1983-10-12

STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21


Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Madam Speaker, the Government has been making overtures to the Canadian public in anticipation of the impending election. Before it begins making new election promises I would like to remind it of one promise it made Canadians almost four years ago.
In a series of remarks before the Halifax Board of Trade, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said, "I am announcing today, as part of our program, that a Liberal Government will take immediate action to ensure the full co-operation of all Parties in the construction of a natural gas pipeline to Quebec City and the Maritimes. The pipeline will have a reversible capacity so that Maritimers will have the opportunity, both to use western natural gas now and to send offshore gas to central Canada later".
Today we see that the Government has fulfilled its promise to the Quebec electorate but not to the Maritimers who are still dependent on oil imported from abroad. It is unreasonable to force Maritimers to buy foreign oil when Canada has the resources not only to satisfy our domestic needs but to export these resources abroad.
It would appear that the heady talk of energy self-sufficiency by 1990 was merely an election ploy designed to seduce Canadians with what they wanted to hear. It was not the talk of a responsible Government concerned with energy security and self-sufficiency, but of an irresponsible Party concerned with political security and self-sufficiency.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Bob Ogle (Saskatoon East):: Madam Speaker, yesterday a high level ecumenical delegation representing the major Canadian churches met with the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen). The delegation included Archbishop James Hayes, the Archbishop of Halifax, who was
representing the Canadian Catholic Bishops, the Reverend Harry Hilchey who was representing the General Synod of the Anglican Church of Canada, and Dr. John Foster who was representing the United Church of Canada and the InterChurch Committee on Human Rights in Latin America. They presented the Secretary of State for External Affairs with a brief on Canadian policy in Central America.
I thank the Minister for seeing them and discussing these matters with them. I would now call upon the Minister to consider seriously the wide range of recommendations that were made by the group. These policy recommendations dealt with El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Guatemala. Some members of the delegation had recently returned from that area and spoke of the massive human rights violations in Guatemala.
In the brief the delegation asked that Canada support particularly the Contadora group and the efforts that it is making to bring about peace in that area. Secondly, they asked for a clear and public statement to be made to the United States and Honduran Governments regarding Canada's opposition to the military manoeuvres and to the construction of new military bases, on the grounds that they undermine the spirit and the letter of the Contadora group. Finally, I would ask the Minister to immediately release the $18 million line of credit that was pledged to Nicaragua.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Yves Demers (Duvernay):: Madam Speaker, it is a fact that the Laval and Lower Laurentian regions are showing the best economic performance in the Province of Quebec at the present time. There are a number of reasons for this, and I would like to mention two of them: the people have a level of education that is above the national average, and co-operation among federal members, the Minister responsible and municipal representatives is very effective. I wish to thank the Cabinet for taking advantage of these facts in less than a year, the federal Government has established several high technology projects in the region, including the Institut d'ordinatique, an investment of $12 million, the Institut de bureautique, costing $11 million and last weekend, the project of the century in the aerospace industry, namely, the construction of a Bell Helicopter plant at Mirabel backed by a federal investment of

October 12, 1983
S265 million which will create 3,700 jobs. All these jobs will be in the high technology industry and will provide a solid basis for future investments in similar industries in Laval and the Lower Laurentians.


MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT
Hon. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Madam Speaker, a week ago on October 5 the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Mel-ville (Mr. Nystrom) attacked me in the House in my absence, about a concert which is to be held in Toronto at the Roy Thompson Hall on Monday evening, October 17. By the way, Madam Speaker, the concert is at 8 p.m. and it is a fund raiser.
The Hon. Member claimed that I was being sexist because one of four performers at the concert is to be Miss Shannon Tweed, former Playboy playmate of the year. Mad Mike McGee is the chairman, Helen Reddy is the singer, and Andre Gagnon is the pianist.
Miss Tweed was born in Dildo, Trinity Bay, Madam Speaker, not far from Come-By-Chance. She is the daughter of a mainland mink farmer. Her talents will be used on the evening in question to auction the mukluks I wore when I brought down the budget on December 11, 1979. I ask the Hon. Member if the art of auctioning is sexist. Why does the Hon. Member attack my auctioneer? Having wrecked my budget together with the Liberal Members opposite, he now seeks to wreck my auctioneer. The Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) is certainly a bilious blue stocking, Madam Speaker. He is a yappy yokel and a slippery and sly sexual stereotyper, because that is what he has done. His actions are those of a sleveen.
Miss Tweed is, or was, a constituent of the Hon. Member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception (Mr. Rooney). Where was he when she needed him to defend her? Together, Miss Tweed and I will give the boots to the nasty Nystrom-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


John Carnell Crosbie: We will sell the mukluks to the highest bidder.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


