1983-06-15

VACANCY

Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that I have received a communication notifying me that a vacancy has occurred in the representation, namely, Hon. Elmer M. MacKay, Esquire, Member for the electoral district of Central Nova, by resignation. Accordingly I have addressed my warrant to the Chief Electoral Officer for the issue of a new writ of election for the said electoral district.



STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21


Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, the International Maritime Organization (IMO), a specialized agency of the U.N., held its fiftieth Council session recently in London, England. Canada was the first country to join the IMO in 1948 and has played an important part in its development over the years. One hundred and twenty-four nations are now members of IMO, and a Canadian, Mr. W. A. O'Neil, President of the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority, is chairman of the governing council.
IMO's main objective is to facilitate co-operation among Governments on technical and related matters affecting shipping, particularly in the promotion of safety of life at sea and the prevention of maritime pollution from ships. This is accomplished by consideration and adoption of international agreements, technical assistance to governments, and an extensive exchange of information between governments.
This year, 1983, is an important one for the organization, as it is celebrating its twenty-fifth anniversary and can look back proudly on accomplishments which are reflected in the number of international conventions on maritime matters which have entered into force. This past session of Council, which I had the privilege of attending, marked a further milestone when Her Majesty the Queen officially opened the impressive new IMO building on the Thames River in London.
It is with pride that 1 draw this organization to the attention of the House, both because of the important and vital role Canada has assumed in its development, and in recognition of the number of accomplishments the organization has achieved in making life safer for seafarers and for the prevention of pollution of our oceans.



POLITICAL PARTIES


Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Madam Speaker, yesterday the New Democratic Party used an Opposition day to debate the proposed testing of the Cruise missile in Canada. Members of Parliament and the Canadian public were treated to an emotional appeal for non-participation in NATO's military plan. The motion was worded in such a way as to increase the emotional effectiveness of the appeal. It implied that nuclear weapons might, at some future date, be tested in Canada. I cannot think of a more despicable method of debating than the deceitful use of fear, plus child exploitation, in an attempt to score political points.
After the debate on the ambiguous motion, which was handily defeated, the Government introduced its Main and Supplementary Estimates for 1983 and 1984. Any item which was disputed by Members was voted on individually. The remaining Estimates were voted on in toto. The Members of the New Democratic Party voted against the acceptance of the 1983-84 Estimates. The interesting part of this vote was that, included in the Main Estimates, were several allocations for the continuation of disarmament and arms control efforts. It is surprising that the New Democratic Party did not see fit to support these items after all their fine rhetoric of the afternoon. They could have done so by forcing separate consideration of the External Affairs Estimates, Vote 10. One can only assume that the New Democratic Party is more interested in political gain for itself than in the attainment of peace and security for mankind.



SASKATOON'S EFFORTS TO SECURE NATIONAL HOCKEY LEAGUE FRANCHISE

Mr. Bob Ogle (Saskatoon East):: Madam Speaker, hockey fans in Saskatoon and Saskatchewan were heartened yesterday when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) indicated that he

June 15, 1983
would use his "good offices" to influence the President of the National Hockey League, John Ziegler, and help Saskatchewan and Saskatoon get an NHL franchise. Now I do not know what the Prime Minister's "good offices" amount to, but whatever they are I ask him to use them quickly.
Yesterday, Louis Susman, a prominent sports lawyer, flew to New York with an offer from a Vancouver businessman to buy the St. Louis Blues. There are other offers being prepared as well. Without a doubt Susman will be carrying a proposal, and because the NHL needs to find an owner for the Blues he will probably make a deal quickly.
The Mayor of Saskatoon, Cliff Wright, and his associates are working hard and are continuing to build the provincial base that is necessary to put the team on a firm financial footing.
The NHL seems not to understand that hockey fans in the Province of Saskatchewan are like the Saskatchewan Rough-riders' football fans; they drive any distance, whether it is 50, 100, 200 or 300 kilometres, to support the team.
Once again my plea is for the little people, the ordinary hockey fan who has little or no power in the business world of professional sports, the person who frequently has given up belief that anybody really cares about his or her wishes. Saskatchewan fans feel that they are the soul of hockey. They know that their Province has been the home and the training ground of generations of professional players. None have had the opportunity to support their own professional team. In the Saskatoon Blues, this is a real possibility. So I ask that whatever will be done by the good offices of the Prime Minister be done quickly and well.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. David Berger (Laurier);: Madam Speaker, I would like to apologize to the Senate Committee for some rather heated remarks I made yesterday. I also wish to apologize to Mayor Freij of Bethlehem who has been saying for ten years that the Palestinians on the West Bank want to live in peace with Israel.

I made my comments somewhat out of frustration, because many of the questions in the committee yesterday dealt with various aspects of the military government on the West Bank, and I feel they painted somewhat of an unfair picture. For example, one of the members of the committee expressed his dismay that Mayor Freij could not display the flag of the PLO in his office. No one mentioned, however, that the PLO flag is anathema to all Israelis, that it represents a terrorist organization which is committed to destroying Israel, which has killed hundreds of innocent citizens and has gloried in those deaths.
It is perhaps the flag of Mayor Freij. It is also the flag of Hawatmeh, Jibril, Abu Nidal and Habash.
Military rule is cruel, Madam Speaker, but I thought that there was little understanding yesterday of the fact that Israel has been in a state of war for 35 years, that it is faced by 21 Arab countries with a population of over 100 million people-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.



POLITICAL PARTIES


Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Madam Speaker, to be critical of Government spending is one thing, especially when one is a good Conservative. But last night Members of the NDP voted against all of the Estimates and their ideologies. They voted against the Federal Business Development Bank which gives direct support to small business, and they voted against the Farm Loans Interest Rebate Act which keeps farms from going under. Last night Members of the NDP voted against job creation.
At a time when Canada's commitment to NATO is a disgrace and the Government has quite rightly tried to make use of the defence industry as a means of job creation, the NDP Members withheld support. They voted against the Petroleum Incentives Program which would create jobs in oil exploration. Worse still, on the Main Estimates they voted against the administrative expenses of the Farm Credit Corporation, CMHC and mortgage assistance, and welfare, and Unemployment Insurance. At least the Conservatives realize, Madam Speaker, that someone has to type up the forms or write the cheques which provide the assistance.
What does this mean? Simply this: By their actions last night the Members of the NDP have proved beyond a doubt that their ideology is shakier than their showing in the Gallup polls and, if possible, shakier than their support among the electorate.


Madam Speaker:: I would just like to warn the Hon. Member that at some point in his statement, though not throughout the whole of it, I think he was reflecting on a vote, and that is not allowed.



NATIONAL PARKS


Mr. Andre Maltais (Manicouagan):: Madam Speaker, I would like to transmit to the House the best wishes of the people of Havre-Saint-Pierre, Longue-Pointe-de-Mingan,
June 15, 1983

Mingan and Natasquan and their appreciation of the fact that the Canadian Government has purchased the Mingan Archipelago. "Tons les bouleaux de la riviere Mingan s'en rappellent", a line from one of Gilles Vigneault's songs. The Mingan Archipelago will now become one of the great attractions of this vast country of ours, and I believe that all Canadians are pleased about the fact that we shall now have a very wonderful park in Eastern Canada. Madam Speaker, I would like to add that people on the North Shore were very disappointed in the attitude of the Quebec Minister of Tourism, who said that the Canadian Government had paid an excessively high price for the Mingan Islands. To the people on the North Shore, the Islands are priceless, and perhaps I may say that by acting the way it did, the Canadian Government has saved Quebecers $2 million, because the $5 million are now spread over all ten provinces, which means $500,000 per province, a perfect example of co-operative federalism. Finally, Madam Speaker, I would like to say that I received many telegrams supporting this transaction from the people around the Mingan River and the Mingan area, and I think that I can therefore safely say that everyone is pleased, and we hope that Quebec will co-operate, for the sake of the people on Quebec's North Shore and for the sake of all Canadians and the whole world, since the UN has recognized the international importance of the Mingan Archipelago.



POLITICAL PARTIES


Mr. Ron Stewart (Simcoe South):: Madam Speaker, the agri-food industry and its supply and services industries comprise approximately 40 per cent of Canada's economy. While only 5 per cent of our population is engaged in primary food production, the agri-food system employs 18 per cent of the Canadian labour force. It has often been said that, as goes agriculture, so goes the nation.
One of our major problems today is the continued loss of farms and farmers. Poor economic conditions have worsened the situation as evidenced by the 60 per cent increase in farm bankruptcies. Canada cannot afford this continued and heavy loss of a productive industry.
The socialist hordes to my left pretend to support agriculture when in reality, as every independent farmer must now realize, they represent state control. The farmers of Canada will know just how concerned the New Democratic Party is for their welfare when they realize that yesterday NDP Members did not support the Main Estimates which targeted over $200 million for agri-food development.
Oral Questions FOOD AND DRUGS



PRICE OF DRUGS-CONDEMNATION OF GOVERNMENT POLICY

Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Madam
Speaker, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) is reported to be preparing amendments to the compulsory licensing provisions for drug patents, to assist pharmaceutical manufacturers in their goal of gouging the Canadian consumer. He is aided in this enterprise by the Hon. Martin O'Connell who is now working as an adviser to the Minister and who was, until recently, employed by the drug companies which are seeking these changes.
The alliance of big business and the Government against Canadian consumers and small drug manufacturers should be instructive to farmers and gardeners who have been expecting this kind of action to be taken under Bill C-32 which would grant similar patent rights to corporate plant breeders. Seed buyers will see the way that patents are used to reinforce monopoly positions over certain drugs. They can also see the way that Government bows to pressures by some of the same companies which are also very active in the seed business around the world.
Prices charged by licensed companies competing with the giants fell by 67 per cent on the 16 best selling drugs in the four years following the loosening up of the patent provisions in 1969. Now it appears that the Government is going to reverse that good policy which allow automatic licensing. Consumers of drugs in Canada should know what the effect of this will be on drug prices. 1 urge the Government to reconsider this disastrous policy, and to maintain automatic licensing which allows the manufacture of drugs in Canada at prices people can afford.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (York-Peel):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board in his role as the reporting Minister of Canadair and any parent of Canadair. Would the Minister clear the air on the certainty that the Government accepts responsibility through the various Ministers of the Crown for the debacle that has occurred in Canadair, bearing in mind that every month for years past the reporting Minister received internal financial statements with respect to Canadair? Is he accepting responsibility for this debacle?

June 15, 1983
Oral Questions


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of National Revenue):: Madam Speaker, I am surprised at the Hon. Member's naivete, because he himself, as President of the Treasury Board in a previous Government that did not remain in power very long, received reports on the situation at Canadair, and it was his responsibility to take action, but he did not. We, on the other hand, have taken action.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, once again the Minister is quite wrong. We did take action; we started to privatize it.


CORPORATION'S LOSSES-REQUEST THAT MINISTER LAUNCH INVESTIGATION
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Let me put my second question to the same Minister, Madam Speaker. In view of the fact that the write-off of $1.4 billion is equal to the total loss last year of Massey-Ferguson, NuWest Group, Inco, CNR and Sidbec, all together, would the Minister at least arrange for a proper inquiry into what happened leading up to this type of write-off, bearing in mind that we have been sand bagged in the Finance Committee and are getting nowhere in other Committees? The public should know why the Government has acted in such an incompetent way.
[ Translation]


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member started by saying that he had come up with an answer to the Canadair problem when he was President of Treasury Board, and I realize that his incompetence and that of his Government were such that he was unable to implement his solution. We have also started to deal with the situation, by making a thorough analysis of Canadair's commercial viability, with a view to restoring its commercial position. A few days ago, the Minister responsible in the other place tabled a full report on the financial situation of Canadair. The authorities of the new corporation responsible for monitoring and providing strict management principles for Canadair and other corporations, will be tabling a commercial development plan for Canadair, and Hon. Members as well as the Canadian public have had a unique opportunity in recent weeks to obtain information on the past and future positions of these corporations.


INQUIRY RESPECTING ROLE OF VICE-CHAIRMAN
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister who indicates that the Government has been taking action. If that is so, would he indicate to the House why it has allowed the Vice-Chairman, Jean-Pierre Goyer, to continue-he is known to many in this House and especially to many in the Prime Minister's office? Would the Minister answer that very simply question? Will the government indeed accept the responsibility
for this debacle at Canadair, and not pass it on to management as it seems to want to do?
[ Translation]


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member knows perfectly well how Canadair operates. It is a Government-owned corporation which operates on a commercial basis. Our diagnosis was that there were a number of problems that required a more sustained presence of the principal shareholder. This was achieved by creating a new corporation whose objective will be to provide for a regular and constant presence of the Government as shareholder, to safeguard the interests of all Canadians and to provide for stricter management of Canadair as well as more realistic market expectations.


INDUSTRY
Miss Pat Carney (Vancouver Centre):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. I should note, Madam Speaker, that the Government blames the management of Canadair. The Government was the management of Canadair.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pat Carney: After sinking $125 million of taxpayers' money into Consolidated Computers Incorporated, the Government announced in November, 1981, that it was selling the company to Nabu Manufacturing Corporation for $100,000 cash. At the time the then Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce justified the bargain price by saying Nabu had committed to keep the company in operation for at least two years, to provide sufficient working capital to achieve that-


Madam Speaker:: Order. Order, please. I must again remind the Hon. Member that questions should be short. I could be even stricter and not allow the Hon. Member to read the question. One could use notes but one should not be reading out questions. If they are not read, I am sure they would be shorter.


Pat Carney: This week Nabu announced it was laying off over 100 of its Canadian manufacturing employees. Can the Minister tell the House if Nabu has broken a commitment to preserve Canadian manufacturing employees jobs, or did the Government exaggerate the benefits of the deal in order to justify its expenditure and the $125 million loss of the taxpayers' money?


Hon. Herb Gray (President of the Treasury Board):: Madam Speaker, I do not believe that the actual wording of
June 15, 1983

the release supports the exact interpretation given by my hon. friend. 1 will have to inform myself on the current situation of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and get back to my hon. friend.


Pat Carney: Madam speaker, I was quoting from the Minister's press release at the time, so it was a direct quote.


RESEARCH GRANT PROVIDED TO CORPORATION
Pat Carney: Madam Speaker, last December Nabu received an additional $8.9 million in the form of a research grant from the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In light of its recent announcement of lay-offs of Canadian manufacturing employees, what guarantees did the Government receive in the form of job guarantees for this money? How does the Government monitor the activities of companies which receive taxpayers' money? Or has this Government simply once again thrown more good money after bad?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, again I believe that question is best directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: He is not here.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: However, I am confident that there are arrangements to monitor the grants in question, and the details on that can be presented by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.


