called and the interpretation of the rules of order, he would be seen as a person who was fair, neutral, and who would not choose sides in a manner similar to how the speakership of the House has traditionally operated.
We made that proposal in the hope of accommodating that situation. It was not to say that the Member who was chosen would have no opinions about the principles that were established in the Bill. Certainly he would. However, the committee would be conducted in such a way that even those who lost the day in terms of the argument in the committee would ultimately be able to say that the committee was conducted and the work of the chairman was done fairly, evenly, and that justice was not only done but seen and felt to be done.
I wanted to make sure that my friend understood that and that the record is clear on what the special committee meant and what I meant when I used the words "neutral chairman of legislative committees".


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the remarks of the Hon. Member but they fly in the face of the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition. It has certainly been my experience in the number of committees on which I have sat that they have been neutral in terms of their operation and interpretation of the rules. I have seen Government appointed chairmen of committees rule Government Members of the committee out of order. I remember the 1972-74 minority Parliament when the former Hon. Member for Crowfoot was chairman of the Transport Committee and I was vice chairman, that we had a majority over Government Members on that committee. On one of the few occasions that I chaired a
June 6, 1983

committee meeting, I had to rule out one of my own colleagues. Surely that neutrality is in place and it must be assumed that any Member from whatever side is seen to be and is in fact neutral when chairing a meeting and enforcing the rules.
I think that begs the question of what is in the motion. The motion says that the Government-and I submit not only this Government but many previous Governments-has bypassed Parliament. I agree with that portion of the resolution. The practice of giving press conferences and everything else avoids and evades not only the House of Commons but also committees. Surely that is where the responsibility lies, first on the Government because it initiates policy and legislation, and second, on the Opposition Parties because they too have a counter-responsibility not only to oppose but to propose. This is where the word accommodation comes in. Again the Government, because it can initiate legislation, has the responsibility more often than not to make the first move to accommodate. There is almost an equal responsibility on the part of the Opposition Parties to make moves to accommodate so as to get the business of Parliament done faster. Too often when we have tried to do that we did not even get the courtesy of an answer. Surely that is what contributes to the 100 and some speeches about which the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Smith) was complaining. What does he expect Members of the Opposition to do, just lie down, not say anything, give up and cry? Of course not. We have no other choice but to do what can be construed by the Government and some of the media as obstruction. What other choice do we have if the Government is not willing to accommodate? It seems to me that that word "accommodation" could overcome much of what is in the motion put forward by the Leader of the Opposition.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The previous occupant of the Chair indicated to me upon my arrival that the appropriate order of recognizing hon. Members would be for the Chair to see the Hon. Member for Rosemont (Mr. Lachance) and then to see the Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro). I know of no understanding between Hon. Members that might affect that agreement. But obviously there is not enough time for both Members to speak in light of the total time available. I would assume that some accommodation has been made. I have already indicated that that is the assumption on which I was working. I will recognize the Hon. Member for Rosemont. Of course, if an Hon. Member wishes to rise on a point of order, I will hear him.
[ Translation]