POLITICAL PARTIES
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Madam Speaker, I rise to speak about the Conservative Party's position regarding minority rights. Last Thursday the Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party spoke eloquently in favour of the constitutional protection of French-language services in Manitoba. We congratulate him for this action. However, the Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party also claimed to be speaking for his entire Party. Immediately after he spoke, the Deputy Leader of the Progressive Conservative Caucus in Manitoba, Bud Sherman, said that he was 100 per cent behind Sterling Lyon in opposing the entrenchment of these rights. It is interesting to note that Mr. Sherman will run for the Conservative Party in the next federal election.
As well, that same afternoon the Conservative Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie) told Manitobans to work against the very resolution we had passed in the House. The fact that the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine has contradicted his Leader on minority rights should not surprise Canadians. We recall that it was the same Hon. Member who, upon returning from South Africa, said that there were methods employed in that country that we could use when dealing with our native population.
Natives are also concerned about the words of Senator Donahoe who spoke about the genocide of Newfoundland natives as a possible solution for Canadian aboriginal problems. Whether said in jest or not, those remarks are completely unacceptable to the Canadian public, and he should be rebuked publicly by the Conservative Leader. Any less action by the-


Mr. Forrestall:: Shame.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member's time has expired.


BROADCASTING
Mrs. Jennifer Cossitt (Leeds-Grenville):: Madam Speaker, 1 refer to the statement made recently by Abby Hoffman, Director General of Sports Canada, to the conference, "A Renaissance in Sports and Fitness", when she condemned the latest television exercise programs' for being obscene, erotic, and not athletic.
I have no quarrel with Ms. Hoffman's athletic ability; indeed she is to be commended for her outstanding achievements, not only as an athlete, but also for her promotion of non-stereotype role-playing by female athletes so as to encourage them to pursue and excel in sports of their choice.
However, I do quarrel with the Sports Canada director's criticism of television exercise programs, suggesting in effect, that they be boycotted. Ms. Hoffman's statement is diametrically opposed to the Government's own objective and the mandate of Fitness and Amateur Sport, which encourages active participation by the Canadian people in some form of fitness program to improve their physical state of health.
October 12, 1983

The majority of television exercise programs are of excellent content, utilizing skilled and competent individuals, and are far removed from degenerating into the type of program Ms. Hoffman accuses them of being. I would suggest that Ms. Hoffman seek the more appropriate medium available through the CRTC to vent her criticism, rather than condemning active participation in physical fitness via television exercise programs.


NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS
Mr. Bill Yurko (Edmonton East):: Madam Speaker, on June 14 this year I stated in this assembly, and 1 quote:
A nuclear war can come about because of three reasons .... The first reason is that it may come about by aggressive design or intent by one of the superpowers. This is highly unlikely because they will destroy the world and themselves. The second is by escalation of a minor conflict such as a triggering conflict in the Middle East. The potential for escalation is massive and scary in the world today .... The third way a nuclear war can occur is through accident. There is real potential in this area due to a failure of equipment, a failure of systems, or a failure on the part of humans who man the systems.
Well, Madam Speaker, a deplorable and unacceptable incident has occurred because of failure on the part of humans who man the systems. Good sense prevailed and escalation did not occur this time. But what about next time?
If there ever was a need for instant communication and a desire to so communicate, it is in today's and tomorrow's world. Some shall shake their fist, at another such incident, and it will happen, but some will dialogue, and for all our sakes let us hope they are heard. There is a desperate need for an arms limitation agreement and a reversal of the present nuclear insanity. This Parliament should support fiercely a summit meeting, as is being considered by President Reagan and Chairman Andropov. Once again I propose that Edmonton is a suitable site for a summit meeting.


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member's time has expired.


SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Mr. Stanley Hudecki (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, the Committee of Parliamentarians, Scientists and Engineers, the acronym of which is COPSE, is the successor to the parliamentary and scientific committee which held a number of meetings on Parliament Hill between 1976 and 1979. COPSE has as its objective the building of understanding between parliamentarians and the scientific and engineering communities of Canada, based on an appreciation of each other's concerns and aspirations.
Oral Questions
While COPSE is a highly successful forum for exchange of information, science and technology are playing such an increasingly significant role in shaping our society and economy that I feel consideration should be given by the House to establishing a full-fledged standing committee on science and technology.
In this way issues relating to Canada's development of science and technology could be discussed by Members of the House, with appropriate input by scientists and engineers, so that reports and policy suggestions could be made on an all-party basis to the House and to the Government, and be duly recorded.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. The Economic Council of Canada, which is adviser to the Prime Minister by statute, has warned that our country faces not only five more years of double digit unemployment but also a gradual rekindling of inflation. It has called for the Government to provide selective wage and price controls, to obtain powers to monitor wage and price increases and to roll back any increases it thinks will boost inflation above 5 per cent. Do you agree with the accuracy of these warnings of your Economic Council? Never mind the finger pointing, I am asking the question of the Prime Minister.


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


John Carnell Crosbie: Do you agree with the accuracy of these warnings?


An Hon. Member:: You have to address the Speaker.


John Carnell Crosbie: And does the Government intend to obtain powers to roll back increases in prices or wages such as your advisers have advised you?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member should be addressing the question to you. He should know better.


Madam Speaker:: For the second question, I am going to warn the Hon. Member that he should address the Chair.