BANKS AND BANKING
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance who is well aware of the struggle which the average Canadian is having these days. The typical small business person in Canada is simply trying to keep his business in the black and struggling to do just that. The Minister of Finance earlier this week accused workers of asking for too much with their wage demands in excess of 5 per cent.
I will remind the Minister that the Deputy Prime Minister was on record earlier as asking the banks to bleed a little bit. We find out today, Madam Speaker, that the banks' profits are up 40 per cent. The concern now is that bank profits in 1983 will be higher than in 1981. Will the Minister indicate to this House whether he feels that the banks are playing a fair role in the recovery program, and does he not feel that profits which are up 40 per cent over last year could be considered somewhat excessive?
e (1425)


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker. I would like first to tell the Hon. Member I have drawn the
Oral Questions
public's attention to a particular collective agreement arrived at in Nova Scotia. I did not point the finger at the workers, I pointed the finger at management and workers for a contract which will last over four years at over 11.5 per cent. This is clearly excessive taking into account the current conditions. Look at the competition that Nova Scotia has to face in this country and which Canada has to face vis-a-vis the United States in particular, where at the present time wage settlem-ants are well below 5 per cent in a lot of industries. If we want to remain competitive, enlarge our economy and have jobs for our workers, we better remain competitive. That is the criterion.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: My hon. friend is referring to the banks and he is resorting to the same kind of mathematical games I referred to in a recent speech. He knows that if, for instance, a company's profits in 1982 went down, let us say 50 per cent compared to 1981, even if you have a 100 per cent improvement in profits this year you will only be back where you were in 1981. My friend is resorting to this kind of gamesmanship with figures. What we need is more profit so that there will be more jobs with more Canadians put back to work as a result of more investment by Canadians. We have to do this.


Madam Speaker:: Order.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, talking about profits, we in this Party prefer to see profits going into the small business sector as opposed to the chartered banks of Canada. The Minister of Finance, in his effort to mislead the House, inadvertently I am sure, refrained from indicating that the first six months' profit of the major chartered banks of Canada are up nearly $1 billion over last year. So to suggest that that is some immaterial profit gain, 1 think is being a little simplistic.


PENALTIES IMPOSED FOR RENEGOTIATION OF MORTGAGES
Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, as Members of Parliament will be aware, there are thousands and thousands of Canadians who are attempting to renegotiate their mortgages. We have case after case of people being asked to pay $5,000-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member be shorter in his questions, please.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I am simply taking as long as the Minister did in his response, but I will be short.
Considering the varied approaches financial institutions take when it comes to mortgage renegotiation, is the Minister of Finance prepared to step in and meet with the heads of the various institutions to try to bring about some similarity with regard to the penalty payments required as people attempt to take advantage of the downward trend in interest rates?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I have already taken steps in that regard. I have circulated

June 15, 1983
Oral Questions
to all Members of Parliament, including my hon. friend, the names of the directors of the various financial institutions, whether they are banks, trust companies or loan companies, to whom we should address our representations when we get complaints from our constituents about this. I have also raised the issue with the Superintendent of Banks and with a number of bank presidents I had the opportunity of meeting in the last few weeks. These are the steps I have taken.


Mr. Blaikie:: They are ignoring you.


Marc Lalonde: Also, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs indicated yesterday some of the views that the Government holds in this regard. I would think, indeed 1 said, that it seems to me generally a three-month penalty should be enough for any particular institution.
I recognize there have been private contracts entered into by individuals and financial institutions which do not provide for this kind of arrangement. In spite of that fact I have urged and encouraged the institutions to show a little bit more heart, take the present situation into account and try to arrange it so that they can take into account the particular difficulties of individual citizens.


MARGINS BETWEEN LOAN CHARGES AND INTEREST DEPOSIT RATES
Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, in the same spirit, since the Minister has indicated he has taken some steps to bring the problem to the attention of the financial institutions, he will be well aware that the small business sector is the job creating sector in our country right now. He will also be aware that the level of bankruptcies in that sector has increased in the last six months. Will he take the same approach with the financial institutions, especially the chartered banks, in terms of their wide margins between what they pay to their depositors and what they charge to the small business sector? Will he consider that particular difference in interest rates?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, such matters are constantly under review. There is ongoing competition among financial institutions, be they banks, trust companies or others. 1 do not intend to intervene, issue guidelines and decide on a day-to-day basis what interest rates ought to be paid on deposits in banks or financial institutions, and what interest rates the various kinds of loans ought to command. In my opinion, we should leave the market free to operate and promote as much competition as possible among those institutions. For instance, as a Government we have decided to open Canada's market to foreign banks and to widen the field of activities of the various financial institutions with a view to encouraging and promoting competition.
Inasmuch as possible, we have to let markets operate freely and stop expecting that day in and day out the Government or the Opposition will decide what interest rates financial institutions should charge. In my opinion, it stands to reason that the best way to help Canadian consumers is to encourage and promote competition.


CROWN CORPORATIONS
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue, who apologizes or speaks for the Minister of State for Social Development in the other place with respect to social causes for people who own large executive jets manufactured by Canadair. The Minister will know that yesterday a further subsidy of $240 million was approved for those who buy these jets. In view of the fact that the company cannot make the jets for what the jets are worth on the marketplace, why is it part of the social policy of the Government to manufacture executive jet aircraft to be sold to wealthy companies, individuals, and Governments, for the care of the executive personnel in the country?


Marc Lalonde: You've got to be kidding.


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, it was rather disappointing to hear the Hon. Member, who sees himself as something of a financial expert in his party, when he made such incredible statements in his introductory remarks. If the Hon. Member had some basic knowledge of the principles of economics, he would realize how important it is to Canada and Canadians to be represented in the aeronautics field. Partisan though he may be, the Hon. Member should at least have the sense to realize that by developing an aircraft like the Challenger, we have taken our place, as a country, in the advanced technology field of aeronautics, and in doing so, there is a price to pay. Some countries bury such costs in their defence expenditures, while others use their Government airlines for the same purpose. Here in Canada, the books are open to public scrutiny, and we are not afraid to reveal the cost of developing this kind of program which will give Canadians a share of the action in a very important field of technology. We have an aircraft we managed to develop ourselves, and Canadians have this knowhow because the present Government had the courage to go ahead with the program instead of being afraid to act, like a Government not unknown to the Hon. Member which-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please!
June 15, 1983


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Donald Alex Blenkarn: Madam Speaker, the apologies are ridiculous. The Minister will know that as of December 20, last year, there were only 11 Canadair aircraft operated in Canada, nine of them by the Government or the Government's agencies, one by Canadair's banker, and one by a private individual, the only people who would buy them, even though they were the third largest consumers of aircraft. No one wants the aircraft. It is not all that good.


Some Hon. Members:: Not true.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Why does the Government not tell us the truth? Why does it not let the committee find out about the waste, the extravagance, and the losses that the Government is burying in that aircraft company?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Lawrence:: Yes or no.


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, unlike what the Hon. Member is alleging, the Government has not been afraid of the facts. We have analyzed the situation of Canadair. The Hon. Member was present when the results of that analysis were explained to Members of certain Committees of this House. The Hon. Member knows we have an excellent aircraft: the Challenger. We have had production and marketing problems, and we have a company that is preparing a financial and commercial recovery program for Canadair. We are going to develop new techniques for marketing the Challenger, and if the Hon. Member lacks the courage to meet this challenge, I am sure that we do have that courage and that we will succeed in marketing this outstanding aircraft.


SUPPLY AND SERVICES
Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon West):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Supply and Services. The Minister's Department claims to have a regional procurement program, and the Minister pays lip service with respect to purchasing contracts being spread throughout Canada. However, the figures show that central Canada received 77 per cent of all DSS contracts, while the West received only 15 per cent and the Atlantic Provinces received only 7 per cent. How can the Minister justify this discrimination within his own Department against people who are working and living in eastern and western Canada?


Allan Frederick Lawrence: That's where the taxes come from.
Oral Questions


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: Madam Speaker, the hon. gentleman points to figures with which we are indeed very concerned and of which we are very conscious.
1 want to identify, for the hon. gentleman, that we are making every effort in order to-


Mr. Lewis:: I'll bet you are.


Mr. Blais:: -send into all the regions of the country as much of the Government's business as is possible. However, we do face some difficulty, namely, that in western Canada-


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: You don't have any seats.


Jean-Jacques Blais: -there is not the sort of concentration of manufacturing that there is in central Canada.


An Hon. Member:: Concentration of Liberals.


Jean-Jacques Blais: I might indicate to the hon. gentleman that one of the reasons for the Crow changes is exactly to encourage that sort of industrialization of western Canada-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Jacques Blais: -which the hon. gentleman, I am sure, wishes.


POLICY ON AWARDING CONTRACTS
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, out of $5 billion worth of contracts from the Department, Saskatchewan receives 1 per cent. I will give the Minister an example. Westank-Willock of Regina has found it impossible to obtain contracts from DSS for hopper cars or design engineering for the Department of National Defence's medium logistic wheeled vehicle. The Minister has written to the company to say that, because it does not operate somewhere near Ottawa, it is too inconvenient to carry on and to receive a tender.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: In light of these facts, and the policy apparently set by the Minister that if one does not carry on one's business somewhere near Ottawa one will not receive a contract, how can he justify this inherent unfairness? How can he justify this blatant discrimination against people who live and should legitimately expect to do business in eastern and western Canada?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: Madam Speaker, the hon. gentleman should be aware of the fact that there is a company called SCD Systems in Saskatoon, with which he is undoubtedly familiar, which has indeed received a great deal of support from the Government of Canada.


Mr. Epp:: One per cent.


Jean-Jacques Blais: It has been provided with contracts because we have indeed been serious about increasing the level of industrialization of western Canada, including Saskatchewan. I would

June 15, 1983
Oral Questions
be very pleased to provide the hon. gentleman with the comments that I made at that particular time.
In terms of the case which he has identified, I am very sensitive to that case as well, as I have indicated in the correspondence.


Mr. Wilson:: One per cent.


Jean-Jacques Blais: However, under the circumstances related to that specific case, there was very little that I could do to change the decision that I actually made.


FISHERIES
Mr. Robert Daudlin (Essex-Kent):: Madam Speaker, through you I would ask a question of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. The Minister will know that through the unfortunate linkage in the Japanese press of erroneous information on dioxin in the Great Lakes and the freshwater smelt fishery, there have been bans placed in Japan on that particular fish. That ban has, in fact, resulted in substantial lay-offs in the Port of Wheatley and other ports on Lake Erie. Would the Minister indicate to the House what steps are being taken by himself and the Government to overcome this erroneous information, to assure the Japanese that there is not the linkage which has been made by the press in that country and that, in fact, normal trade relations in this commodity can be restored?


Hon. Pierre De Bane (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Madam Speaker, may I first say that we do appreciate the importance of the Japanese market to the Canadian fishery. At the moment, it represents the third market for Canada. Second, there were articles in the United States about contamination by dioxin in the Saguenay Bay in Michigan, that were reported in the Japanese press. Third, the Hon. Member is right that there was some confusion in Japan that there could be linkage with the smelt from that area exported from Canada.
I would like to give the firmest assurances that we have tested the smelt exported to Japan from Canada and not a trace of dioxin has been found. I have sent a telex to all interested parties in Japan through our Embassy to tell them the actual fact that, if there is any dioxin in the United States,
I can give the most positive and firm assurances that there is absolutely no dioxin in our own smelts that are exported from our own freshwater fishery to Japan.


VIA RAIL
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Madam Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Transport another question that "smelt" and still does. It takes 23 more hours to travel by rail from Montreal to Vancouver now than it did in 1966. Would the Minister advise the House about the plan to discontinue the Transcontinental passenger train to and from Montreal and transfer the original destination and departure point of the Transcontinental to Toronto, which would mean that people from Montreal would have to change trains and those east of Montreal would no longer be able to board the Transcontinental in Montreal?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, VIA is presently studying many ideas that are on the table. This particular one has not been accepted by the Government. In due course I will inform my hon. friend if it ever is accepted. My hon. friend should not forget the fact that the subsidy to VIA has risen to $750 million a year. I think it is normal for VIA to try to do everything to save money while providing adequate service.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The money that the Minister puts up, he gives to the CPR and CNR for exorbitant charges to handle the VIA passenger trains.


DINING AND SLEEPING CAR SERVICE
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Madam Speaker, since the Minister cut the National Capital, the cities of Melville, Jasper, and Edmonton out of the Transcontinental service in 1981, would he confirm that it is the intention of the Government to fractionalize Transcontinental service so that it is intercity, in order not to have to order new Transcontinental passenger equipment and to discontinue dining and sleeping car accommodation on the Transcontinental trains?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I recall vividly that at the time of the 20 per cent cut I indicated that the Transcontinental was maintained. The second Transcontinental going north was divided into a number of intercity service. That is still the situation now.
My hon. friend is possibly referring to the fact that VIA is looking at other arrangements that might resurrect the route between Winnipeg and Saskatoon. But that is one of the many plans that are being looked at now.


SUPPLY AND SERVICES
Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. He will no doubt recall that on April 29, as reported at page
June 15, 1983

24992 of Hansard, he said this when speaking of the frigate program:
-the responsibility of my Department was to make a very objective evaluation of the proposals from both contractors and then present them to the Cabinet Committee at the appropriate time. I hope to be able to do that in the middle of the month of May-
He has told us outside this Chamber that the bids are still under negotiation with the contractors. Could he explain to us this misleading of the House inadvertent as it might have been?
[ Translation]


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: Madam Speaker, I am happy to tell the Hon. Member that the documents are indeed before the Cabinet and that this whole matter is being looked into very thoroughly. We hope to be able to announce a decision within the timeframe set by the Minister of National Defence and myself.


TIMING OF DECISION ON CONTRACT
Allan Bruce McKinnon: Madam Speaker, it is rather unusual to hear from one Minister why another Minister has misled the House.
On May 9, as reported at page 25282 of Hansard, the Minister of Supply and Services said:
We shall be in a position to announce the name of the company that will be awarded the contract by the end of June.
Does he still hope to meet that deadline? While he is on his feet, will he tell us if he has accepted the Conservative suggestion that the shipbuilding itself should be done in shipyards in different regions of this great country?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: Madam Speaker, what the Minister of National Defence and myself have said is consistent and realistic. We indeed hope to have made our decision by the end of June or the beginning of July. I have certainly heard the representations made by the Hon. member for Victoria, NPD Members as well as Members on this side of the House concerning regional distribution. This is one of the issues which must be considered before we make the decision which will be announced, as I have already said, within the timeframe we had determined.