Mr. Claude-Andre Lachance (Rosemont):: Certainly, Mr. Speaker. I am prepared to give my colleague half the time we have left, if he agrees.
In the hallway, on my way to the House, I noticed the Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Nielsen). He was alive and
Supply
well, and what better proof of an old French saying, which translates as: Being ridiculous is not a fatal affliction. I must say that the motion moved by the Hon. Leader of the Opposition comes as somewhat of a surprise from a former House Leader who has more or less invented a new dilatory tactic for which there is no parliamentary remedy. At the end of my speech I intend to get back to this problem of using the bells and refusing to come in for a vote as a dilatory tactic. First, however, I would like to indicate the principles according to which the House operates and, more particularly, the two linch pins of our proceedings, namely, the Standing Orders, which, as everyone knows, have a number of deficiencies and which are being scrutinized by a special committee in an attempt to provide appropriate remedies, and the attitudes of Members on which depends the ability of this House, on a day-to-day basis, to reach a consensus on the most appropriate manner of conducting its business.
As far as procedure itself is concerned, the Special Committee has already tabled an interim report, and many of the recommendations proposed by Committee Members are now part of the Standing Orders, at least on a provisional basis.
I would like to spend a few minutes on one aspect of our Standing Orders and parliamentary practice that is now being studied by the Special Committee and regarding which recommendations may be made, we hope, in the not too distant future. I am referring to the Government's obligation to be accountable to Parliament, with respect to its finances. Mr. Speaker, Hon. Members will be aware that a sub-committee of the Special Committee-a sub-committee of which I have the honour to be a Member and which is known in our parlance as the Huntington-Lachance Committee has formulated a number of recommendations for the Special Committee which are aimed at making the Government accountable to the House and at giving Parliament the mechanisms it needs to deal with this accountability in an appropriate manner.
I hope that once again, the Committee will be able to submit recommendations that will receive the support of the House and its Members, but I would like to add that it is essential that Parliament should improve its ability to exercise this basic parliamentary right, namely, to oblige the Government to account for its finances.
Since the Lambert Commission made its proposals, which led to a new system for tabling budget votes, Hon. Members have been able to obtain information from the annual Estimates tabled by the President of the Treasury Board in a more easily digestible form. The Estimates are now published in three volumes. Part I explains Government expenditures in terms of Government envelopes, for instance, a social envelope, an economic envelope, and so forth, which gives a better idea of the priorities set by the Government in each of these major areas of Government activity. Part II provides details on votes being submitted for approval by the Government, such as person-years and technical resources, including the capital expenditures required, and finally, Part III provides a detailed

June 6, 1983
Supply
breakdown of programs and a detailed analysis according to comprehensive audit principles.
Parliament, however, has not adjusted to this new formula for submitting the Government's expenditure proposals. Because of the obsolete operating procedures of its parliamentary committees, although they only go back to 1968, Parliament lacks the instruments it needs to carry out a proper analysis of all three parts of the estimates, and I would especially like to draw to the attention of the Chair the absence of any appropriate procedure for consideration by envelope, something none of our parliamentary committees can do as things stand now.
In any event, I hope that the Special Committee will be able to make recommendations to the House that will eventually provide Parliament with better ways of digesting, analyzing, criticizing, and reporting back to the House on, Government expenditure proposals, and as far as I am concerned, I think the Committee should be able to do so fairly quickly.
However, procedures are only one aspect of the parliamentary process, which is now relatively well covered by the work of the Special Committee, and, in fact, I think all Members of this House are anxious to modernize this institution.
Attitudes are another aspect altogether. Unfortunately, attitudes cannot be regulated, and as my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Smith) commented earlier, the atmosphere in this Parliament is pretty tense. How it got that way? I will let Hon. Members answer that question! In the past 18 months, the harmful atmosphere prevailing in the House since the beginning of this Parliament has given rise to novel dilatory tactics that are prejudicial to parliamentary life. Let me explain what I mean.
On the one hand, the House is a deliberative assembly. Everybody has to agree with me on that point. We are here to debate, to discuss proposals introduced either by the government or by private members, either to amend pieces of legislation, to propose new measures or to discuss the proposals or financial plans of the Government.
Unfortunately, a new dilatory tactic has been introduced in addition to all those already allowed under our rules, of which, needless to say, there is quite a number. This new dilatory tactic is aimed, for all practical purposes, at preventing the House from playing its fundamental role, namely to debate.
In this regard, I only have to recall what occurred recently and what is still occurring in relation to the government's proposals for the Crow rate because one party in this House has decided not only that it objects to these proposals, which it has a perfect right to do, not only that it objects in principle to these proposals, which is its privilege, but also that it objects to debating them in this House. Once again, I know that there are always two sides to an issue, and as the previous speaker
said earlier, there are reasons for this, and the fact that a time allocation motion appeared on the Order Paper has perhaps prompted some members to even refuse to debate the matter.
The fact remains, Mr. Speaker, that in some cases this House is no longer even a deliberative assembly because some members or parties prevent us from deliberating. This is an extremely dangerous trend on which we should all reflect individually because no committee of this House, whether a special or a standing committee, can codify or regulate attitudes.
The second basic characteristic of a legislative assembly is that its deliberations must lead to a conclusion. That is normal, the people expect us to take decisions. So the second strategy which has been developed is to prevent the House from reaching a conclusion once its deliberations are over. The Opposition resorts to a "technicality" of the Standing Orders which stems from a new interpretation given in Beauchesne's Fifth Edition. Unfortunately I do not have time to quote it because I want to leave a few minutes for my colleague to close the debate. I am referring to an interpretation of the Standing Orders, or a codification of a practice if you will, which does not exist, at least not in Beauchesne's Fourth Edition, namely the whips walking up the aisle to signal the Chair that the House is ready to vote. In Beauchesne's Fourth Edition-I am trying to rush, Mr. Speaker-it was the Sergeant-at-Arms who was designated as the one who walks up to the Chair to say that the House is ready to proceed with the vote, whereas in Beauchesne's Fifth Edition the two whips, the Government's and the Official Opposition's, do that. That new interpretation has made it possible in some instances to delay the vote indefinitely by keeping the bells ringing, and the saddest and best known example is obviously the bell ringing incident which lasted for ten days.
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, there are reasons for that strategy, that dilatory tactic to which, I repeat, the Standing Orders offer no answer. There may be a way out through the residual powers of the Chair, but that is another question. With respect to our attitudes, Mr. Speaker, we will be unable to achieve a real parliamentary reform and the House will never again be a deliberating assembly where decisions are taken unless we act as responsible parliamentarians who accept those two essential roles in our work as legislators.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, before I begin my remarks, I want to commend my colleague from Rosemont (Mr. Lachance) for acting like a true parliamentarian. He has agreed to share the time remaining in this debate so that both of us would be able to make a few comments on the problem under study.