GOVERNMENT INTENTIONS
John Carnell Crosbie: Madam speaker, if I could put the same question to the Prime Minister, this is a

October 12, 1983
Oral Questions
serious question and the people of this country are entitled to an answer, not a Prime Minister who shoves his finger around and-


Madam Speaker:: Order. Order, please. Will the Hon. Member please put his question? The trouble comes from the fact that the question has not yet been put.


John Carnell Crosbie: My question was just put, and 1 will put it again, Madam Speaker. Does the Prime Minister agree with the accuracy of these warnings of the Economic Council of Canada? Do the Prime Minister and his Government intend to obtain powers to roll back increases in prices or wages?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, the Government has read with interest the report of the Economic Council of Canada. The Economic Council has a number of forecasts, and their short term forecasts are similar to those which have been made by the Government, particularly in my budget of last April, for 1984-85. The forecasts for 1986-87 are obviously much more hypothetical and are different from those contained in my budget. I must remind the Hon. Member, however, that the targets put forward in the report of the Economic Council are very similar to the forecasts which I had in my budget, for 1986 and 1987. In that sense the curve which I had foreseen over the next four years is very similar to the targets set by the Economic Council for 1986 and 1987.
As to the specific proposal put forward by the Hon. Member, he will have noticed that the Economic Council is proposing a monitoring agency-not a price or wage control agency-over prices and wages after the expiration of the six and five program. Obviously this is a matter which the Government will take into consideration in discussions with its economic partners, labour, management, and the Provinces, regarding the steps that should be taken after the expiration of the six and five program.


CHAIRMAN'S COMMENTS ON ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE
John Carnell Crosbie: My supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister-to the puppet master, not to the puppet. The question is this-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


An Hon. Member:: That is pretty good order.


Mr. Nowlan:: You do not know anything about order.


John Carnell Crosbie: The Economic Council of Canada is an adviser to the Prime Minister, and its Chairman has said that an unemployment level of 11 per cent is unacceptable. Does the Prime Minister agree with the Chairman who has said, "We will be ill-served if we accept the type of performance we seem to be getting. We believe we can do better."? Does the Prime Minister agree that we have been ill-served by the Government's performance, and does he believe that we can do better? And, if so, why do we not do better?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, indeed, we are not satisfied with 11 per cent or 12 per cent unemployment. The best evidence of this is the type of measures which have been announced in the June, 1982, budget, my October economic statement, and the budget of last April.
We have succeeded in bringing down unemployment faster than what has been forecast. We have succeeded in creating jobs faster than any other industrialized country. 1 refer my hon. friend to the forecast contained in the April budget to the effect that, indeed, in the next few years we will reach a level of unemployment which will be well below 11 per cent and below 9 per cent. We are even trying to do better than the forecast which was contained in the budget, in which we were forecasting around 8 per cent unemployment by 1987.


John Carnell Crosbie: I will go to the Minister of Finance because the Prime Minister is bored with this subject.


RECOMMENDED UNEMPLOYMENT TARGET
John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, the Economic Council wants the Government to set a five-year goal of reducing unemployment to 6 per cent or 8 per cent, and not just to accept the prediction of the Minister of Finance of over 10 per cent unemployment indefinitely. My question to the Minister of Finance is, why, once you set this goal and why, once you take measures to achieve it, will you not do what the Economic Council has recommended, instead of throwing up your hands as you have?


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member must address the Chair. 1 know it is difficult to speak in the third person, I find it difficult myself, but the Hon. Member has been in the House long enough to have acquired the habit.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, if the Hon. Member not only knew the rules of the House but showed a little more respect for his colleagues and was less insulting towards them, he might be getting better answers once in a while.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: Nonetheless, I will tell my hon. friend that, very honestly, we are trying to do even better than the targets set out by the Economic Council of Canada. 1 have indicated that our targets in my budget forecast are around 8 per cent unemployment by 1987. We are trying to do better than that. If we can reach 6 per cent before then, we will certainly do it. We are doing everything we can and it has shown results. Indeed, in the very last few months that we have succeeded in bringing unemployment down further than had been anticipated, even by my hon. friend, as recently as six months ago. This is a record that demonstrates what we have done, and we want to do even better in the months and years to come.
October 12, 1983