REQUEST THAT DECISION BE ANNOUNCED IN PARLIAMENT
Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the same Minister. If 1 understood him correctly, he said that the decision would be made before the end of June, or certainly in July. Would the Minister give the assurance to the House that the decision will be announced in the House before we adjourn for the summer?
Oral Questions


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: Madam Speaker, as the Hon. Member can imagine, there are some uncertainties and 1 can not give him that assurance. We shall certainly try to give our answer before the summer adjournment.


FORESTRY
Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for forestry. On May 31 and June 7 the committee of this House relating to forestry received some witnesses from the forest industry of New Brunswick. In view of the importance of the representations which they made and the message and information which they carried, would the Minister have the House extend a reference to the committee on forestry to include the study of research requirements, forest management, pest disease and fire control, reforestation, and viable harvest allowances for the forest industry of Canada?


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of the Environment):: Madam Speaker, I did not quite catch the beginning of the Hon. Member's question. I understand that he is asking my views about a special reference to the parliamentary committee for an examination of the forest industry across Canada. If that is the case, I will certainly take his representation seriously and reflect upon it.


REQUEST FOR EARLY REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Fred Alward McCain: In view of the information which we received indicating that in the little corner of southwestern New Brunswick we have lost ten million cords of wood for harvest, which represents a ten-year supply of wood for the industry in southwestern New Brunswick, it becomes imperative that this reference be made promptly. Another representation was that a forest management policy to replace this wood would take 50 years. Would the Minister reconsider the sort of procrastinating answer which he gave, and in fact authorize this reference between now and the closing of the House so that the committee might get to work and have a report in December or January at the latest, so that we could start to plan forest management early next year?


John (Moody) Roberts: Madam Speaker, it is not really a question of procrastination. I am not sure if the Hon. Member was present, but I think that he knows that the House very recently had an entire day's debate on the forest industry in Canada. Maybe he missed that debate. I am not sure.

June 15, 1983
Oral Questions
A variety of proposals has been made and actions have been taken in a continuing way over the past three years. For instance, 1 recommend to the Hon. Member the forest strategy paper which was published two years ago and the proposals for agreements on reforestation which presented to provincial Governments last September. We are in the process of negotiating reforestation agreements with each of the Provinces. We signed one with Nova Scotia. One is ready to be signed with Prince Edward Island. We are anxious to move ahead on signing one with New Brunswick. He will be aware of recent actions which we had taken in New Brunswick for the strengthening of the Maritime Forest Centre, including the federal Government's research centre as a key part of it.
A great deal of action is taking place. Objectives have been established and proposals for implementation have been presented. Programs are under way in every major area of deficiency which we described three years ago in the preparatory work for that action.
It is not a question of procrastination. An enormous amount of work is being done, and is generally being done with the approbation of Hon. Members on all sides of the House. I would like to reflect a little on exactly what are the purposes of such a committee inquiry to see whether this is proper timing in relation to that, or whether some other timing would be more appropriate.


SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the minister of State for Economic Development. I want to return to the Nabu question, because technological change is coming on more rapidly than all of us really thought. I would like to refer to a news story, and then ask the Minister a question. In part the article reads:
-Nabu announced it was laying off more than half its 225 manufacturing employees and in future would locate as much of its manufacturing operations as possible in low-wage countries.
With the Minister's well known Pollyanna views about high technological change, and considering that the Government still has an obligation to Nabu workers, and that this is a company to which it indirectly gave $125 million, would the Minister confirm that the Government obtained from Nabu job security and job guarantees for those workers in return for giving the company so much money?


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Minister of State for Economic Development and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Madam Speaker, of course the issue of Nabu is well known going back to the transaction undertaken with the Government of Canada. I am not sure what were the specific terms and conditions of that agreement.
With respect to the specific concerns for unemployed workers, the Government has those same concerns for any company which rationalizes its processes in the manner that we see happening at Nabu. The Hon. Member is well aware of the kinds of steps which have been taken in all sectors to make provision in such circumstances. The same programs will apply in this case. Certainly I will look into the issue of Nabu, given the historical relationship of the company with the Government because of the transaction to which reference was made earlier during Question Period.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: The Minister knows that he has in his back pocket a departmental study which shows that technology will not create enough jobs to replace those that evaporate, unless we change the way technological development is happening in Canada.


REQUEST THAT COMMITTEE CONSIDER TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, would the minister agree that the jobs in this industry are very volatile? We can look at the example of Mitel yesterday and its loss of a contract.
Also, would the minister agree with the views which were expressed a few years ago by the late distinguished Senator Lamontagne, that we require a permanent committee of the House to study technological change and that we should get going on that committee? Why is the Government dragging its heels on this important matter when things are happening all around it affecting Canadian workers who are losing out as a result of technological change?


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, certainly the Government is not dragging its heels on this issue. I do not think the striking of a standing committee will solve the kinds of problem the Hon. Member raised, although I would agree, as I said in hearings before the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates, that indeed such a committee could be valuable in terms of making Canadians aware of the problems and also the opportunities which will arise.
To return to the so-called "study", it was not a study. I have made that point before. It was a document designed to provoke discussing among my colleagues. Obviously the leaking of that document has provoked a good deal of discussion. That is very healthy. The Hon. Member might have noted the study by Informetrica which was published last week that, in turn, with respect to its economic models contradicted the statistics that were put forward and indeed took the view that many more jobs will be created by virtue of these new technologies than there will be jobs lost.
I am not suggesting that anyone knows the answer to this question, but to suggest that we are dragging our heels, when there are studies in almost every Department, when we are meeting with all interested groups, and when the Minister of
June 15, 1983

Finance indicated that he was establishing a productivity centre to look at these very issues the Hon. Member is addressing which are being negotiated currently by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and by the Minister-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for Canada Post. Through its postmasters Canada Post is still selling advertising and producing flyers which are then distributed through the mails in direct competition with and threatening the very lifeblood of small weekly newspapers. Two weeks ago the Minister said that he would look into this deplorable situation. Has the Minister looked into it, and what are the results?

Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): After the question was put to me, Madam Speaker, I conveyed those remarks to the Canada Post Corporation Chairman who told me he would get in touch with the Hon. Member who raised the question so as to give him an explanation. I will make sure that the Hon. Member who is asking the same question gets an explanation from the Canada Post Corporation Chairman.


ROLE OF POSTMASTERS
Jack Wendele Shields: Madam Speaker, as yet the director of Canada Post has not been in touch, so I will ask the Minister one more question. Does he not recognize that if Canada Post is given the mandate to solicit advertising, produce flyers and distribute them, he is putting every postmaster in the country in a conflict of interest position because they, in turn, have the distribution of the local weeklies? They can throw the local weeklies in a corner and hold them back from delivery so that their advertisements go out first. Does the Minister not recognize the very dangerous precedent which he is setting by using postmasters in direct competition with weekly newspapers?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Madam Speaker, I believe the Hon. Member has read the same article that 1 read outlining the possibility of a conflict of interest. Indeed I will review the situation and discuss it with the officials of the Canada Post Corporation to find out whether or not postmasters are in a conflict of interest position. On the surface I do not think they are, but I would like to look at it in more depth and report back to the House of Commons.
Oral Questions METRIC CONVERSION


MEASUREMENT OF FLOOR COVERING-REQUEST THAT ORDER IN COUNCIL BE RESCINDED
William Henry (Bill) Domm: Madam Speaker, my information is good news. It has been brought to my attention that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, to whom my question is directed, has announced that the Metric Commission has walked its last kilometre.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Given the fact that there is an Order in Council which indicates, "imperial units of measurement shall not be used in any advertising of floor coverings in Canada after January 1, 1981", would the Minister kindly put this Order in Council in place and rescind it, since carpet retailers across Canada, such as Eaton's, Sears, The Bay, retailers in the cities of Vancouver and Richmond, are all using imperial measurement in the advertising of their floor coverings?

Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Madam Speaker, once again the Hon. Member is turning his dreams into reality. He has his own very peculiar way of presenting facts to the House, but they do not necessarily reflect reality. I might suggest to him that his double question or rather his two suggestions are quite besides the point and he ought to keep up with the facts.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: I am sure the people across Canada have grown to respect and trust the word of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.


SALE OF GASOLINE BY THE GALLON
William Henry (Bill) Domm: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. Would he advise the House and his colleagues why in December, 1982, he had a press conference at which time he announced that if the 37 Members of Parliament were to open a service station and sell by the gallon and the litre, he would prosecute? Why has the Minister not prosecuted?
Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Madam Speaker, I know that the Hon. Member can hardly wait to be hauled into court. I would not want to disappoint him, but I am convinced that the officials of my own Department and the Department of Justice who are looking into this case will straighten him out in due time. Anxious as he is about this issue, perhaps I should point out to the Hon. Member that his insistence on reopening the issue

June 15, 1983
Extension of Hours
leads me to believe that business at his service station is probably not as good as he expected and he is advertising to attract customers.


PETITIONS
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petition presented by the Hon. Member for Vancou-ver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) on Tuesday, June 14, 1983 meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, in accordance with Standing Order 9, I move:
That, commencing Thursday, June 16, 1983 up to and including June 30, 1983, the House shall continue to sit beyond 6,00 p.m., and shall adjourn at 11.00 p.m., on every sitting day provided for in the Standing Orders with the exception of Fridays and days reserved for Private Members' Business.
The motion is seconded by the Hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde).


Madam Speaker:: Is the House-


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, in speaking to this motion to extend the sitting hours, we note that it comes under Standing Order 9(1), a new Standing Order that was adopted as a result of the-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Did the Hon. Minister asked to be recognized right after he moved his motion? I did not see him rise.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, out of courtesy to the Chair, I was going to let you finish your sentence. You were asking: Is the House . . . and I did not want to interrupt, but I do have something to say. However, if you would rather not recognize me, I have no objection to giving my colleagues a chance to speak.


Madam Speaker:: No, that was not my intention. I was about to put the motion to the House, and I thought the Hon. Member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis) was rising on a point of order. I therefore interrupted the proceedings. But I was about to say: Is the House prepared to adopt this motion?


Mr. Deans:: No.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, the motion is an important one, and I realize that the debate has started.


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, recognizing that the procedure is quite different from any procedure previously used, and having looked at a similar situation that arose under a different motion some time ago, I would move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young):
That we proceed to the Orders of the Day.


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member was recognized on a point of order quite clearly. He knows that in order to make a motion to proceed to the Orders of the Day he must have the floor legitimately. He did rise on a point of order, so a motion to proceed to the Orders of the Day is not acceptable at this particular time.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, as you can see, the debate has started. I wish to speak to the motion. If the Hon. Member insists-


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would draw to your attention that on a day about three weeks ago the Chair, in ruling on the appropriateness of rising to move a motion of this type, used as a precedent the example of my colleague from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) rising on November 13, 1970, as reported at page 1138 of Hansard. The Hon. Member rose on a point of order and said:
Arising out of the discussion and of the whole situation, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Comox-Alberni, that the House now proceed to Orders of the Day.
That was the precise reference used by this Speaker to rule me out of order some three weeks ago when I rose to argue the inappropriateness of the Government House Leader moving that precise motion to go to the Orders of the Day during the proceedings then under way, which at that time was the reading of petitions. When I brought to the attention of the Chair that the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre had risen on a point of order and moved that motion, the Chair indicated that that was an appropriate way to do it and used that as the precedent. Having used it as a precedent, the Chair can hardly now turn around and say that I may not now do what the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre did, which was the very precedent on which the Speaker hinged her ruling of some three weeks ago.


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member is quite wrong. The two situations are not at all analogous. The Hon. Member is now discussing a time at which a similar motion was presented. I just made remarks to the Hon. Member about the way in which he proposed his motion. The Hon. Member may not on a point of order proceed to Orders of the Day because he is, in a sense, taking the floor illegitimately to do something that the Chair is not legitimately aware will be coming up. Therefore, the Hon. Member is out of order because of the fact that he
June 15, 1983

rose on a point of order to propose his motion to proceed to Orders of the Day.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, 1 would like to say a few words in support of this motion. If the Leader of the New Democratic Party . . . Madam Speaker-


Ian Deans: I rise on a point of order.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: Does the Hon. Member have a new point of order? If so I can hear him, but I have already ruled on his first point of order.


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, I want to ask if the ruling of the Chair is intended to indicate that one may not move a motion on a point of order. If so, let me refer the Chair to May 7, 1979, page 1049 of Hansard, when the President of the Privy Council rose on a point of order to move a motion. The Speaker of the day ruled that there were occasions when it was appropriate to rise on a point of order in order to move a motion. In fact, there were certain motions that could only be moved on a point of order and this happens to be one of those motions. I suggest to the Chair that there is no other way to stop this Government from overriding the Opposition than to rise on a point of order and to move as I did.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I remember very clearly the occurrence in 1979 to which the Hon. Member was referring. At the time, there was a debate on whether or not the Social Credit Party had been recognized. The Speaker at the time, intending to recognize one Member, actually recognized another Member. I intervened, being in the Opposition at the time, to move that another Member be recognized, under the provisions of Standing Order 29-that is the old numbering, I do not know which Standing Order it is now. The Speaker refused to recognize me on a point of order so that I could move to have another Member recognized. It was not until the next day, after listening to my arguments, that the Speaker acknowledged that there was practically no other way to be recognized in order to interrupt one Member and have another Member recognized.
That was a very specific situation, and at the time, if I remember correctly, the Speaker said that it would have been better if I had indicated, as soon as I rose on a point of order, that I was rising on a point of order under the provisions of Standing Order 29 or 26-whatever, I think it is 29.
Therefore, in the circumstances, what the Hon. Member is saying is incorrect. This was a very specific case where, in fact, I was not recognized, and in which the Speaker told me, after
Extension of Hours
the fact, that I was right and said that I should have specified that I was rising under Standing Order 29.
Finally, in answer to the point raised by the Hon. Member, perhaps I may refer the House to Beauchesne's, Fifth Edition, Citation 234, paragraph 2-

A Member cannot rise on a point of order to move a motion.