The motion before us is in a way a deception. I will tell the House why. I was brought up in the tradition of MacGregor Dawson and Alexander Brady, in the belief that Parliament
June 6, 1983

was a responsible agency, that the responsibility of the Government should make itself manifest and that it was the responsibility of the Opposition to ensure that that responsibility was fulfilled. I find that is not the situation today. I will come to the area of Crown corporations because to my way of thinking it is the most outrageous demonstration of the manner in which the parliamentary process is being endangered through the multiplication and proliferation of Crown corporations.
From my academic beginnings under the guidance of MacGregor Dawson and Alexander Brady, I was led to other authorities from Elizabethan times, Coke and also Blackstone from the eighteenth century, both of whom I have read. This gave me a feeling that when I came to Parliament 1 would find an institution which was responsive and responsible and that the notion of responsibility would be amply displayed. Today I find that is not the case, and that is where my feeling of deception is. It is unfortunate that we have to put forward a motion of this sort.
I would like to refer to the Lambert Report which was prepared in 1978 or 1979. In the opening of Chapter 21, Mr. Lambert, a Royal Commissioner charged with looking into the matter of financial management and accountability, reported:
Accountability is the working principle of our parliamentary system.
That is as simple as can be. It should be that way. He continued:
Therefore, we have chosen to end our Report with our conclusions about Parliament's role in the accountability process, for it is in that institution, as our mandate foresaw, that accountability culminates.
On page 370 he referred to the relations between governments and parliaments. He indicated:
This means that the relationship is so unequal that the principles of responsible government, while still generally accepted, are in danger of becoming irrelevant to the actual situation.
That is the danger I foresee and that is what brought this motion forward. Then on page 371 he said:
-we have concluded that ways must be found to improve the accountability of the Government to Parliament and its committees.
That is what I deplore, the deception of coming to Parliament and finding that it is not responsive to popular need, nor responsible to the Opposition, in its governing and its expenditure of public funds.
For example, in three years in this session of Parliament- and we are now getting into the fourth year-we have been asked to approve authority for the Government to borrow over $73 billion, which is about $24 billion for each of those years. The most recent Bill did not give us any indication of how that money was to be spent. That is not responsibility, and that is what worries me. That is why today we had to bring forward a motion of this kind. The motion says that we are in danger of losing this institution which has grown up over the last 700 or 800 years, gradually developing a responsiveness to public need and demand, and also the institution of give and take across the floor. Principally, the notion of responsibility in Government is to be accountable to the Opposition and to the country. The accountability is not just on election day. It is throughout
Adjournment Debate
the life of Parliament. That is what I find so unfortunate, and that is what the Hon. Member for Rosemont (Mr. Lachance) was saying. He wants responsibility to be restored to this House. He is seeking in that Special Committee, along with my colleague for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker), a means whereby responsibility can be restored.
1 see that the hour approaches. I have many more comments to make, but I do appreciate the division of time which permitted me to say these few words. At least I got that part of it in.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 45 deemed to have been moved.

Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question on pornography in broadcasting was answered by the Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan) who said that he was considering amendments to the law of obscenity which would apply everywhere, including broadcasting. He said this was a better way to proceed than attempting to segment particular areas and to have a special law which relates to them. This response is inadequate.
Where special problems exist, special laws are needed. There are already well demonstrated problems with pornography in broadcasting. Broadcasting happens to be a highly regulated media. There are regulations for patent medicines, drugs, booze, children's advertising, religious broadcasting, politics, lotteries, how venereal disease can be discussed, and birth control, but not, in the case of Pay TV at least, pornography, a rather important item that is missing from the list of regulations.

Radio and television broadcasting regulations now forbid abuse on grounds of race or religious beliefs. However, abuse on grounds of sex-in other words, abuse of women-is acceptable to the CRTC. Children are also victims of sexual abuse, but pornography's main victims are women. Could anyone imagine a religious minority being abused in the same way as women are abused by pornography? Take, for instance, anti-Semitism. Unfortunately, it does exist in our society. Could anyone imagine anti-Semitic pornography? I shall give you a sketch. For three hours every evening, late enough to keep children from watching, TV programs are broadcast in which Jews appear naked and non-Jews are dressed. Jews are

June 6, 1983
Adjournment Debate
stupid, non-Jews are intelligent. Jews are abused. Jews submit to non-Jews, Jews are beaten, by non-Jews. Jews kneel before non-Jews. Non-Jews carry whips, knives, pistols and other arms. Jews have none. Jews dance naked in front of non-Jews, while their bodies are looked at and commented upon. Jews are obliged to give the impression they enjoy this kind of treatment, that they are naturally submissive to non-Jews that they are unworthy. Finally, some Jews are raped, tortured and killed by non-Jews. Their fear and suffering are shown, while non-Jews are laughing and having a good time. That would be pornographic anti-Semitism, and we could not imagine seeing this on public television in Canada. But suppose the Ku-Klux-Klan happened to get a pay television licence? What would the CRTC's response be? "If you do not like anti-Semitism, switch channels, do not subscribe", or would we get this answer from the Minister of Communications (Mr. Fox): "Censorship is socialism?" I do not think so. One would expect a better answer from the CRTC and the Minister. Flowever, abusing women seems to be acceptable to the CRTC. The Council is against censorship as far as women are concerned. It does exercise censorship in many other areas, such as commercials that are directed to children, drugs, alcohol, religious broadcasts-areas it thinks are more important than protecting women against abuse.
The problem of pornography is growing; qualitatively and quantitively it is getting worse. What is the correct role for the Criminal Code in the control of pornography? The Criminal Code must be the base, I suggest. It must give a dear and reasonable definition. The current Code is not clear on what constitutes undue exploitation of sex, and the courts have interpreted it in a way that is objectionable to many Canadians. They have included scenes that are frankly sexual but are not abusive or coercive.
In my view, a good definition would specify excessive violence, coercive sex, degradation of human persons, the sexual exploitation of children and bestiality. In the latter two cases the understanding is that children and animals, by definition, cannot give consent. Even if there were no explicit violence, these would not be allowed.
The Criminal Code badly needs repair but it is not only the Criminal Code that needs repair. The broadcasting regulations for television and radio forbid programs that are profane, indecent or obscene, but no penalties are specified. Penalties must be made clear and applied to Pay-TV as well. It should be a condition of licence to respect the guidelines of sex stereotyping in the broadcasting media. A conviction for obscenity should be grounds for revocation of licence. A $300 fine is not going to stop pornography in any part of our society. Violence against women in our society is a serious problem. It is time the Minister of Justice took his responsibilities seriously and worked with the Minister of Communications (Mr. Fox)
to ensure that there are adequate laws. The time, Mr. Speaker, is now.