COUNCIL'S RECOMMENDATIONS-REQUEST FOR GOVERNMENT REPORT
Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. The Economic Council report contains 19 very constructive recommendations aimed at improving our economic performance and also some of the safety net programs in our country. In order to give some meaning to the Economic Council's function, will the Government commit to this House to report in detail on each of those of 19 recommendations by the end of November of this year?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the Economic Council's report does, in fact, contain many recommendations. However, I can inform the hon. gentleman that the Government of Canada is already implementing many of these. For instance, the ECC recommends that the Government pursue a monetary policy that will bring down interest rates in real terms in Canada. The hon. gentleman is of course aware that during the past four months, short-term interest rates in Canada have been lower than those in the United States, despite the fact that our inflation rate is slightly higher than in the U.S.
The ECC wants to maintain universality of medicare. I can only hope that the Progressive Conservatives will support us in our struggle to maintain the universality of medicare as well as the social programs we have been able to continue despite the recession, since so many Progressive Conservative are criticizing these programs right and left. The ECC has asked us to actively pursue implementation of a direct job creation and employee training program. In fact, we have invested billions of dollars in the projects in recent years. My hon. colleague, the Minister of Employment and Immigration, indicated a few days ago that he was looking into further alternatives in this respect, and I could say the same about the 16 other recommendations. We do not have to wait until November, since they are already being implemented, and this was being done even before the report was published.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, that is not good enough. The Minister referred to four recommendations, and there are 15 more. Surely we can get a report from the Government on what it is going to do about the other 15 recommendations, and not have to wait another two or three years for an $800 a day Royal Commissioner to produce a report on some of the same things.


BURDEN OF UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE PREMIUMS ON SMALL BUSINESS
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, I will put a more specific question to the Minister relating to a decision the Government is going to make on Unemployment Insurance premiums, I understand on October 18.
Oral Questions
Small business today employs about two-thirds of Canadians, yet it is discouraged from creating jobs by the high level of Unemployment Insurance premiums which are directly related to the number of employees. Since this report projects aggregate benefits of $60 billion to $65 billion over the next five years, which is a tremendous burden for small business, would the Government defer any increase in Unemployment Insurance premiums? It is clear these premiums are taxing job creation and are a clear disincentive to the hiring of young, untrained workers, which is probably the most important unemployment problem today.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, Unemployment Insurance premiums are set after consultation with the Advisory Committee on Unemployment Insurance which is made up of representatives of management and labour.
As the Hon. Member said before, a decision is due around October 18, but we have not reached that stage yet, and as soon as the Government is able to announce a decision in this respect, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Roberts) will be happy to announce that decision to Hon. Members and the House in general.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. It concerns a specific promise that he made. As everyone in the House knows, the situation in the Gaspe region in the Province of Quebec, in Canada, is one of the most horrible in terms of unemployment, averaging around 25 per cent and, in some communities, 80 per cent. Two years ago, on May 4, 1982, the Prime Minister went to the region and promised a specific development program. Last May no fewer than three Cabinet Ministers, with considerable fanfare, went to the same region and promised to spend some $224 million in seven different parts of the economy to create jobs.
Given his commitment, and given the fanfare created by three Cabinet Ministers last May, to spend money to create jobs, why has there not been a single new job created in the Gaspe within the framework of these programs?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member could turn to his own Members. Then he would know part of the reasons for the delay. We were hoping to reach a joint agreement with the Province of Quebec in order to help develop this region. That has not been possible. We are opening within a few days, in Rimouski, I believe, an office which will be entrusted with the beginning of

October 12, 1983
Oral Questions
the expenditure of the $250 million as announced by the Minister of Finance some months ago.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister should do a better job of his homework.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: I have in my hand a press release, released by the three Ministers, who underlined the fact that the federal Government alone, without the participation of the Government of Quebec, is going ahead with these initiatives. Therefore he cannot blame the Government of Quebec for the failure this time.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT ACT TO PROVIDE JOBS
John Edward Broadbent: I would like to ask a supplementary question of the Prime Minister. I repeat that there are Canadians who are suffering. Considering the fact that the Member for the region, the Hon. Member for Gaspe, has said that when he raises this matter in caucus "Ministers turn a deaf ear", why, in the face of this suffering, in the face of the fact that the Government is committed to spending money in the area, does the Government not get on with the job and provide jobs for those who need them?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, with respect, the Hon. Member did not get the gist of my previous answer. It is true that we want to spend the money ourselves. It would be better if we spent it in co-operation with the Province of Quebec, as we have in other Provinces, where each Government spends its money in areas within its jurisdiction, but where they do it after joint planning. That has not proved possible. Therefore, we will go ahead without any joint planning.
Insofar as the rest of his questions is concerned, I did admit that there were some delays, but I also said that we will be opening the office in Rimouski within a few days.


TIMING OF JOB-CREATION PROJECTS
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I would direct my question either to the Prime Minister or to the Minister responsible for Development, or to the Minister for Finance, who is responsible for patronage in Quebec. I do not care who answers, but I would like to ask the Prime Minister, particularly, to answer.
One Member of the Liberal caucus has said that some $10 million which has been approved for tourism, which would provide many jobs now, will not be spent until next spring. Would the Prime Minister confirm that the sense of timing about these projects has absolutely nothing to do with the human and economic need but has everything to do with the forthcoming federal election?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the difference between our Party and the New Democratic Party is that-