Madam Speaker:: The circumstances of the precedent as described by the Hon. President of the Privy Council are absolutely correct. The situation is entirely different from the one we are discussing today. The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) is certainly out of order. He cannot move a motion to proceed to Orders of the Day by rising on a point of order. That is clearly against the Standing Orders, and that is my final decision.


Yvon Pinard: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.
I would like to speak briefly to the motion I moved earlier, to extend sitting hours between now and the end of June.
It should be understood that this motion is being moved, and I may say Hon. Members are aware of this, pursuant to the new Standing Orders of the House, as part of our experiment in parliamentary reform.
The basis for the motion is as follows: We already know that under the new Standing Orders, the House is to adjourn on June 30. We now have a set parliamentary calendar, and on June 30, the House will have no alternative but to adjourn until September 12 of this year. However, since the Government has traditionally been able to take advantage of part of the summer to wind up its legislative business, the Members of the Special Committee on Parliamentary Reform suggested, with the unanimous consent of the Members on both sides of the House, that a Member, and not necessarily the President of the Privy Council or the Government House Leader, be allowed to move a motion to extend sitting hours during the last two weeks or so of the month of June.
That is exactly what we are doing today. There are several other bills which we would like to get adopted before we adjourn, and we feel that by extending the regular sitting hours for a few days and with the good will of both sides of the House, we can agree to pass a reasonable number of bills. We may then go back to our constituencies and tell our constituents that we have all helped to make Parliament more productive within the framework of our parliamentary reform.
Mr. Speaker, that is the spirit of this motion. What it says in fact is that we ask that, instead of adjourning at 6 o'clock, the House adjourn at 11 o'clock between now and June 30 inclusively. This means that we shall be sitting between 6 o'clock and 11 o'clock, or five hours more than usual on each regular sitting day except Friday, of which there is only one remaining before the end of June since the last two Fridays are legal

June 15, 1983
Extension of Hours
holidays, and except on the days when we deal with private members' business. Normally, we do this on Wednesdays, but we have already had discussions on this subject, and while no decision has yet been reached, it seems that we may yet agree to switch the proceedings of Thursdays and Wednesdays for the next two weeks, so that all Hon. Members may leave as early as possible the day before St. John the Baptist Day and Canada Day. I hope that such an agreement can be reached later today or in the next few days.
In the meantime, I could only suggest that our sitting hours be extended every day except on private members' days and this coming Friday, the only one remaining, and we have already informed the Opposition House leaders of the business we would like to deal with on that day.
Mr. Speaker, I hope that the Hon. Members will manage to tone down their animosity towards a number of bills and ensure that our parliamentary reform is success. It is the first time in our history that this type of motion is introduced to extend the sittings hours on seven days, for all practical purposes, which means that we are simply asking Parliament to give us 35 additional hours. It is the First time that we move such a motion, and it would be unfortunate if Members were to oppose it simply to show that they object to some piece of legislation or to try to score political points. Of course, Members are entitled to debate the motion as provided under Standing Order 9. My motion can be debated for two hours, and I do not intend to go on much longer so that as many Members as possible can express their views, but I can understand that some may not agree with the hours I have suggested.
However, I want to point out that I had the courtesy to consult beforehand the House leaders of the Parties opposite well before their caucus meetings this morning, but we could not come to an agreement, which is why I now have to introduce this motion. I find it quite normal that the motion should now be debated for a maximum of two hours provided under our rules and that it then be voted on. Those are the rules of the game, but what I would not like to see, however, would be a filibuster such as my friend the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) and House leader of the New Democratic Party had in mind when he suggested that we proceed with the orders of the day. I find it rather difficult to understand why he is doing that. He was a member of the committee on parliamentary reform. Indeed he was one of those who suggested that, in exchange for guaranteeing two summer months to Hon. Members who want to be in their ridings, we would allow the House to sit longer hours during the last two weeks of June. He was one of the strong advocates of that reform, and now he is trying to prevent debate on the motion, he does not want longer hours until the end of June. I wish he would explain his position clearly. If he tells me that it is because he objects to a particular Bill, I can only answer that this is not the time to raise the issue. I think it would be
unfair to the Canadian people to prevent Parliament from sitting longer hours until the end of the month simply because the honourable gentleman does not fancy a piece of legislation.
I think that instead of cawing like crows, his colleagues should endorse our motion and commend us for enabling Parliament to sit longer hours to debate as many Bills as possible.
In short, Mr. Speaker, we are proposing that Members opposite have more opportunities for debate and, to my mind, it is ridiculous for a Member to try to thwart us simply because he is against a legislative measure. That flies in the face of our democratic system. I agree that he does not have to support all Government measures. Their duty is to debate in the House and vote against Government Bills, certainly not to bring Parliament to a standstill and particularly not to undermine our credibility as we try to reform Parliament. I deplore that attitude and I hope the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain will reconsider his position and realize that he ought not to jeopardize our parliamentary reform because some of his colleagues do not agree with a Government measure.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I am proposing that we sit 35 extra hours from now until the end of the month, and there is a possibility that we might agree to negotiate with the opposition parties to reduce those hours should we dispose more rapidly of a series of legislative measures on which the House has already begun debate and with which the Government would be satisfied. It is quite reasonable to expect that between now an the end of June we might reach agreement on a series of Bills acceptable to both sides of the House, and perhaps that might enable the House to adjourn earlier than 11 p.m. on those days when we propose an extension of the sittings. That is a possibility. I want to state clearly to our colleagues opposite that we on this side are prepared to renegotiate, but unless we reach an agreement today-keeping in mind that under the Standing Orders of the House this motion must be disposed of in one day, the tenth sitting day before June 30-I do not have any choice but to introduce a motion indicating specific and definite hours. Still, we will remain flexible until the end of June, assuming of course that the Opposition is reasonable.


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


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I want to point out that when I rose to my feet after the Government House Leader announced the motion, I wanted to be sure to get on to debate and not have the motion go through as quickly as the Government wants all its Bills to go through-without any debate whatsoever-so I was willing to relinquish the floor to the Government House Leader so he might put the Government's position forward.
June 15, 1983

The motion to extend the hours comes under the new Provisional Standing Orders of the House and was adopted pursuant to a very important parliamentary committee which took a hard look at the way the House operates. It proposed a series of new Standing Orders designed to have the House operate in the way that Members of Parliament, not the Cabinet, not the Prime Minister's office and not the Privy Council office, want it to operate.
Knowing that this Standing Order was available and knowing that the Government's legislative program was stalled, 1 am surprised that we only received the text of the motion today at about ten minutes to three. This has caused some difficulty but we are prepared to deal with it.
The Government House Leader stated that the Government is prepared to negotiate, but, Mr. Speaker, we in this Party are not prepared to get into negotiations on the floor of the House. Surely the negotiations could take place daily between representatives of Ministers so that the business of the House could flow more smoothly than it has today. It would have been possible to circumvent the motion in the manner suggested by the New Democratic Party perhaps, but on this side we feel that would be contrary to the spirit of parliamentary reform and the way the House should operate.
What is contrary to the way the House should operate is for the Government to lay down the last Opposition day so that Canadair and other problems which might be examined when we are examining the estimates, which might be objected to, which might be brought forward, which might be exposed to the people, are cut off by the Government. What is contrary to the spirit of the way the House should operate is when Ministers make statements to the media instead of making them on motions in the House. I do not object to Ministers dealing with the media but surely they should deal with the House of Commons first. We feel that this is the place where major issues of the day should be debated. The Crow should have been debated here first and not through a series of press releases issued over the last two and half years.
I want to point out to the Government House Leader, to the New Democratic Party and to Canadians that we are here as the Opposition to do business. We are here to debate; we are here to look at Government Bills and there are some important Bills that we would like to see passed. Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, the Progressive Conservative Party, wants the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act passed. We want that Act to come forward so that where improvements in the fishery in Canada are needed, they can go forward. We want Bill C-148, amendments to the Farm Improvement Loans Act (No. 2), brought forward for debate. Bill C-154 which provides for the extension of DREE is even more urgent. The Government House Leader knows how important this is to areas of the country that desperately need the benefits that flow from it. I should tell the Government House Leader unequivocally that we are not going to fall into the trap of having a new Bill coming forward from the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce which is designed to eliminate DREE so that the Government can porkbarrel money under that new program to
Extension of Hours
Grit ridings only. The beauty of the DREE legislation is that it still covers some Conservative ridings and we feel that our people should get the money. So we are not going to fall into that trap.
There is no way that we are going to allow the RDIA Bill to be pushed through as it stands, especially when its employment factors are all out of whack. We desperately want the Canada Student Loans Act to be passed so that students who presently cannot find jobs due to the Liberal mismanagement of the economy can get the loans they need to continue their education.
On Monday the Government laid on the Order Paper the aboriginal rights resolution. Our caucus has discussed this and wants it to go ahead. We feel that it should be debated in the House and we want to see it go to committee.
Bill C-163, the Canadian Aviation Safety Board legislation, is very important. It results from the Dubin Commission report and will make it safer for people to fly.
We have indicated our displeasure with Bill C-152 to reorganize the Government but we have never said that we would stall it. A lot of things have to be improved. No one on this side of the House wants to see a senator made a parliamentary secretary. Good grief, Mr. Speaker, they do little enough as it is for the money they are paid. There is no need to give them a parliamentary secretary's salary as well. That would be an insult to the people of Canada. That part of the Bill will be debated hotly. There are enough parliamentary secretaries in the House who do not know what they are doing, but if they were in the Senate we could not even talk to them.
Bill C-95 deals with sports pools and we are sure that could be dealt with after a reasonable amount of debate.
Each of these items is important to large sectors of the Canadian population. We would be prepared to sit longer hours to make sure that they are dealt with. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, the spirit of the parliamentary reform committee is not always in evidence in the way the Government treats the Opposition. We feel that there should be some protection for the people of Canada who desperately want all that legislation.
On behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party, I move the following amendment to the motion of the Government House Leader:
That the motion be amended by deleting the period after the word "business" and adding the following immediately thereafter:
provided that the sitting hours of the House after 6 p.m. on any day up to and
including June 30, 1983, are used to debate the Government's legislative
program in the following order until such time as each is disposed of:
I make no comment on the order except to say I have seen it before today and I believe it is reasonable. The order is: Item No. 1, Bill C-147, an Act to amend the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act (No. 2), to which I referred earlier. Item No. 2, Bill C-148, an Act to amend the Farm Improvement Loans Act (No. 2). Item 3, Bill C-154, an Act to amend the Regional Development Incentives Act (No. 20). Item 4, Bill C-161, an Act to amend the Canada Student Loans Act (No. 2). Item 5, the aboriginal rights resolution standing on the Order Paper

June 15, 1983
Extension of Hours
under Government Notices of Motions in the name of the Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan). Item 6, Bill C-63, an Act to establish the Canadian Aviation Safety Board and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof. Item 7, Bill C-152, an Act respecting the organization of the Government of Canada-heaven only knows, it needs organization-and matters related or incidental thereto. And Item No. 8, Bill C-95, an Act to provide for government operated pool systems on combinations of athletic contests and events and to amend the Criminal Code and the Income Tax Act.


Yvon Pinard: There is no guarantee that you will pass them.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. The Chair acknowledges receipt of the proposed amendment. I would suggest that the Chair take it under consideration to determine whether or not it is in order, simply because this is the first application of an amendment under the new provisional rules. However, debate should continue as if the motion were in order until a ruling is handed down.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that this is the first time this amendment has been proposed under the new Standing Orders. I would hope that the Chair would look at it in the spirit of the amendment. Also, if there are any technical changes which are required because of the wording of the Government House Leader's motion, if the Table could suggest those, I believe that would be satisfactory to us.
I am sure that the Chair will deal with the amendment in the spirit with which it is brought forward, and that is to deal with the Government's legislation-absolutely to deal with the Government's legislation-and to see if we do not proceed to pass those pieces of legislation. The Government knows where we stand on the Farm Improvement Loans Act.


Yvon Pinard: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I just realized that my hon. colleague wants to go on with his speech. I apologize for interrupting him, but since the Chair wants to look at the admissibility of the amendment, 1 would like an opportunity to argue that it is not admissible. If the Chair would like to hear me after the Hon. Member has finished his speech, fine. If the Chair would like to hear me now, I am willing to argue now.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Chair recognizes that the Hon. President of the Privy Council does wish to address himself to this matter. I believe the most satisfactory way to proceed is to allow the Hon. Member for Simcoe North to complete his remarks. The Chair will then hear any and all Hon. Members who may wish to comment on whether or not the motion is admissible, if that is agreeable.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, why do the Hon. Members not all leave the room and have a meeting?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I cannot understand why the Government House Leader wants to debate the admissibility of an amendment which would further the operation of Government business. I cannot understand why he would want to
debate it because we are trying to facilitate Government business, and that order of legislation, as I suggested earlier, without revealing any confidences, I believe is appropriate. I can assure the Government House Leader that we want to see that legislation go forward and we are doing what we are doing in an effort to assist the Government House Leader. That last comment might be subject to some discussion in my caucus.
I would like to point out that we come here to this House realizing that we are coming toward the end of the session. We appreciate that the work of an Hon. Member of Parliament is not only accomplished in this House but back in his or her riding. We know that valuable input is received by Members of Parliament back in their ridings. We realize that is a part of the job. We in this Party also realize that the job takes place in this House and in the ridings. It may be a little difficult for Hon. Members on the Government side to go back to their ridings, I can appreciate that. It may be that they will want to sit here through July and August rather than go back to their ridings, and I can appreciate that. It is probably pretty hot back in some of their ridings. However, we are prepared to come here and deal with Government business.
Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, we feel that the extended hours, if we are to agree to them, must be handled in a way which treats all of the Government's business seriously and which looks after all of the concerns which those pieces of legislation address. For that reason I would hope that the Government would support our amendment, which is moved in order to facilitate Government business.
I appreciate the opportunity I have had to debate this effort of the Government to extend the hours. However, I put that caveat on it. We feel that the Government must come forward with clean hands on this motion to extend hours. By "coming forward with clean hands", I mean that we must have it treat its legislation in an orderly fashion and deal with the very important items of business which are presently before the House.
[ Translation\


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, if my memory serves me well, section 2002 of the Civil Code provides that good faith must always be presumed and that it is up to the person who alleges bad faith to prove it. That is exactly what the Civil Code says, and I have no intention-I presume that the Hon. Member is acting in good faith, but-

The Hon. Member knows we had a meeting yesterday to discuss the extended hours. He knows that he went to his caucus this morning. He knows that we had a meeting today before Question Period to discuss the extended hours. Why has the Hon. Member waited until he delivers his speech now, without having the courtesy of giving me a copy of his amendment, while I have had the courtesy of giving him a copy of the main motion? Why did he not raise this in our meetings? Why play games?