Mr. Henri Tousignant (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the Hon. Member for Broad-view-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) on behalf of the Minister of Communications. We understand her concerns very well.
The issue of pornography is a matter of grave concern to us all. The Broadcast Act was adopted unanimously by Parliament in 1968. The Broadcasting Act provided for the regulation of broadcasting by the CRTC, placing this agency at arm's length from the Government of the day. Even at that, the Broadcasting Act also places primary responsibility for the content of programming with the broadcaster. Section 3(c) of the Broadcasting Act says:
All persons licensed to carry on broadcasting undertakings have a responsibility for programs they broadcast but the right to freedom of expression and the right of persons to receive programs, subject only to generally applicable statutes and regulation, is unquestioned.
This system of self-regulation has on the whole over the years proven effective. By and large, broadcasters have exercised responsibility in choosing programming for broadcast. Broadcasters who do not, face the possibility of criminal prosecution.
The CRTC is attempting to extend this self-regulatory principle to pay operators and, as Hon. Members will recall, has had meetings with the pay-television licensees to develop a voluntary code. Dr. Meisel informed Members of the Communications Committee of this during his appearance on May 26.
As the Broadcasting Act says, this freedom of expression should be subject only to generally applicable statutes and regulations. The Criminal Code is a general law of general applicability. The Criminal Code defines obscenity. If a broadcaster does not behave responsibly and does carry pornographic material, he is in violation of the Criminal Code and subject to the penalties therein.
Very recently the Minister responsible for the Status of Women announced that, in consultation with the Minister of Communications (Mr. Fox), the Government was funding a voluntary body established by the National Women's Organization called "Media Watch". The purpose of "Media Watch" is to monitor and evaluate over a two-year period the selfregulatory standards implemented by the broadcasting and advertising industries. As the Minister of Justice (Mr. Mac-Guigan) indicated to the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood during Question Period on May 16, the Government is considering amendements to the law on obscenity which, of course, will affect that law wherever it is applied, broadcasting or anywhere else. The Minister intends introducing these amendments in the immediate future. It is hoped that the New Democratic Party will support amendments to the Criminal Code on obscenity this time. It rejected proposed
June 6, 1983

amendments on child pornography proposed by the Minister of Justice last June.