Mr. Andre:: It's hard to see.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -when we allocate funds, we raise taxes in order that the money can be obtained and then we spend it. The New Democratic Party always comes along after we have announced our programs and says it would have done it, except it would have done it yesterday, with more money. That is the only difference.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. The Indian, Inuit and Metis peoples of Canada are very patiently waiting for final passage of the constitutional Accord, which is the first amendment to our new Constitution. That passage has been delayed in the Senate, and the problem in the other place has been compounded by a thoughtless remark by the vice-chairman of the Senate Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, leading the Assembly of First Nations to cancel their appearance before that committee. Will the Prime Minister tell the House whether he has been advised by the Government Leader in the Senate as to just how much longer their sober second thought will take?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, as far as the timing is concerned I am advised that the report will be brought in tomorrow or the next day of this week. Therefore we should not have to wait long for that report.
The committee has done very good work. It is true that one Senator made some unfortunate remarks which were condemned by Ministers on this side, but that is a matter for the Leader of the Opposition to settle within his own caucus. The Senator is not a member of our caucus, as the Member knows.


EMPLOYMENT
Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance dealing with the Economic Council of Canada Report. The Council goes on to repeat its recommendation for an employment tax credit which the Minister, for some reason, continues to ignore. Council members support their repeated recommendation by saying:
October 12, 1983

The principal target population of the program would be those who bear a disproportionate share of the unemployment burden, particularly the long-term unemployed.
We are dealing with older workers who are the most difficult to rehire, and the young people who are finding it most difficult to find jobs. Both groups can be targeted by use of an employment tax credit. Why does the Government not bring in an employment tax credit in accordance with the repeated recommendation of the Economic Council of Canada?


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, I think I have already replied to this question in the House at least twice. The answer is that we do have presently in existence job subsidy programs which have the same effect.
We found, in looking at the tax credit proposals, that that is less attractive to the private sector because the entry into the cash flow businesses, particularly small businesses, is delayed until the completion of the tax form and tax return. However, a direct job subsidy program has a greater impact and is more cost effective because it translates into the immediate cash situation of a firm to its advantage.
We have found, in looking at the dividend program which the Hon. Member has mentioned, and looking at the experience of other countries, that a better mechanism is the kind of job subsidy program which we already have in place.


James Aloysius McGrath: The Minister knows that the Access Program is targeted to a very small percentage of the unemployed, whereas this program has the advantage of being targeted to all young people who are unemployed, and all unemployed older people.


PROPOSAL TO RESTRUCTURE UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE SYSTEM
James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, let me ask the Minister a question which he seemed to dismiss out of hand earlier today. Does he intend to accept the recommendation of the Council that the Government join with employers and employee associations to study the possibility of restructuring the unemployment insurance system with a view to integrating it much more effectively with job creation and training programs? On the surface that seems to be a very reasonable proposal, given the fact that we are paying out so much money in unemployment insurance. Does the Government intend to accept that recommendation and, if not, why not?


John (Moody) Roberts: Madam Speaker, we do intend to consider very seriously all the recommendations in what is a very serious study. I think the recommendations are very much worthy of review.
I believe I should say at the outset that my major concern and highest priority is job creation. I am not sure that tinkering away or fundamentally changing the basic unemployment insurance structure which we now have is the best way to accomplish that objective. We will study the recommendations
Oral Questions
very seriously. Whether we will be prepared to act in a way which is recommended to us is something which will require some reflection.


STATUS OF WOMEN
Mr. Walter McLean (Waterloo):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for the Status of Women. She will be aware that the Economic Council of Canada has a complete section on women and women's issues in its 1983 Report. Recommendation 15 reads, "that the federal Government should consider revising the Income Tax Act so as to convert what are now exemptions for wholly dependent children to income tax credits." Will she tell the House whether she supports the proposal that all deductions- I repeat "all deductions"-be shifted to credits as recommended by the Economic Council of Canada and the National Council on Welfare?


Hon. Judy Erola (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Madam Speaker, I am delighted that the Hon. Member has taken time to read that particular chapter. We had a great deal of co-operation take place between Status of Women Canada and the Economic Council of Canada. 1 am particularly pleased with the results of that work.
While I have not had a chance to examine the complete Report, I will say to the Hon. Member that many of the suggestions are very useful and this is one which I will take under consideration.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Walter Franklin McLean: Madam Speaker, the Minister has ducked the question. The question is whether she will personnally support the proposal that all deductions be shifted to credits. We hear her affirmations about the work that has been done and share that view, but is she prepared, herself, personally to support that shift?


Judith A. Erola: Madam Speaker, my record is very clear. I have always said that we must examine the taxation system in order to have a better understanding of how taxation affects women and families. But those decisions are made collectively by Cabinet, of course.


MEDICAL CARE
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. She will recall that the Commonwealth Health Min-

October 12, 1983
Oral Questions
isters' Conference concluded last week with the view that we need to move toward preventive health care systems as quickly as possible, and to develop alternatives to the present physician dominated curative health care model. This is a view that has long been advanced by the NDP and other groups such as the Canadian Nurses' Association.
When we finally see the long awaited Canada Health Act, could the Minister tell the House if we will also see anything in that Act that will address the need for the development of alternative health care models, and will we see anything which will provide for federal Government leadership in developing those health care models? Can we look forward to anything in that vein?