June 15, 1983

Yes, we are willing to discuss House business. We are willing to discuss the order of business. However, why did he not make any suggestion on how to use the extended hours in our meeting? Never did he make any counter-proposal to the proposals I made. Why wait until we are on the floor of the House to try to negotiate this kind of business? The Hon. Member knows very well that under the Standing Orders it is up to the Government to establish the order of business. 1 will argue later on the admissibility of his amendment. However, 1 accept his good faith.

1 presume that he is acting in good faith.

I would like the Hon. Member to convince me further by telling us why he did not raise this matter earlier when he had full opportunity to raise it with me.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I must express my shock and amazement. You will notice that I referred to the order of the proposals 1 put forward without suggesting where that order was first brought forward. I consider any discussions in meetings of Government House Leaders to be private and I am surprised that the Government House Leader has now revealed to the House of Commons what went on. 1 am sure that my friend, the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans), will share my surprise and concern that we now have our private meetings being brought forward in the House of Commons.
In reply to the question asked as to why the amendment was only received just now, I must say that I received the motion only at ten minutes to three o'clock with the wording on the back of an envelope. 1 do not feel at all embarrassed, Mr. Speaker, since the Government has had three months to prepare the motion. I do not feel at all embarrassed in giving the House Leader the amendment to the motion which I had to meld into the wording of the original motion at 25 minutes after three o'clock.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, the alleged breaking of the secrecy of House Leaders' meetings is not the same as hypocrisy or bad faith. My hon. colleague knows very well that sometimes what is discussed in our meetings has to be made public-at least in our caucus, and therefore it is public. He knows very well that when I ask him to go to his caucus if he wishes and make the proposal of sitting until 11 o'clock at night, giving him the programs suggested to be dealt with until the end of June, that that cannot stay within our meetings. That information must go out. So I am not doing anything wrong. I am just asking him very honestly why did he not negotiate with me the substance of the amendment he has just proposed. He had two opportunities to do that, today and yesterday, i am just testing the good faith of my hon. colleague; I am not accusing him of doing anything wrong.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: I appreciate, Mr. Speaker that the Government House leader is not accusing me of doing anything wrong. I
Extension of Hours
should tell you that yesterday obviously we had to consider the Government House Leader's suggestion. Today I am not so sure we were asked if there was an amendment. In any event, I feel we on this side are completely able to operate as the Opposition must in order to facilitate the business of the House. We have simply taken the Government's legislative program, spelled out how we are prepared to deal with it in the extended hours, and we say to the Government: support our motion and in those extended hours we will work on those Bills.


Mr. Collenette:: Mr. Speaker, I requested a copy of the proposed amendment by the Hon. Member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis) a few moments ago. I was told by the Table that they were unable to give me a copy. I submit that if the Chair is going to entertain arguments as to the admissibility of that amendment, then surely all Members would be entitled to a copy.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The point is well taken. As is obvious, copies are being made and will be distributed immediately.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: My colleagues makes a very interesting point. If that concern is shown for the amendment, surely the same concern should be shown for the motion. We have not had a copy of the motion produced.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is not telling the truth in so far as he is concerned.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Careful.


Yvon Pinard: I saw that he had a copy of the motion before I moved it-


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: I meant the House.


Yvon Pinard: Oh, he is still playing with words.
If you allow me, Mr. Speaker, I would like to illustrate very briefly why from my point of view the amendment proposed by the Hon. Member for Simcoe North is not in accordance with the Standing Orders. The motion deals with, as it must, merely the hours of sitting and not with the legislative program of the Government. Standing Order 9(1) reads;
On the tenth sitting day preceding June 30 a motion to extend the hours of sitting to a specific hour during the last ten sitting days may be proposed, without notice, by any Member during Routine Proceedings.
1 do not think this opens the door to any proposal, whether it is in the main motion or an amendment, concerning the business to be dealt with in those hours. This could be, of course, subject to a House order if a motion was moved under another Standing Order by a Minister of the Crown. But it is spelled out in my motion that I have moved this under Standing Order 9, and all that can be dealt with under that Standing Order is the extension of hours from now until the end of June and nothing else.
The spirit of my argument is also based on Standing Order 22(2), which says very clearly:

June 15, 1983
Extension of Hours
Government's Orders shall be called and considered in such sequence as the Government-
And not the Opposition.
-determines.
We want to keep our freedom to establish the order of business under the Standing Orders in our democratic system because we have the majority in this place and we are the Government. We want, respectfully, to keep the initiative. I think the motion by my hon. colleague goes against the Standing Orders and the spirit of the practices of this House.
I am not saying that 1 am not willing to negotiate with him. 1 indicated that earlier. His suggestions are negotiable. In my questions to him a few moments ago I made it clear that he never saw fit to raise this with me. There is still time to raise it with me for negotiation outside this House. We might come to an agreement. But certainly this does not render his amendment acceptable in my point of view.
Even if I oppose this amendment on the grounds of law, on the grounds of the Standing Orders and the practices and procedures of this place, that does not mean I do not want to negotiate with him and the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) a reasonable time for debating specific measures. As a matter of fact, the Hon. Member and his colleague in the NDP submitted to their caucus suggestions I made in relation to different Bills on the Order Paper. I think this discussion should go on in a private meeting, not on the floor of the House, by surprise, using an amendment.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, as to the acceptability of the motion, I am sure the Chair will appreciate that this is the first time this particular Standing Order has been brought into play. The Government House Leader is trying to say that because the Standing Order does not make any references to legislation we cannot include some specificity as to which way Government legislation is dealt with. I think that argument falls on its face. Just because it does not say that does not mean we are precluded form amending the motion in a way so as specifically to say how those extended hours are to be used. It is not precluded in the actual Standing Order.
The second point bears on the spirit of what we are trying to do, which is to say to the Government: this is your legislation. We did not put in that motion any of the many things we might have wanted, such as the property rights amendment which the Government refuses to bring forward. We took the Government's legislation and said we are prepared to deal with it in this way. Instead of rejecting it out of hand on a technicality, I am surprised the Government House Leader does not want to support our motion in the spirit of parliamentary reform and in an effort to have the Government's legislation dealt with.
I suggest to the Chair that Standing Order 9 does not preclude our spelling out by way of amendment how the extended hours are to be used. In breaking this new ground I am sure the Chair will want to take that into consideration. If we are to extend hours, surely there should be an amendment allowed to state exactly what the House wants to do in those
hours. It is within the spirit of the rules of this place that we as the Official Opposition, in trying to suggest to the Government how we are prepared to use those extended hours, referred specifically to the Government House Leader's priority list in drafting the list of items we included in our amendment.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, in speaking to the point presently before us, I want to break it into two parts because I think it has to be dealt with as two separate matters.
The first point is whether or not it is appropriate to spell out in the motion to extend the sitting hours the purpose for which that extension is required. I would put through the Chair to the Government House Leader that he surely would not want that the Chair not be allowed to accept a motion which specifically refers to the business to be conducted during a period of extended hours. I am sure there would be times when the Government would want to move an extension for the express purpose of dealing with a particular piece of legislation and no other. So I urge that the Chair not accept the Government House Leader's suggestion that, by virtue of his specifying the business to be considered during the extension, that automatically makes the amendment out of order. If that amendment had come from the Government it would also have to be out of order, based simply on the fact that no reference is made to that in Standing Order 9.
I ask Your Honour to consider the implications of not permitting anyone to include, in any motion to extend the hours under Standing Order 9, any reference to particular legislation with which one wants to deal. I think that would be an error that the Government would come to regret. Perhaps the Government House Leader himself might concede that that kind of ruling would be most restrictive.
I then want to deal with the second matter as to whether it is appropriate for an Hon. Member of the Opposition to move an amendment to a motion put down by the Government to extend the sitting hours, the purpose of the amendment being to specify what should be dealt with during that period. Surely the only thing that an amendment to a motion cannot do is to alter the substance of the motion. It can add to the motion. It can in some instances subtract from the motion. However, it may not alter the substance.
I contend that the motion by the Opposition House Leader does not alter the substance. He is not suggesting for one minute that the extension of hours should not occur, although he may well want to vote against it. He is suggesting what can and should be considered during that period. It is not for the Government House Leader to determine whether that is acceptable or not, nor is it for the Chair. It is for the House of Commons to determine whether that is acceptable or not.
Those pieces of business proposed by the Opposition House Leader are clearly those which stand on the Notice Paper. I betray no confidence in saying that they are also pieces of business which the Government has already presented as its
June 15, 1983

objective in terms of what it would like to deal with between now and the end of June.


Yvon Pinard: Part of it.


Ian Deans: Partly? The Government House Leader interjects "Part of it". He is dreaming in technicolor if he thinks he will get that and something else, I will have you know. However, with that out of way, I will say that the Opposition House Leader is not presenting anything new, is not presenting a demand that the Government introduce something it has not already introduced, is not suggesting that the Government deal with something it has not already indicated a willingness to deal with. He is simply saying that for the purpose of gaining acceptance of the extension of the hours, this business be called in that way, and then acceptance of the extension of the hours will be gained.
1 suggest that it would therefore, in both instances, be ruled admissible as an amendment. It may well be disposed of by the House of Commons. Maybe the Government majority will overrule the wish of the Opposition that the amendment become part of the motion. However, I would urge that the Chair not overrule it. The Chair overrules too damn many things around here for my liking.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Cousineau:: Come on, now!


Ian Deans: I just call them as I see them.
Therefore, I would urge upon the Chair that it see the matter as being two quite separate matters: first, whether it is indeed admissible to direct what should be done during the period of extended hours-and I do not think there is any question in anyone's mind that surely a motion containing reference to the subject matter would be acceptable; second, that it is the prerogative of the House to dispose of the amendment, since the amendment is not technically out of order. It is up to the Government either to accept it with its majority or reject it, as it sees fit.


Mr. Harquail:: Point of order!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Chair recognizes the Hon. Member for Simcoe North on a point of order.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, it has come to my attention, after listening to the remarks of my friend, that the Chair might also wish to consider Standing Order 8 when considering the acceptability of the amendment, since it makes specific reference to an extension of hours, either through the dinner hour or through the evening, for certain purposes. Standing Order 8(4)(a) states:
When the Speaker is in the chair, a Member may propose a motion, without notice, to continue a sitting through a lunch or dinner hour or beyond the ordinary hour of daily adjournment for the purpose of considering a specified item of business or a stage or stages thereof-
Extension of Hours
I submit to the Chair that this Standing Order might be helpful to the Chair in its consideration as to whether or not the amendment which we have submitted, since it refers to the extension of hours and specific items of business, might therefore be acceptable.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, by quoting Standing Order 8(4)(a), the Hon. Member is making my point. It specifies the business to be dealt with, while Standing Order 9 merely deals with sitting hours and not with the kind of business to be conducted during those sitting hours. Standing Order 9 is a new Standing Order dealing with nothing else but the extension of the hours, not with the content of what is to be debated during those hours, while Standing Order 8(4)(a), as quoted by my colleague, specifies an extension of hours during lunch time or at the end of the day provided that the business to be dealt with is a specified item, and that is a different case. It is specified in the Standing Order. But in the present case there is no reference at all in Standing Order 9 to any specified business, and that is exactly my point.


Maurice James Harquail: Mr. Speaker, the reason 1 wanted Your Honour to rule on my point of order at the close of the remarks of the House Leader of the New Democratic Party, the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain, was because of his remark that the Chair over-rules too many damn things around here.


Ian Deans: That's my opinion.


Maurice James Harquail: I am sure the Chair heard what he had to say. In my opinion, he is reflecting on the Chair. When he said that the Chair overrules too many damn things around here, I did not think that that was quite acceptable or conducive to good conduct in the House, to say the very least.


Ian Deans: It may be accurate, however.


Maurice James Harquail: However, I would think that we could at least have your views, Mr. Speaker, as to what your interpretation of his remark was when he said that-


Ian Deans: Listen, don't give him your real opinion.


Maurice James Harquail: -and whether in fact you interpret it as being a reflection on the Chair and, indeed, unacceptable conduct and terminology for the House, especially since he was addressing the Chair.


Ian Deans: Not at all. Even the Speaker believes that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: If the House is ready, we will deal with the point of order on the matter raised by the Hon. Member for Restigouche (Mr. Harquail). There are times when it seems to me that observations made by Hon. Members are best left unremarked upon-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: -and that might include the Chair as well.

June 15, 1983
Extension of Hours


David Michael Collenette: It's a real put down, a gentleman's put down.


Ian Deans: Don't be silly, David.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. The essential argument made by the Hon. Member for Simcoe North is that this new Standing Order 9 ought to be interpreted as broadly as possible. However, if the Standing Order does not prohibit an amendment as to the type of Government business which must be done during an extension of hours, if the Standing Order is silent as to that aspect, then we ought to interpret the generality of our rules as meaning that it is not prohibited; and therein lies the difficulty. It would suggest that under Standing Order 9 Hon. Members other than those on the Government side could decide what the Government business is.