INCOME TAX-AUDITING OF FARMERS' INCOME- INTERPRETATION OF LAW-STAND TAKEN BY FARMERS- MINISTER'S POSITION-DISALLOWANCE OF WIFE'S LABOUR
Lorne Everett Greenaway: Mr. Speaker, I wonder how long it is going to take this Government to realize that the Department of National Revenue is running amuck and harassing farmers under Section 31 of the Income Tax Act? I hope 1 receive answers from the Parliamentary Secretary tonight, rather than answers from some bureaucrat who has written those answers for him.
The last time I asked this question 1 received an answer from the Parliamentary Secretary I had mentioned in my question that Revenue Canada auditors have no agricultural experience. I would like to quote what the Parliamentary Secretary said to me and I quote from page 25215 of Hansard for May 5, 1983:
The Hon. Member has also commented on the qualification of the auditors performing the audit. In this regard I would like to say that the Department's auditors have the know-how to determine the profit or loss of an enterprise.
1 challenge the Parliamentary Secretary, Mr. Speaker, to find five auditors in the Department who know one end of a cow from the other.
Today I asked the Minister why it is that farmers and chartered accountants who, according to Revenue Canada auditors, in past years have obeyed the tax laws implicitly are now suddenly finding that the interpretation of those laws has been changed by the Government? I should now like to read from parts of a few letters I received from farmers, and I would like to show the Parliamentary Secretary my file. This is some of the correspondence which I have on this issue. It is an issue which goes right across the country. Farmers in all ten Provinces are being audited and I am receiving many representations from Members on the other side of the House.
Let me quote from the letter of a farmer from 100 Mile House, British Columbia, to the auditors. He says, and I quote:
I am writing this letter grieving my recent audit.
How can one of your senior audit men (Mr. Bill Donaldson) come and do an audit of my farming operation four years ago and tell me that everything is fine with comments like "keep it up!" or "if you continue as you are." And then four years later, after all kinds of improvements are made (more machinery, buildings built, irrigation installed etc. at considerable expense) another audit is done, only this time disallowing the farming operation?
I have had Mr. H. A. McTavish, Chartered Accountant do all my returns since I began the operation to ensure what has happened now, would not happen. (As a matter of fact Mr. Bill Donaldson even recommended Mr. McTavish as the best accountant in our area).
This last audit was done by two of your field men who I felt did not understand farming and could care less. They made statements like "The Government needs money this year." and "We are only doing our job" etc. They did not go to see the farming operation at all! I tried to explain that beef prices were down and that we have had very wet haying weather for the past several years, but to no avail.
Please, I beg of you be fair.
Adjournment Debate
It is signed, "Yours truly". It is not often, Mr. Speaker, that farmers beg anybody for anything.
I have another letter from the wife of a farmer in Quesnel, British Columbia. She says, and I quote:
The evening of April 7, 1983, we were called to our accountants' office to be informed that we owe Revenue Canada $17,285.74. $3,551.16 being interest!
To people such as ourselves who take pride in paying our creditors regularly it was rather a shock to find that we suddenly owe a sum like this, without prior knowledge, and that interest had been added to a bill that goes back 4 years without knowing anything about it. We have always filed our income tax on time, each year it has been accepted by Revenue Canada and now they decide that for the years, 1978, 79, 80 and 81, that they made a Big mistake, in fact a $13,000.00 mistake, most naturally not in our favour, add interest and bill us, expecting that we have $17,000.00 stuffed away in some sock somewhere!
I have dozens of these kinds of letters. I told the Minister that if he does not do something about this, he is going to have a tax revolt on his hands. An association has been formed in my riding called the Cariboo-Chilcotin Farmers' Alliance. It is contacting agricultural groups right across the country urging them to band together and fight this unfair and unjust process Revenue Canada is undertaking. I ask the Minister to consider that.
I also informed the Minister today that women are being discriminated against under this Section. The auditors have a very arbitrary set of rules and regulations which set out whether a farm is a farm. One of the things they insist on is that a certain number of hours per year are worked on the farm. As you know, Mr. Speaker, if the husband has had to work off the farm to try and make ends meet over the last couple of tough years, then his wife has had to pick up a lot of the slack and do a lot of the farm work. The auditors are not allowing the work of these women to count at all toward the labour provided on the farm. I have proof of that here in two letters.
The first letter is from a lady in Lac La Hache, British Columbia, who says, in referring to the auditor:
He also doubted whether I would be capable of managing the herd (being female, I guess) while my husband worked, a comment that raised my ire, to say the least!
Let me read another comment by the lady of Quesnel who I quoted a moment ago. She wrote:
For some reason, no doubt the usual, my own work on the farm is not given consideration in this matter. When we bought this place, I had to sign an affidavit stating that I was not buying under duress and that the payments on the farm would be my responsibility, should anything happen to my husband. I put in a full day's work, each and every day to make this farm pay! We know that a place is considered a farm where the husband stays home and the wife works out, so why not the reverse?
This problem is not going to go away, Mr. Speaker, and I would urge the Parliamentary Secretary to give me some kind of an answer that makes some sense.