Hon. Mlonique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Madam Speaker, unfortunately it will not be done through the Canada Health Act because of the division of powers as defined by the Constitution. I have often discussed this with groups such as the nurses, who are very good supporters of Medicare. All those health workers and Canadians generally who have adopted the now internationally famous "New Perspectives on Health for Canadians", which was published by this Government in 1975 by my predecessor, the present Minister of Finance, accept the fact that we must move toward that goal. However, the Constitution only permits us the basic conditions attached to the spending power. Therefore, we have taken some leadership which I am interested in seeing grow through seminars, panels, health promotion programs, as well as funding for demonstrations and pilot projects all over the country. Any other such suggestions are welcomed.


HEALTH CARE FUNDING
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Madam Speaker, the Minister will know that one course of action she does have the opportunity to take, and I have urged her to do so a number of times, is to reopen the question of the adequacy of federal funding for Medicare.
While reopening the question of federal funding, if she finally did so, the Minister could also consider ways in which the federal Government, through direct cost-sharing of new approaches to health care, might show some leadership? That is within the constitutional purview of the Government. It has the ability to do that. Indeed, that is how Medicare was originally established. Does the Minister intend to take action in this area?


Monique Bégin: Madam Speaker, I know that the Hon. Member is a strong supporter of Medicare. We on this side are as well. However, I feel like asking him to make up his mind. In his first question the Hon. Member told me the conclusion of the Commonwealth Health Ministers' meeting was to redistribute existing resources, that we must go preventive and improve the health status of Canadians, and that no new money is needed. That is what we have always said. Several experts in Canada
have established that funding for health care is adequate but there is still room for lots of improvement within it to yield better results.

[ Translation]


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Alexandre Cyr (Gaspe):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Hon. Minister of Employment and Immigration. Deep sea fishermen in the Gulf, especially from the ridings of Gaspe and Bonaventure, are having financial problems now that the cod quotas are full and the fishing grounds have been closed down. Furthermore, these fishermen are not eligible for NEED projects because they are self-employed. Could the Hon. Minister inform the House whether he could let the benefit period start on October 10 instead of November 1, and could he amend the regulations of the job creation program so that fishermen could be employed right away under NEED projects.


John (Moody) Roberts: Madam Speaker, 1 want to thank the Hon. Member for drawing my attention to this problem. I shall certainly look into it, but I am not sure how a change could be made in the date on which benefits are to begin. However, I will give it some thought and find out whether something could be done under the NEED program. I shall give the Hon. Member a reply as soon as possible.


AIR CANADA
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. Last December in a response to a request from the then Minister of Transport, the RCMP launched an investigation into the purchase by Air Canada of a new headquarters site in Montreal. Can the Minister tell us the status of that investigation? Has it been completed? Has he received the report? Can he tell us what action, if any, he is going to take as a result of that investigation?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Minister of Justice):: Madam Speaker, the investigation is not entirely complete in all respects. In any event, 1 think it would be the role of the Attorney General of the Province in question to take any
October 12, 1983

follow-up action with respect to prosecution. I can assure my hon. friend that we take this issue very seriously.


ROLE OF STANDING COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORT
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Transport. Quite apart from the criminal investigation and any ramifications that might flow therefrom, can the Minister assure this House that the Government supports the transportation committee in its continued but stalled examination into Air Canada matters, or are there reasons why the Government does not want the Committee to be convened at this time, after a two-week delay, such reasons being an imminent resignation or resignations?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, I think it has been quite clear that we have always supported the active work of the Transport Committee. But I think the Hon. Member knows the rules of this House which are that committees set their own rules, decide their own agendas, and carry out their own activities.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: While that may not be the standard the Hon. Member follows, I am sure it is the standard other Members of the Committee follow.


POSITION OF CHAIRMAN
Hon. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Transport. Does the Minister of Transport anticipate the resignation of Mr. Amyot?


Lloyd Axworthy: No, Madam Speaker.


ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY INCREASE IN TOLLS-APPLICATION OF GOVERNMENT RESTRAINT PROGRAM
Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Bearing in mind that in the two years between 1978 to 1980 St. Lawrence Seaway tolls went up 100 per cent, that in 1982 they went up 18 per cent, and this year they have gone up another 10 per cent, making a total increase of 28 per cent in the last two years, and bearing in mind the cost price squeeze on farmers, whatever happened to six and five?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I think in part the answer to the question was contained in the question itself. The tolls are designed in order to maintain the Seaway. The tolls are based upon a user-pay concept. The users pay a charge which has not gone up
Oral Questions
exorbitantly compared to the over-all price of transportation across the country, and they are within the guidelines set by the Government.