Ian Deans: No, they can propose.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: That, as a general principle, does not appear to be acceptable under our Standing Orders.
Second, I would also refer to the interpretation of Standing Order 9, which speaks in terms of extended hours. An amendment which would order the business of the House during the extended hours seems to me to be one which goes beyond the interpretation and meaning of Standing Order 22 and the matter of the Government having control over the business of the House.
However, it is the argument which was made by the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain which is most telling in one sense, and that is that if the Chair were to interpret Standing Order 9 in such a fashion as to limit the meaning of the Standing Order in the way proposed by the President of the Privy Council, the result would definitely mean that on another occasion when Standing Order 9 is used, if there is a proposal to put certain orders of Government business by the Government, then the Chair would have to be consistent and find that that kind of amendment would not be acceptable, or would not be admissible.
On the ground that the amendment goes beyond the scope of the motion and on the ground that this interpretation and ruling must be extended consistently, regardless of the source of any amendment at any time, the Chair finds that the amendment is out of order.
I do want to underline that that is not strictly an interpretation of Standing Order 9 as it stands but extends also to the general principles of admissibility of an amendment. I refer Hon. Members to Citation 437 of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition. Debate.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, it is nice to get on with this. Needless to say, I have been looking forward to it for days.
At the outset I want to say to the House that the list of legislation put forward by the House Leader of the Official
Opposition, whether in that order or any other order, is acceptable as far as we are concerned. We are quite prepared to deal with and make every effort to pass all of that legislation and more between now and the end of June during the existing sittings of the House and the extended sittings of the House. I have already made that offer and I believe the Government House Leader would acknowledge that I have frequently made that offer to deal with most, if not all, of what is contained in the list that the House Leader for the Official Opposition proposed as an amendment.
Our Party's position is quite simple. We would be quite content to deal with the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act. We would be quite content to deal with and pass the Farm Improvement Loans Act amendment. We would be prepared to deal with the Regional Development Incentives Act. We would be prepared to deal with the Canada Student Loans Act post haste. We would be quite willing and eager to deal with the amendment to the Constitution of Canada if it were dealt with in an orderly and proper process. That amendment deals with aboriginal rights. We will make every effort, with some limited debate in the House, to deal with the resolution that directly deals with those matters to provide an opportunity for some committee work to be done on the amendment since it is, after all, an amendment to Canada's Constitution. We will be quite content to deal with that before the end of June.
At least in its early stages we will deal with the Canadian Aviation Safety Board Bill that has been proposed by the Government. We would be prepared to expedite dealing with that and sending it to committee for careful study. We are in no way opposed to proceeding with the organization of the Government of Canada legislation. We certainly do not have any particular worry about finding an appropriate way to begin to deal with the sports pool legislation that has been sitting on the Notice Paper for some time.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I am sure you will note the degree of co-operation that is just flowing from this side of the House to the Government. There is very little about which we disagree to such a level that we would stand in the way of the orderly dealing with those pieces of legislation.
I want to go even further than that. For instance, consider such a controversial matter as the new security legislation. We are quite content to have the subject matter of that dealt with by a committee. We understand the Government's desire to have public hearings on that subject; therefore we are prepared to deal with that.
We go even further. You would appreciate the amount of co-operation we have extended over the course of the last few months anyway, Mr. Speaker, but we would go even further and be prepared to deal with two-thirds of the proposals put forward for the transportation, shipment and handling of western grain contained in Bill C-155. We would be prepared to deal with the question of the upgrading of the railroads which we understand to be an absolutely necessary act on the part of Canada. We would be prepared to deal with the
June 15, 1983

disposition of the Dominion coal lands. We would be prepared to deal with all of those things and more between now and June 30.
However, we are not prepared to sell out the farmers of western Canada simply to expedite the vacation plans of Members of the House of Commons. I put that to you as clearly as I can. I have made every possible attempt to have the Government recognize the necessity of splitting Bill C-155 which is before us. On behalf of my caucus colleagues I have offered every co-operation in expediting this large and quite diverse range of topics which the Government wants to deal with in the form of legislation. But the Government is bound and determined that it will stuff a changed Crow rate down our throats. We are equally determined that it will not. That is where we are hung up.
The Government knows full well that if that change to the Crow rate receives second reading it will be stuck through the committee with the speed of light while Government Members nod "Aye, ready, aye, ready". It will be brought back to the House of Commons where the Government will bring in time allocation and jam it into law before one can blink an eye. We know that because we have worked with this Government before.
1 suggest to the Conservatives not to be persuaded by all of the Government's promises about giving fair opportunity to the farmers of western Canada to have their say. Do not succumb to the charm of the Government and its House Leader. The Government is not only intent upon imposing this unnecessary hardship on the farmers whom we represent but, strange though it may seem, it is intent on doing that to the farmers whom the Conservatives also represent. It is time they understood that. It is time that the Conservative Members stood up firmly and said, "No, the farmers of western Canada cannot afford to take on that additional burden". It is time that the Conservatives joined in this battle and made it clear to the Government that the changes it is proposing to the Crow rate will make it virtually impossible for western grain farmers to enter into the world markets that are so vital to their survival. In fact, the proposed changes which the Government has put forward will work a terrible hardship on the western economy.
I say to the Conservative Members, the three who are here, that I have never understood how the Conservative Party could get on to its knees so quickly before the Government on this matter. As my colleague says, even their new Leader supports the changes to the Crow, I believe. It tells us something about what his priorities are.
I want to say to the Conservative Members that it is just not enough to say that they have to trust the Government to do things properly. That is not enough. The Liberal Party has never understood western Canada. It does not understand western Canada now. Therefore, how can they put the economy of Canada's Prairies at its mercy with a haste which is almost obscene?
Extension of Hours
The reason we are opposed to extending the hours is not that we do not want to work and deal with the legislation before us. It is because we do not want to facilitate the Government's desire to push through and make law immediately the Bill dealing with exorbitant increases to the Crow rate. We do not want to see it become law. We want to ensure that there is time for sober second thought across the land. We want to ensure that by holding the Bill in the House of Commons the farming community of the West, together with its allies, will have adequate time to reach Government Members when they return to their constituencies. When they get back into their constituencies, they will be hard to reach, but we want to ensure that there is time and an opportunity for western grain farmers and others concerned about the issue to reach Government Members, as they must also reach Tory Members, so that they will accept the fact that a third of the Bill about which we talk will add so much to the burden of costs of farmers in the west and that those changes should not and need not become law.
I know Mr. Speaker studies these matters. He knows as I know that every country against which we compete for the sale of grain in the world subsidizes their grain farmers. It was only months ago that we read that Argentina, as I recall, had eliminated the cost of transportation from grain-growing areas to the port. They eliminated them entirely in order to bring down the price of their product and undercut the Canadian market. When we look at that, when we look at the vast subsidies in the United States for transportation purposes, and when we look at Canada, which is about to add to the costs of farmers who are already having a tough enough time competing, it makes no sense. Because it makes no sense, it therefore must be stopped. Because it must be stopped, we must therefore use every effort available to stop it.
I ask Conservatives, for God's sake, to pluck up their courage, come aboard and join with us in trying to stop this juggernaut from running all over the country and destroying the very soul of the West. I just cannot believe it. Anyway, as I say, we do not want to see the extension of hours-and I supported the motion of the Opposition House Leader-for other than dealing with additional pieces of legislation which the Government brought forward.
Again I say to the Government, with some trepidation because I know what it means, that we will do everything in our power to stop the Crow. We will stop those changes because they are wrong. We will do whatever we must to ensure that they never become law. If it means sitting through July, it means sitting through July. If it means sitting through August, it means sitting through August. If it means sitting until midnight, it means sitting until midnight. If it means holding Government Members here until September, October or November, until farmers have been able to convince them how wrong they are, that is what it means. I assure the House that it will mean that every Liberal will have to be here, every one of them, in order to ensure that the Government gets what it wants, its ill-conceived objectives.

June 15, 1983
Extension of Hours
1 do not think the Government understands the depth of the opposition to this legislation. We can and we will rebuild the railroads. It should be done, not only to move grain to the ports, but to move coal from the coal mines or coal fields of British Columbia to central Canada so that unemployed coal miners will once again be working and we will not have to buy from Ohio and Pennsylvania that which we have in abundance and in better quality in our own country. We need to rebuild the railroads for those purposes.


An Hon. Member:: And cut back on the amount of acid rain.


Ian Deans: As my colleague says, in the process we would cut back on the amount of acid rain from which we suffer because of the much lower sulphur content in British Columbia coal. It is about .02 or something, as against a range of from 2 per cent to 8 per cent in the coal from Ohio and Pennsylvania.
We are really saying that the rebuilding of the railroads has a two-way benefit. There is a benefit going west to the ports and coming east. We should get on with it, but we must not undermine the economic viability of western and prairie Canada in the process. We cannot ask prairie farmers to take on a burden which they frankly cannot afford. We cannot ask them to take on more now. The Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) knows full well the plight of farmers. The markets they are hoping to gain they will not get, if the price per bushel rises in accordance with the new freight rate arrangements proposed by the Government. They are already in a tough squeeze with every other Government in the world subsidizing their grain farmers.
We just cannot afford to let this Bill pass. We cannot afford to let the extended hours go without objection, without attempting to stop it. We cannot afford to let the Bill go. In other words, I am saying that the battle continues, and the battle would be much easier if the Tories would join us, quite frankly. If the Conservatives would join with us in this battle, it would be an easier battle to win. Combined they cannot defeat us.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: We are fussy.


Ian Deans: If every last one of us on this side of the House, all 130-odd of us, decide to stop this in the interests of Canada, then we can stop it. We can all stop it together. But if the Tories bail out and allow them to have their way, then they do so at the expense of the viability of the grain farmers of the West and ultimately at the expense of the economy of the West.
1 heard the Opposition House Leader say that he is fussy. I had not noticed that before; 1 will take his word for it. We are prepared to join forces with the Conservatives, despicable though we find them from time to time. We are prepared to join forces with them on a matter as important as this one. We are prepared to find common ground on a matter as important as this one. We are prepared to suffer that association over a short period of time on a matter as important as this one.
Therefore we suggest to Conservatives to pluck up courage and recognize the harm the Government intends for the people we collectively represent. We suggest the Conservative Party decide once and for all that political expediency is no substitute for good judgment and that good judgment in this case is that whatever must be done to stop these proposed changes must be done by us collectively. Whatever their right-wing ideology demands of them, they must remember that farmers are independent souls, working every day with a lot at stake. They will not find a market for the market they will lose if we allow the Government to raise their costs as it is proposing. I ask them to come with us and fight together in July, August and September to ensure that it does not do this.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, others in this place may say that the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain is lying when he suggests that the PCs are not opposed to the Crow. The people of Canada may suggest that the Hon. Member for Hamilton Moutain is lying when he suggests that the Conservatives are not opposed to the Crow. But I am not prepared to say that the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain is lying when he states that the Progressive Conservatives are not opposed to the Crow. 1 am not prepared to do that. The people of Canada will know it, other Members of the House will know it, but I am not prepared to say that he is lying.


An Hon. Member:: Come on!


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: No, I am not prepared to say that.
I do have a question. The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain suggested that we join in a great show with the NDP. In view of the fact that last evening the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain voted against spending money on many important social items already approved in the budget, how can we count on his knowing what he is doing when it comes time to vote?


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to enter into the low level of debate that the questioner has entered into. Get out of the gutter.
The fact is that the recently elected Leader of the Conservative Party announced not many days ago that he was in favour of changes to the Crow rate. He said, however, that he thought it was being rushed through too quickly. I can only assume that their newly elected Leader speaks for the Conservative Party. For the Hon. Member to infer that I was not telling the truth is objectionable, but expected from him. One would expect him to say something like that in order to deflect those who are watching and listening from the real truth. The real truth is that the Tories sold out on these proposed changes some time ago. Their only interest is in saving face. Our interest is in saving farmers. If you do not believe what I say about the Leader of the Tory Party, read what he said.
June 15, 1983

[Translation}


Mr. Marcel Roy (Laval):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Hon. Member. We are also anxious to know the position and attitude of the Progressive Conservative Government on that important legislation which aims at changing the transportation system in Western Canada.
My question therefore is to the Hon. Member, and I am in total agreement with him concerning what he said about how important it would be for other farm organizations to be heard in committee. I do not understand why there is so much opposition to referring Bill C-155, the grain transportation legislation, to the Standing Committee on Transport, so that if other farm organizations believe they have already expressed their views, they may over the summer, when there is no urgent work to be done, appear before the Transport Committee and make their submissions for and against, and also suggest potential improvements.
1 therefore have difficulty understanding the NDP Members' attitude in their opposition to referring the Bill to the Committee on Transport, being the good democrats that they are, in order that interested groups may appear during the summer season before that Committee to express their views and discuss the whole question, since there will be no urgent work during that period, because during the fall, when proceedings would be very urgent, they would not be free to attend and express their views. This is a very liberal approach, Mr. Speaker, that is the referring of that legislation to the Committee on Transport in order that those groups may express their views during the summer, a relatively quiet period, on matters pertaining to agriculture.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. In most circumstances I would find the Hon. Member's argument acceptable, but there is one point on which he fails. He knows that the farmers of western Canada are in the fields. They will be in their fields between now and the end of October almost continuously. It is not possible for them to take the time from their harvesting or other work that must be done in order to come to Ottawa or, for that matter, to be heard around the country. The difficulty with passing it now is that the hearings will be conducted during the time when the farmers do not have access to the hearing process.
Let me put an alternative. Suppose we stop second reading right now and refer the subject matter to a 20-member special committee which will be sent out across the country and which will report back November 1. That would give the farmers an opportunity to speak and be heard on these important matters. They could offer some input into the final stage of the matter. Would that be acceptable?


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, then the farmer would not be working in the summer because there would be a special committee.
Extension of Hours


Ian Deans: I said if the subject matter was referred now for reporting back later, let us say November 1, it would allow adequate time for the farmers to be heard after they completed the work that must be done on their farms. If that were to be done, we might be prepared to consider such a proposal.


Mr. Towers:: Mr. Speaker, will the House Leader of the New Democratic Party give us the position that his Party has taken with regard to the Progressive Conservative proposal of freedom of choice?


Ian Deans: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Hon. Member would be kind enough to repeat his question. There is something in it that I missed; I did not quite catch it.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Mr. Speaker, the House Leader of the New Democratic Party went to some length establishing the problems in the movement of grain within Canada. The Conservative Party has made a proposal. We call it the "freedom of choice". Will the House Leader of the NDP tell us the NDP position, either for or against that proposal?


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, the proposal is so vague that in the first instance one would have to be opposed to it, unless it were fleshed out significantly and shown to be workable. At the moment it appears to be unworkable because no one really understands it.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Mr. Speaker, the statement of the NDP House Leader proves exactly what I thought. He does not know what he is talking about. The proposal put forward by our Party is understood by the farmers in western Canada, even though the NDP House Leader does not understand it. I ask him to take that question to the farmers and see what they want his Party to do. Evidently he does not know. He is not aware of what freedom of choice means.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. I am fully aware of what the PC Party said with regard to freedom of choice. What I said is that nobody understands how it would work.


Mr. Roger Simmons (Burin-St. George's):: Mr. Speaker-[DOT]


Mr. Nystrom:: En fran^ais!


Roger Simmons: Mon ami intime, we have been here a very long time, almost a year. We have done a lot of work. A lot has been done for the people of Canada since we came here last fall.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Don't straddle the issue.