Mr. Garnet M. Bloomfield (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue):: The Hon. Member in his question today referred to the "unfair" application of Section 31 of the Income Tax Act, to the reply to a question he placed on the Order Paper about the number of farm audits, to

June 6, 1983
Adjournment Debate
changes in procedure, to a tax grab by the Government and to a number of individual cases he has referred to the Minister. Let me take the latter matter first.
To be perfectly fair, the Hon. Member sent in some of the cases in late April. To deal with them it is necessary to obtain the files of the individual taxpayers concerned from our offices in British Columbia, and then subject each file to the kind of thorough analysis I am sure he would wish to have them given. In fact, some of the cases came to the Department only with the Hon. Member's letter of May 26, hardly two weeks ago. He should not, therefore, be surprised that the analysis is not yet complete. But he will have the Minister's reply as quickly as possible.
He has spoken of fairness. I wonder why he considers it fair to have some people with a preference for living in a rural environment claim what are really living expenses as if they are the expenses of running a farm. Let me emphasize that when the Hon. Member refers to the disallowance of farm losses under Section 31 of the Income Tax Act, he is at best only partly correct. That Section deals with the situation of a farm as a business, and the question of whether the taxpayer may be allowed limited losses of up to $5,000 or losses without limit. In both cases, whether the allowable iosses are required to be limited or not, it has to be a farm as a business; that is an enterprise carried on with a reasonable expectation of profits.
In many situations Section 31 is not at issue at all. The claimed losses cannot be associated with a business since there is no reasonable expectation of profit. The losses are therefore disallowed because they are personal living expenses and the Income Tax Act specifically denies allowing them as deductions from taxable income.
This is a very complex question and is worthy of a fully detailed answer, particularly with respect to the cases brought to the Minister's attention. I can assure the Hon. Member that the review of these cases is being given a very high priority.


VETERANS AFFAIRS-REVIEW OF WAR VETERANS ALLOWANCE ACT
A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, on May 12 I questioned the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Campbell) on the War Veterans Allowance Act which is currently under review by the Department. The Minister informed me that no legislative proposals would be considered until the fall or next spring. In other words, in all probability Canadian veterans should not expect any improvements with regard to this matter for quite some time.
At the moment, we have approximately 750,000 veterans, 242,000 of whom are between 60 and 64 years of age. An estimated 275,000 are over the age of 64. I do not feel the Minister is taking into consideration the age of many of these veterans who have been waiting what seems to be an endless length of time to receive the benefits they have justly earned.
Recently the Minister took great pleasure in informing us that the average processing time for first time pension applications is 70-odd days. I must say I am pleased that the Minister is attempting to implement my private Members' Bill C-641 which, if adopted by the House, would ensure that pension applications would be processed completely with a time span of no more than 90 days, and would impose a 45-day limit at each of the two levels in the appeal process. If a decision was not made within any of these periods, the applicant would be automatically awarded the whole amount claimed.
The Minister may be proud of his accomplishments with regard to this matter, but may I remind the House of the years it has taken to reduce the time to this still lengthy amount. Most important, may I remind the House of the many veterans who have died while waiting for their reward. I am hopeful that the Minister will continue his efforts and that we in the House of Commons and veterans can look forward to seeing a full enactment of my Private Members Bill C-641.
The Minister should take heed of the past experiences before continuing to put off too much longer the implementation of any future legislation. Over the years, veterans organizations have made an exceptional number of recommendations to improve the welfare of Canadian veterans. Thousands of veterans feel, as I do, that it is unfortunate that more of these proposals have not been implemented.
One area of concern which comes to mind involves the Aging Veterans program. Presently the program is only offered to those veterans in receipt of a war-related disability pension, thereby excluding many deserving elderly veterans. It is thought that the program should be extended to all disability pensioners and War Veterans Allowance recipients qualifying for treatment under Sections 5, 6, 7 and 12 of the Veterans' Treatment Regulations.
Another matter which is in dire need of immediate upgrading is the War Veterans Allowance interest exemption. The War Veterans Allowance Act limits to $100 per year the exemption in respect of bank, bond and dividend share interest. This small amount is ludicrous by today's standards and does not allow for even the smallest of investments.
The War Veterans Allowance and Civilian War Pensions Allowances Act should also be amended to allow Canadian war veterans living outside Canada to receive the allowance, if they are unable to return to Canada because of health, financial or other mitigating circumstances. The Minister's position is that the War Veterans Allowance legislation is deemed for Canadian veterans living in Canada. I know, and this is known also to veterans' organizations, that there are veterans who are virtually unable to return to Canada. Why should these people who defended our country be ignored?
Another recommendation by veterans' organizations is that all income other than that received from CWA or WBA be exempted as part of a recipient's casual earnings, up to the maximum as set out in the regulations. This proposal, if implemented, would benefit those veterans who are unable to work and who are in receipt of a small disability pension, OAS, GIS, CPP or a small superannuation allowance.
June 6, 1983