Arnold John Malone: Madam Speaker, knowing the Rules of this House, 1 will not comment on that despicable answer.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


REQUEST THAT MINISTER FREEZE TOLLS
Arnold John Malone: Madam Speaker, 1 want to ask the Minister of Transport a supplementary question. How is it that he can give such a flippant answer in light of the fact that there has been an enormous doubling and tripling of costs for farmers in the last five years? Farmers receipts are the same as a decade ago. Bearing in mind that between 1976 and 1982 there has been a 115 per cent cost increase for farm producers and only a 36 per cent increase in receipts, and bearing in mind the Minister is dealing with a Crown corporation, will he freeze the tolls on the St. Lawrence Seaway because all farmers pay, with a reduced final payment on grain, whether or not they use the Seaway? Will the Minister freeze that cost, bearing in mind he is trying to make us pay five times as much for the Crow rate by 1991 ?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I want to repeat again that, according to the refinancing of the Seaway in 1977, the formula that is used is designed to make sure the Seaway is able to recover the cost of its normal operation, and that is subject to negotiation with the United States Government, which is also a partner in the Seaway. Those negotiations, of course, go on. 1 think it has been pointed out before that there has been no increase in lockage fees in the Welland Canal in that period of time. The pricing mechanism is reviewed annually. However, I would want to point out again, Madam Speaker, the constant inconsistency we receive from members of the Opposition. On the one hand the Leader of the Opposition stands up continually and says the Government is spending too much money, and then his Members get up and ask, "Why don't you spend more and have heavier subsidies?" You cannot have it both ways.


FINANCE
Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Bruce-Grey):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed through you to the Minister of Finance. Yesterday th? Minister indicated that he would continue to put pressure on lending institutions to ensure they would allow renegotiation of mortgages with the traditional lending institutions for a three-month penalty charge. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has also indicated that she is looking at changes to the Interest Act. As the Minister of Finance is ultimately responsible for the Farm Credit Corporation and for the Federal Business Development Bank, could

October 12, 1983
Oral Questions
he tell us whether or not he will allow those Canadians who are mortgaging through those two Crown corporations to renegotiate their mortgages for the three month penalty?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I have indicated already that I have made a large number of representations to the various financial institutions concerning specific cases. I still believe that a large number of cases have been taken care of on a voluntary basis by the institutions. I urged them to do so, but I have indicated already that we are also reviewing the situation in terms of the Interest Act.


RENEGOTIATION PENALTY
Gary Michael Gurbin: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance. He has completely ignored the question. The question is the hyprocrisy of the Liberal Government in expecting the traditional lending institutions to treat Canadians one way, when the Government itself and the institutions for which it is responsible are putting the screws on borrowers across the country, farmers, businessmen and other people who have been loaned money at 16 per cent to 22 per cent, with no relief. Will the Minister allow those borrowers to refinance with those institutions for the three-month penalty?


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


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I never saw anything more hypocritical than a Progressive Conservative.


LOUIS RIEL
Mr. Louis Duclos (Montmorency-Orleans):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister who undoubtedly knows that the Hon. Member for Edmonton East has introduced a Bill to grant a pardon to Louis Riel with a view to restoring his good name. Would the Prime Minister tell the House whether the Government would be prepared to support the initiative of the Hon. Member for Edmonton East by introducing a similar Bill in the next session, and to make the necessary representations to the Leader of the Official Opposition and the Leader of the New Democratic Party so as to ensure swift passage of that Bill by the Parliament of Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member knows that I share the sentiments of admiration which many people in this House have for the memory of Louis Riel, but I am not convinced that it would be useful to try to rewrite history, as proposed by the Hon.
Member. History is history and 1 fail to see how any legislation might possibly change history facts which occurred over a century ago. Still, my mind is not made up and I am open to arguments to the contrary.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Communications. As the Minister knows, his Government helped Maclean-Hunter to create Maclean's news weekly magazine with a $6 million tax break in 1978 and a postal subsidy of over $1.5 million. Now that Maclean-Hunter has forced Maclean's employees to strike for a first contract, job security, and pay levels nearer to industry rates, will the Minister use his good offices to persuade this publicly subsidized employer which, with $24 million profits, can afford a quick and just settlement of this strike?


Hon. Francis Fox (Minister of Communications):: Madam Speaker, what the Hon. Member is talking about is a general program which is applicable only to magazines published in Canada. It is not a subsidy in the sense of which he speaks. The Hon. Member knows full well that then the Government of Canada does not give a subsidy to a corporation, it does not start running the corporation's industrial relations. We do not believe in that type of society.


FAIR LABOUR PRACTICES
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Madam Speaker, in view of this abuse of public funds by Maclean-Hunter, will the Minister undertake to introduce amendments to the appropriate legislation that will make fair labour practice a condition of receiving such generous subsidies from the public purse?


Francis Fox: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member knows full well that when we talk about labour legislation in Canada, it applies in an indiscriminate fashion to all companies in this country. They obviously have to follow fair labour practices. Once again, that is the general law of the land. It is not something that the Department of Communications can or should be involved in directly.


FINANCE
Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Madam Speaker, Members of all three Parties from time to time have
October 12, 1983

expressed their concern about the high mortgage interest rates. Yesterday in the House of Commons the Minister of Finance indicated that he was now looking at the high mortgage interest problem affecting thousands of Canadians, and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs indicated outside the House that they were looking specifically at the Interest Act. Can the Minister put a time frame on this consideration and decision-making process, and can he tell this House when in days or weeks he might have a proposal to put forth ?