Roger Simmons: My good friend for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) talks about straddling the issue. I had decided a moment ago not to take up the rather insightful question that my friend from Red Deer (Mr. Towers) put about where the NDP stands on the freedom of choice issue. He must know the answer to that question. He is a very informed man. The answer is that they are neither for it nor against it. They are both. They have what is known in the business as the "picket-

June 15, 1983
Extension of Hours
fence" position, as they have on so many issues. Picket fences have a way of doing painful things to people, as the NDP are finding out on the Crow issue, and I will come back to that. I thought I would just give that little comment to my friend from Winnipeg-Birds Hill.
They should be very careful about the Crow issue but, as 1 say, I will come back to that. Before I do though, let me begin, in my usual non-partisan fashion, to address this clearly nonpartisan issue. We have been plugging away here for almost a year on behalf of the constituents of Burin-St. George's and the other 281 constituencies across Canada who have sent us here to do a job. I believe that all of us as Members of Parliament can take some satisfaction from the amount and the quality of the work that has been done since we came here last fall. But all of us, I believe, are willing to admit that we are anxious to get out of here. Speaking for myself, 1 am anxious to get out of here. With the provisions that have been made by the parliamentary reform committee of which I am pleased to have been a member, provisions which have been adopted by the House, it is conceivable that we will be out of here on or about June 30.
But being the work horses we are, led by the chief workhorse, the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard), we want to put in some extra effort before we go. We want to find a little extra time, another five hours a day when we would normally be out attending dinner parties in the case of some Members or committee meetings in the case of others. We want to work during that period from six o'clock to 11 o'clock each night. That is what we are asking Parliament to allow us to do. We are asking Parliament to allow us to do some more good work on behalf of the Canadian people.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, if there is anything particularly sinister or suspicious about that kind of request. This proposal should not have had to come before the House. We should not be spending two hours discussing it, although the rules do provide for that. There is nothing illegitimate about what we are doing, but there is something a bit uncomely and a bit unnecessary about it because we should have made a gentleman's agreement to proceed along the lines provided for in this particular motion. But we do not have that agreement and we are here begging the House to allow us to do even more work between now and the end of June. That is the only intent of the motion put under new Standing Order 9 by my friend, the President of the Privy Council.
I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that you listened with absolutely unbridled interest to the Hon. Member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis) who assured the House that he and his colleagues wanted to facilitate the consideration of legislation. Having said that, in the very next sentence he came up with an amendment that thankfully was not accepted by the Chair, but nevertheless he proposed an amendment that would have cluttered up and made clumsy the very work that we are trying to achieve here. In the spirit of Standing Order 9, we want to make available to the House some additional time in which to dispose of its business. That is the spirit of that provision of the Standing Orders, and yet the hon. gentleman from Simcoe
North brought in an amendment which would order very inflexibly the business we could deal with. That amendment has gone the way it should have gone because it was certainly a peevish, petty, shoddy and mischievous bit of work that would have had the effect of making the accomplishment of the work of the House pretty inflexible and unwieldy.
After all, Mr. Speaker, there are days when the Minister who is sponsoring a particular Bill is not here because he is out in the country performing his other responsibilities as Minister. Alternately, the Opposition spokesperson on a particular matter, say the Opposition spokesperson for fisheries or farm matters, may not be able to be present on the day when we would want to call that particular Bill if the order had been dictated by amendment. In courtesy to him or her, would it not be fair to try to accommodate the schedule of the House to his or particular schedule, given that he or she has been designated by the Party to speak on behalf of the Party on those matters?
Clearly the intent of Standing Order 9 under which this motion has been put is to permit the House to find additional time in which to do its business. Having said that, it is a well established practice and a long standing tradition that it is the Government that calls the order of business. The spirit of the recommendation brought forward by the parliamentary reform committee was to give the Government some flexibility in meeting the June 30 deadline. Last year we were here until some time in August, I believe, and as a group we told ourselves that that served nobody's purpose, not our own purpose nor the purpose of our constituents. It was certainly not fair to our families who had made schedules for the summer, the only time when the children of many Members of Parliament have time off from their regular school classes. So last fall we told ourselves that the time had come to regularize the schedule of the House of Commons. The committee on parliamentary reform recommended that we ought to aim for shutting this place down at the end of June. That is still our aim and it is now embodied in Standing Orders.
To help the Government and the House meet that deadline, we have before us a motion which would give us just a little more flexibility to facilitate the completion of some of the business before the House. It is not a particularly complicated motion. The motion only asks that we all agree to spend a little extra time here.
The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) seeks to make the motion complicated. He seeks to append to it caveats and conditions and prerequisites. In effect, he says, "We will agree to the extra time on the condition that you do not do anything that we do not like." That is basically what he said. "We will agree to the extra time, provided you dance to our tune, provided you do it our way." Well, I say to him that in February of 1980, the people of Canada addressed that problem. At that time, the people of Canada were asked in a general election whether the NDP or the Tories or the Liberals ought to form the Government and be the team that would call

June 15, 1983

the order of business of the House. That question was decided. The Hon. Member may not realize that. He may not accept it very readily, but 1 say to him that it was decided three and a half years ago.
The Hon. Member should stop living in the past. He should recognize the realities that are applicable today, June 1983, when we are here in the Chamber with a number of pieces of legislation before us that, if passed, would be of benefit to various sectors across the country, be they the farming community, the fishing community, people who are waiting for changes in the income tax legislation and other sectors that will be affected by various pieces of legislation. To facilitate the interests of those people, we would like to get on with the work of the House and do as much of it as possible before we shut the place down for the summer.
1 was also intrigued by the words used by the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain when he spoke about what the priority of concern ought to be, whether we ought to be concerned about, as he put it, the vacation plans of Members of Parliament. Well, I will be the first one to admit that I would like to spend a weekend or two with my family between now and September when we come back to this place again.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Why not resign then?


Roger Simmons: 1 say to my good friend, the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin), that I would like to have some time to do some of the other work which I have been elected to do. Without being overly candid, 1 regard being here as a vacation. I regard this place as the place I come to get a little bit of rest. The real work, Mr. Speaker, is out there in the constituency. I want to get back there and be brought up to date on the concerns and views of the people who live in the 135 communities which I represent, communities stretched along 1,500 miles of coastline. I can only get to some of those communities by water or by air. Some of these communities mean a two and a half day trip. For that reason I cannot get to them on weekends. I have not been in some of them since last summer, and if I do not get to them this summer I will not have another opportunity until the summer of 1984. I have good reason to want this place to shut down so that I can go out and discharge some of my other responsibilities. It is useless, it is hopeless, it is hypocritical to come here and tell the House and the people of Canada what my constituents believe and stand for if I have not had the opportunity to touch base with them. I know what the people in Pettiforte, South East Bight, or Paradise-Paradise is in my riding, there is no doubt about that-


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: They need some comfort.


Roger Simmons: There is Little Paradise and Great Paradise in my riding. That should come as no surprise to anyone in the Chamber. In speaking for them and the people of McCallum, Franqois or Grey River, I want to be able to represent their up to date views. To do that I must hit the road pretty soon. I
Extension of Hours
have to hope that this place closes down so I can go back to my first love, the constituents who sent me here.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: You have permission; go.


Roger Simmons: My good friend, the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain talks about stuffing the Crow Bill down people's throats. That is colourful, descriptive language, but it is not an awful misrepresentation of what happens in the House. Does he not understand or does he choose to misrepresent the process? That process admits that there will be legislation which all Members cannot necessarily support. No one has suggested that legislation must have the unanimous backing of every Member. This is an adversary forum and we are going to find ourselves on different sides of an issue, sometimes in the most vociferous fashion. There will be issues that I oppose and issues that I endorse, and that is the nature of this House. It is also the nature of the House that we have a way of settling scores, of settling issues, of dealing with business, and that is by taking votes. Before we come to the votes there is a well documented procedure in the Standing Orders which allows debate to take place in an orderly fashion.
The Standing Orders provide that in certain circumstances closure shall be introduced. At some point, in the wisdom of those who have the prerogative to introduce the motion, over the years it has been deemed by the House-which gives sanction to the Standing Orders-that under certain circumstances time allocation can be introduced. It has been introduced by this Government and it was introduced by the then Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) when he was Government House Leader in the fall of 1979. The rules provide for it.
If there are Members in the House who oppose measures, be it the Crow Bill or any other legislation, they have the same protection in the House as any other Member. I invite the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain in particular, and his colleagues in the New Democratic Party, to have the courage to play it by the rules. They need have no fear that their point of view will be trampled on. Indeed, if that view is not as well known across the country as it should be, that is because they have spent too much of the last month playing parliamentary games when they should have been articulating their position.
I know the position of the Liberal Party on the Crow issue and I know the position of the Tory Party on the Crow issue but I do not know the position of the NDP. That Party has failed the farmers of Canada in articulating that position. They have been too caught up playing delaying games. I recognize that the socialists, the NDP, may have good reason, and perhaps political reason, to look for a way to save their hide, to prevent the slide into oblivion.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: You are not exactly on an all-time high yourself.


Roger Simmons: They are batting on the wrong wicket if they are looking for a way to save their hides in western Canada. I implore them to stop using those scare tactics and to allow the Bill to go before the committee where it can be scrutinized on

June 15, 1983
Extension of Hours
its merits and where people with an interest in the legislation can have their say. We are asking that it go to committee where people who want to address it have more flexibility than they have in this Chamber.
I have heard that farmers are busy between now and October and thank God there are people in the country who are working so enthusiastically. If the changes in the Crow proposal are as earth-shaking as the NDP would have us believe, 1 put it to you that the farmers will find time to do their work in the fields and to send representatives to put their case before the committee.
I was touched at the appeal of the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain to the Tories, as I am sure the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) was, when he said, "We are prepared to join with the Conservatives-come with us". I ask my good friend from Bow River how he could not have walked down and joined hands. I would warn him before he jumps at the invitation to make sure he understands the implications. It is an invitation to return to 1910, to 1915 or to 1920.
We recognize that the Crow is a very emotional issue. That alone is not an excuse to treat it as a sacred cow, however. It is all the more reason to muster courage to do the right thing, and that is, not to walk away or hide our heads in the sand as the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain wants. That is why I am glad the Hon. Member for Bow River has kept his head, as he usually does. I hope very few will accept the invitation from the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain to return to 1910. How does he reconcile his position on the Crow issue with the interests of his constituents who stand to gain from the changes proposed in the legislation?


Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Speaker, would the enthusiastic Member who just sat down be willing to support the concept of reasoned amendment to the legislation to improve it for the farmers for whom he pleaded so hard?


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, I would. That is why my colleagues and I are so anxious to get the Bill to committee. One of the reasons for committee stage is to allow Members to scrutinize legislation at close range in a more informal setting and determine whether it can be improved. If the Hon. Member has proposals that would legitimately improve it, I will support his amendment.


Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Speaker, would the Hon. Member then persuade his caucus to persuade the Minister, in turn, to accept the amendments which have the support of different Parties of this House so that the matter could then be settled in reason instead of in petulance as at present?


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, I would take exception to the last word or two of the Hon. Member's remarks about there being petulance. There has been some heated debate because it is a very emotional issue. However, once we get it beyond second reading, we would like to get it into committee where we can look at those amendments in the light of day and see if
they will do all the good things which the Hon. Member suggests they will do. Mr. Speaker, no one has said to the Hon. Member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain) that we will not accept any amendments, and I challenge him to say otherwise. What we have said consistently is that we should bring it to committee and in committee Hon. Members will have the same freedom they always have in committee to propose amendments and then have them dealt with.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the Hon. Member for Burin-St. George's (Mr. Simmons) crying and complaining about how he wants to get out of here. It seems to me his constituents are paying their income taxes for him to be here working, no matter how long Parliament has to sit. I would like to ask the hon. gentleman if he would oppose using every method possible under the rules of the House, whether or not he is on the Government side of the House, which would cost the people in his Province $600 million more in freight charges between now and the end of this decade? Would the Hon. Member agree that he also would fight every way he could to prevent any kind of legislation which would do that to the people in his Province?


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to address myself to the issue of whether or not the presumption in the question is accurate. It is a whole debate in itself as to whether or not that figure of $600 million is anywhere near reality. I have already answered the other part of his question when I appealed to the New Democratic Party to stop being petulant, stop using delay tactics, and just use everything within the rules to get its views across. That is why we have rules. That is why we have the various Standing Orders, including the one we are dealing with today, for that matter. I have invited them to do this, but I do not believe they need an invitation from me because they have privileges in this House which allow them to use all the rules within the Standing Orders. However, Mr. Speaker, I made the point earlier that it does not allow that Party to be parliamentary terrorists. That is what the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain gave notice of today when he indicated he was going to obstruct. I say that his constituents, including the steel workers, who will benefit from changes in the Crow legislation, did not send him here to obstruct. They sent him here to fight vociferously within the rules. I will always defend to the death his right to do that, within the rules. There will be no argument from me on that issue.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Hon. Member if he has read the response of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) to questions on the Order Paper that to date he has received over 37,000 letters and telegrams from people in western Canada asking for retention of the statutory grain rates. They were from all over Canada, for that matter, but most of them were from western Canada. Only 69 of these persons were against the retention of the statutory grain rate. Also there are over 50,000 signatures on petitions of various
June 15, 1983

kinds, which still have not all been presented to Parliament, in favour of retention of the statutory grain rate. Does the Hon. Member not agree that that means that the Government should accept what our House Leader, the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain just proposed a few moments ago, that the subject matter of this Bill be referred to a special committee empowered to travel from place to place and hear witnesses between now and the first of October, November or December, or whatever, so that the Government can then deal with the Bill, having received this information from the grain producers of western Canada and a lot of other people, including the steel workers in Hamilton?


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, I did not hear the number of people who had made representations.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Thirty-seven thousand.