Over the years, veterans' organizations have supplied the department with both problems and solutions. On one hand, the Liberal Government has quickly overlooked many of these recommendations, stating that they are not feasible or, because of financial restraint, are impossible. On the one hand, the Secretary of State has publicized his intention to make Canada a French state, regardless of cost. For the Liberal Government to financially endorse this commitment and blatantly ignore the heroes who defended this country is atrocious. The logic behind this policy is repulsive.
My Conservative colleagues and I feel that veterans deserve better treatment, and a step in the right direction would be to amend the War Veterans Allowance Act as quickly as possible. We are therefore requesting that this Act be revised on the return of the House in September. This would provide ample time for the Minister and his Department to draft the necessary changes to this legislation. Furthermore, this legislation can be passed through all stages in one hour. There is no valid reason for veterans to wait any longer for these necessary revisions to be made.


Mr. Roland de Corneille (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the Hon. Member raised this question concerning the review of war veterans allowance and the timing of the opening of the Act. The review has made good progress to date and the Minister anticipates that legislative proposals will be ready for consideration either in the fall or early next spring.
The Hon. Member indicated that the War Veterans Allowance Act had several deficiencies that require correction. I think it is most important in discussing the perceived inadequacy of the War Veterans Allowance Act to understand the history of this dynamic piece of legislation and the basic purpose to which it has always addressed itself.
The War Veterans Allowance Act was introduced in 1930 to ensure that veterans with few assets and very little income were provided with a decent standard of living. It addressed particularly those veterans who had experienced pre-aging due to their war time service. This was a pioneer piece of social legislation which, over the last 53 years, has been frequently amended to ensure its continuing relevance to the needs of veterans and dependents.
Adjournment Debate
It will be of interest to Members to know that some of the special provisions of this legislation include guaranteeing the surviving spouse of the recipient of war veterans allowance the equivalent of one year's married rate in order to ensure that the initial period of bereavement is without financial hardship. This really helps in the time of acute need.
In addition, Members will appreciate that veterans' allowances are fully indexed and are adjusted quarterly to ensure that benefits paid are as responsive as possible to changes in price of goods such as shelter, food and clothing. Furthermore, allowances are paid for dependent children. In 1973, the requirement to declare assets or to have them reduced to a certain level in order to qualify for the allowance was removed.
As mentioned earlier, this Act has been changed several times to ensure its continuing relevance to the changing needs of veterans and dependents. The most recent change, Members will recall, took place in 1980 with the passage of Bill C-40. The major improvements made at that time included an increase in the single rate of allowance of $480 per year and of the married rate of allowance of $840 per year.
Moreover, the amount of income received by single and married allowance recipients over age 65 and under age 65 began to be corrected with this legislation which will be resolved by April 1, 1986. An enhanced capacity of the Minister to forgive allowance overpayments that were received either through no fault of the recipients or where the collection would cause hardship, was enacted. This has resulted in a much more compassionate administration of this legislation in line with its intent to help low income veterans and their dependents to provide for their ongoing maintenance.
Finally, just in April of this year, the level of casual earning exemption under this legislation was significantly increased.
In respect of the current review it is not so much prompted by the inadequacy of this statute but rather the need to ensure that it has no inequitable provisions, that WVA benefits can be delivered quickly and that the Act is managed as efficiently and as effectively as possible.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m.
At 6.30 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Tuesday, June 7, 1983