Roger Simmons: If you subtract 37,000 from 25 million you will find that a substantial number have not written in their views on either side of the issue. If one subtracts from the
37,000	the number who have been stirred up by the scare tactics of the New Democratic Party, the number will be substantially less than 37,000.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, to respond to the question whether I read the response in Hansard by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin), no, I must admit that is one of the few responses in Hansard which I have not yet memorized.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Hon. Member for Burin-St. George's (Mr. Simmons) on two points. He mentioned the June 30 adjournment date which is provided for in the new rules. I was wondering whether he would be willing to admit that there is no danger to the June 30 adjournment. The only way that we could sit beyond June 30 is if the Government makes us sit beyond June 30, failing to respect the new rules and failing to strike a compromise between itself and the Opposition on the various proposals we have made with regard to the Bill to change the Crow rate. It is not the Opposition which can make this Parliament sit beyond June 30. It is only the Government which can do that by hypothetically recalling Parliament after June 30.
The Hon. Member commented on the invitation of our House Leader, the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans), to the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor), the Assistant House Leader of the Conservative Party, to "Come with us. Take the hard way. Oppose the Government on this matter". The Hon. Member commented on the fact that the Hon. Member for Bow River did not respond to that invitation. I feel that the fact that the invitation was not responded to, and the cosy language which the Hon. Member for Burin-St. George's used when he was describing the Hon. Member for Bow River, is further evidence of the fact that what we see before us here today is a deal between the Progressive Conservative Opposition and the Liberal Government to get the changes to the Crow rate into
Extension of Hours
committee and, on the part of the Conservative Party, to get this Crow rate changed because it fully expects it will be the Government come the next election. That may or may not be true. However, that Party operates on the assumption it will be the Government, and it wants this thing out of the way because it responds to the same corporate and economic pressures as the Liberal Party from the CPR and various other large business interests, and it knows that if the Liberals do not get it done before the next election, it will have to do it because it takes orders from the same people.
That is why there is this cosy relationship here, Mr. Speaker, between the Liberal Government and the Progressive Conservative Opposition. The Conservative Party wants this thing out of the way so it will not have to do it itself. It is only the NDP which would stand up to those interests, only the NDP which would be able to bring in policies-


Some Hon. Members:: Order. Order.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: -which would see the Crow rate maintained-


An Hon. Member:: Sit down.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


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


Mr. Kilgour:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. That was a slanderous comment which was made by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie). 1 would ask him to withdraw it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: That, in the Chair's opinion, is debate. The time provided for questions and comments has elapsed.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, as ever, the truth hurts.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. The Chair informed the House that the time for questions and comments had elapsed. However, is the House agreeable to allowing the Hon. Member for Burin-St. George's (Mr. Simmons) to respond to the previous comment?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: It is not agreed. Debate.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. 1 regard the failure of the House to permit me to respond as a violation of the provision of the question and answer period. How can there be, Mr. Speaker, a question and answer period, if the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) is allowed to filibuster in terms of time on the question and I am not permitted time to answer? It is assumed that I ought to have some brief period to answer the question.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

June 15, 1983
Extension of Hours


Roger Simmons: Is he afraid of the answer?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. The Chair would like to deal first of all with the point raised by the Hon. Member for Burin-St. George's (Mr. Simmons). The Chair has no choice but to apply the Standing Orders and provisional rules. The Chair informed the House that the time had elapsed. However, the Chair is patient and it sought unanimous consent, but the House did not grant unanimous consent and the Chair has to live with that decision. We must now proceed to debate and the Chair has recognized the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) in debate. However, I did see the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) rising on another point of order.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, I want to make it clear that I did not stand in the way of the Hon. Member responding to the question.


Mr. Ethier:: Your colleague said no.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: I think the Hon. Member was wrong when he suggested-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: That is debate. The Hon. Member for Bow River.


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, the first point I would like to make is that I hope the Hon. Member for Burin-St. George's (Mr. Simmons) knows more about fishing for cod than he does about farming in western Canada. I hope the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill would just stick to the facts a little instead of misrepresenting them so badly.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: I did. I brought out the ultimate fact of what is going on here.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Those people want me to come and join them. I didn't think they cared.


Ian Deans: Believe me.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, it will be a long, long time, with a green moon in the sky, before I join the socialists. I am a free enterpriser.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gordon Edward Taylor: I believe in free enterprise. It is what made this country and will continue to make this country. The sooner we can get back to free enterprise principles without the shackles the Liberals put on it, the faster we will be on our way.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Burin-St. George's was speaking so lovingly about more hours. If I spent as few hours in the House as he does I would not mind extended hours either.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gordon Edward Taylor: I say to the Government House Leader that when the extended hours go into effect, if they do, I hope we will have a Government quorum in the House. If I was a betting man I would wager now that between six and eight there will be only a handful of Liberals here. There is a handful of faithfuls who stay and go without their dinner. There are not too many on this side of the House who stay and go without dinner either.
I would like to make a suggestion to the Government House Leader. I do not mind working overtime and I will not be extending my hours-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Burin-St. George's on a point of order.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, my bosom pal from Bow River now misleads the House when he says that he is here more than 1. He knows that in the last week alone he and I have each given four or five speeches. He knows that I am here at least as much as he is even though I am not paid as a Deputy Whip, as he is.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gordon Edward Taylor: The Hon. Member is partly right, except that after he makes a speech he suddenly disappears. I stay after 1 make my speech and listen to the others.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gordon Edward Taylor: However, 1 do not want to spend my time arguing that point. I would like to make a suggestion to the Government House Leader. I think we would do better work if we stopped between six and seven o'clock, and Members went and had a bit of dinner and then came back and worked until 11 or 11.30. I think that would be a good, common-sense thing to do. Otherwise it simply means that some will stay here without having their dinner. I do not mind doing that if it is necessary, but I think we would do better work if we stopped at six o'clock and had 45 minutes or an hour for dinner and then came back until 11 or 11.30. It is just a suggestion, I am not going to make any motion, but I think it would be good common sense.


Some Hon. Members:: Leader!


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member's House Leader had made that suggestion to me, I would have considered it very seriously.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, the extended hours are not really going to mean anything to me except that I will spend more hours in this place than I do now. I come here at eight o'clock in the morning and I go home at 10.30 or 11 o'clock at night. I still do not get all my work done because I spend a lot of hours in the House and there is a lot of office work to do, as every Hon. Member knows. 1 am not saying that I do this and others do not, not at all. I think every Hon. Member wants to get the
June 15, 1983

work of the House done. 1 found when I was in Government for 20 years or more-I know what it is like in Government- that you have to get legislation through. We want to do that. I am not going to vote against the extended hours. We put it in the rules and it is logical.
I am not going to vote against the fact that the Government decides what business comes in. I know the Government has that prerogative and it should carry it out.


Yvon Pinard: Hear, hear!


Gordon Edward Taylor: I think we might be able to make some suggestions as to how it might be done better, but that perhaps is a matter of opinion.
I now want to deal with one or two other things which were said this afternoon. The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) said something that I just cannot go along with, particularly when he referred to the new Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, who is a fine man. As bad as my hearing might be, I heard my Leader say that the Crow was one of the most important things to ever come before this House. It is going to have such an impact on western Canada that it has to be dealt with thoroughly. He did not say the things the Hon. Member attributed to him. I deny those things categorically. They are not right, and 1 hope the Hon. Member will correct that statement at some time in the future.


Ian Deans: What statement?


Gordon Edward Taylor: He will be here before too long and will speak for himself, but when he is not here 1 cannot let a statement like that go by.


Mr. Young:: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. 1 just want to bring to the Hon. Member's attention that the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain is here and has been here during his whole speech.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Well, 1 never said he was not. 1 do not know what he is talking about.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gordon Edward Taylor: The only thing I know is that they sure must be hard up for Members when they start inviting me to join them.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I just want to withdraw my offer. The Hon. Member is absolutely right; we are not that hard up and 1 withdraw the offer.


Gordon Edward Taylor: That makes me feel better. I would hate to have a red face. I like the colour red but not with a hammer and sickle on it.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few other things about the new Leader of the PC Party. He will be here and will speak for himself but he has already made a very definite impact on the people of Canada. He has made it very clear that he is a free enterpriser, not a socialist. He has made it very clear that he is not afraid to speak to the big corporations, the CPR, CNR, Imperial Oil or anyone else. He has made it
Extension of Hours
very clear that his policies will be for the people of Canada, so that every region can have a fair show. Not just one region, not just western Canada, but all of Canada. There will be fair play for all parts of Canada, and that is the way of the United Nations. His policies on the Crow, 1 think, are tied in with mine, because our philosophy is freedom of choice. We want the people to be able to decide. When the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain started to answer the question from my colleague, the Hon. Member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers), he showed that he did not know what the Crow was all about. Every farm organization in Canada, except the Farmers Union and the NDP, state that there must be a change in the Crow. Every farmer and every organization has said that. We are not prepared to live with the present Bill C-155.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Point of order.


Gordon Edward Taylor: We are trying to urge the Government to do something about that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. Is the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre rising on a point of order?


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Hon. Member would not want to mislead the House by leaving the inference that hardly any farm organizations are against changes to the Crow. He must certainly remember that the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities, which represents every farmer in Saskatchewan, has opposed any change to the rate on Crown, as have many organizations-


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that. There is a handful.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gordon Edward Taylor: However, most of the farm organizations have agreed that there will not be service on the railways if the railways are not making a profit, if they are not making the thing pay. I also want to say that I think the railways must have money to give us proper service and proper transportation, but the freedom of choice-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. It being 5.12 o'clock, the two hours provided for the consideration of the motion now before the house under the provisions of Standing Order 9(2) have expired.

It is therefore my duty under Standing Orders to interrupt the proceedings and to put forth all questions necessary to dispose of the motion.
The vote is on the motion put by Mr. Pinard, seconded by Mr. Lalonde.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.

June 15, 1983
Extension of Hours


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Call in the Members. [English]


Madam Speaker:: Before I take the vote, I would like to tell Hon. Members that I feel very strongly that 15-minute bells should be observed.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[ Translation]



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Minister of Justice):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to lay upon the Table of the House in both official languages a copy of the Government's proposals to correct certain anomalies, inconsistencies, archaisms and errors and to deal with other matters of a non-controversial and uncomplicated nature in the Statutes of Canada.
June 15, 1983


PETITIONS
Mr. Alex Patterson (Fraser Valley East):: Madam Speaker, it is my duty to present the following petition to the honourable the House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled: the petition of the undersigned of the Official Board of Carmen United Church, Sardis, in the Province of British Columbia, who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right thus to present a grievance common to your petitioners in the certain assurance that your honourable House will therefore provide a remedy. It humbly sheweth that many ordinary people across Canada, church leaders, parliamentarians and others share their fears of a nuclear holocaust, but still entertain the hope that it may be prevented through Government's continued efforts to discover peaceful means of settling disputes. Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to support a nuclear freeze and oppose the testing of the Cruise missile on Canadian soil. And as in duty bond, your petitioners will ever pray.


Mr. Laverne Lewycky (Dauphin-Swan River):: Madam Speaker, this petition is from two towns in my riding, Grandview and Gilbert Plains. To the honourable the House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of the Province of Manitoba who now exercise their right to present a grievance humbly sheweth that the Crow rate is an important benefit to western Canada and one of the earliest incentives granted to settlers and that the changing of the Crow rate will reduce farm incomes, contribute to the breaking up of communities and branch lines and increase trucking and road costs, and that three royal commissions have recommended the retention of the Crow rate. Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to maintain the Crow rate in perpetuity as presently guaranteed by Statute. And as in duty bond, your petitioners will ever pray.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, I too have the honour of presenting a petition from 36 Canadians from Plunkett, Saskatchewan. The petition, Madam Speaker, reads:

To the Honourable the House of Commons of Canada, in Parliament assembled:


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Order Paper Questions


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Can I not use Canada's other official language?


Some Hon. Members:: In French!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: The petition of the undersigned residents of Canada who now exercise their ancient and undisputed right to present a grievance, with the assurance that your honourable House of Commons will remedy the situation.
Humbly sheweth
That the Western Canadian farmers paid $131 million to move export grain under the Crow freight rate in the 1981-82 crop year. This grain in turn contributed $6.3 billion to the balance of trade;
That the undersigned believe that this is the farmers' fair contribution to the Canadian economy;
And that Western farmers will pay but one time the Crow rate.
Wherefore the undersigned humbly pray and call upon Parliament to maintain the present statutory grain Crow rate.
And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Jean Lapierre (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 4,864 and 4,872.


Mr. McKinnon: Is the Department of National Defence spending $204,799 for chemical air burst dispensers and, if so (a) for what reason (b) what chemical are they going to dispense?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: Yes. (a) The dispensers are used during training exercises to simulate gas attack, (b) Sodium carbonate and propylene glycol are dispensed.


Mr. Thomson: 1.	How many Canada Land Inventory maps were produced for sale by the Canada Map Office?
2.	What was the cost of production?
3.	How many of the maps were sold to date and what was the breakdown of sales made to (a) individuals (b) governments (c) companies, including the type of company?


John (Moody) Roberts: 1.
Approximately two million maps have been produced for the

June 15, 1983
Motions for Papers
public through the Canada Map Office and its counterparts in the Provinces.
2.	Approximately $1 million.
3.	Approximately 760,000 copies have been distributed to the public through the Canada Map Office and its counterparts in the Provinces, (a), (b) and (c) No record is maintained of the types of users.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Madam Speaker, I would ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Madam Speaker, notices of motions for the production of papers Nos. 66 and 67 in the name of the Hon. Member for Durham-Northumberland (Mr. Lawrence) are acceptable to the Government.
Madam Speaker, 1 ask that the other notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


Madam Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that notices of motions Nos. 66 and 67 be deemed to have been adopted?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
[ Text]


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 66-Mr. Lawrence:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House, copies of all Ordcrs-in.Council of any department relating to the Commission of Inquiry concerning certain activities of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (McDonald Commission) and, in particular, P.C. 1977-1911, dated July 6, 1977; P.C. 1979-887, dated March 22. 1979; and P.C. 1979-1616, dated June 2, 1979.
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 67-Mr. Lawrence:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House, copies of all exchanges, understandings, agreements, correspondence, minutes. Records of Decisions. Orders-in-Council. and other communications, notes or summaries of communications of the Privy Council Office relating to the "Constitutional Convention Regarding Access by Ministers to Papers of Former Ministries" as they were agreed to or exchanged between (a) the outgoing King administration and the incoming St. Laurent administration in 1948 (b) the outgoing St. Laurent administration and the incoming Diefenbaker administration (c) the outgoing Diefenbaker administration and the incoming Pearson administration in 1963 (d) the outgoing Pearson administration and the incoming Trudeau administration in 1968 (e) the outgoing Trudeau administration and the incoming Clark administration in 1979, including a copy of the letter from Mr. P. M. Pitfield to Mr. J. Clark, dated June 1, 1979, and a copy of any Order-in-Council of the outgoing administration relating to the Convention or the said letter (f) the outgoing Clark administration and the incoming Trudeau administration in 1980, including a copy of the letter relating to this subject directed to Mr. P. E. Trudeau, dated February 29, 1980.
Madam Speaker:: Shall the other notices of motions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: It being six o'clock, I do now leave the Chair until tomorrow morning at eleven o'clock.
At 6 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, June 16, 1983