Marc Lalonde: That is a question which the Government will study in due time and to which it will reply in due time as well. The Hon. Member is aware of the many representations we have made to the financial institutions, and we will continue to make them. Should there be any changes in our policies, they will be announced in due course.


PLIGHT OF HOME OWNERS WITH HIGH INTEREST RATE MORTGAGES
Paul Wyatt Dick: Madam Speaker, we have been bringing this matter to the Government's attention since March, 1983. I would hope that six months would be enough time to consider it. In view of the fact that as of January of this year, according to CMHC figures, 700,000 Canadians had mortgages with interest rates of 17 per cent and higher, and in view of the fact that the Minister of Finance has concluded that moral suasion has not been sufficient, will the Minister set a time when representatives of all three Parties can sit down with him to discuss the problem in the hope of getting a speedy resolution?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I have already received representations from Members of all parties in that respect.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Sinclair Stevens (York-Peel):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the secretary of State for External Affairs. Will he indicate to the House which Cabinet Minister or Ministers will be representing Canada at the national funeral service in Korea for the Koreans who were killed by a bomb in Burma, including four Cabinet Ministers? Will he also indicate what specific instructions have been given to our representative that he may offer in the form of assistance to the Koreans with respect to the ensuing investigation?
Oral Questions


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member has raised the matter of the great tragedy that has occurred. We, as Canadians and Members of the House of Commons, have been very saddened and shocked at the loss of life as a result of the assassinations that have taken place. We have expressed our condolences to the Government of Korea. I have sent a message, and the Prime Minister has sent a message.
With respect to representation at the funeral, I authorized the head of the Canadian delegation attending the Inter-Parliamentary Union meeting in Seoul to represent the Government of Canada. I thought that was the appropriate way to have the House of Commons and the Government represented, by designating the Chairman of the Canadian delegation to the Inter-Parliamentary Union now meeting in Seoul, Korea.


INVESTIGATION OF BOMBING
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, will the Minister indicate specifically whether our representative has been authorized to offer any specific assistance to the Korean Government with respect to the ongoing investigation of this tragic bombing? If the delegate has not been so authorized, will that offer be forthcoming?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I have not asked the representative to make that offer to the Government of Korea, but I think that we would help in any way we could. I will certainly bear in mind the suggestion made by the Hon. Member and ascertain whether there is any assistance we could offer in the investigation that is being conducted not only, presumably, by the Government of South Korea but by the Government of Burma.


SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Mr. Robert Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State. In order legally to establish his residence in San Francisco, Mr. Sidney Jaffe testified at a July, 1979, bankruptcy hearing in a United States district court in San Francisco that he had moved with his wife and all of his business records to San Francisco in 1977. In view of this statement, will the Government check Mr. Jaffe's T-l and T-40 income tax returns for the four years immediately preceding his application under the Canadian Citizenship Act as a legal statement regarding the residency intentions of Mr. Jaffe during this period?


Hon. Serge Joyal (Secretary of State):: Madam Speaker, so far as the residence statement on any application for citizenship is concerned, 1 draw the attention of the Hon. Member to a judgment of a federal judge of the Court of Appeal dated

October 12, 1983
Oral Questions
June 30, 1978, where Judge Thurlow established a precedent on which a decision is made on the residency requirements in the contents of the Citizenship Act. As far as the income tax return is concerned, that question should be addressed to the Minister responsible for Revenue Canada.


MEDICAL CARE
Mr. Gordon Gilchrist (Scarborough East):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Last week the Leader of the Liberal Party in Ontario, the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition in Ontario, publicly repudiated the policies of the federal Minister of National Health and Welfare in the matter of extra billing. He said it was a matter of practising brinkmanship and he disagreed fundamentally with that. In the interest of securing good, sound medical coverage for all Canadians, will the Prime Minister consider instructing the Minister of National Health and Welfare to cease this brinkmanship and undertake good sound negotiating practices with the Provinces?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I can say nothing about the Liberal Leader of Ontario, but I can say that I support the Minister of National Health and Welfare one hundred per cent.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


BILINGUALISM
James Gordon Gilchrist: Madam Speaker, that does not help clear up the division in the thinking of the Liberal Party in this matter, which I might say also includes the policy on bilingualism. Will the Prime Minister enunciate for what outspoken remaining Liberals there are in Ontario, so they will know what to believe going into the next election, whether the Liberal Party of Ontario speaks for the bilingualism policy and medicare policy, or whether it is the Government of Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, when the Leader of the Official Opposition has straightened out Mr. Davis on this matter, I will undertake to talk to Mr. Peterson.


PETITION
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Petition presented by the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) on October II does not meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


PRIVILEGE
Madam Speaker:: I would now like to rule on the question of privilege which was raised in the House by the Hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm) on October 4, 1983. I have, of course, carefully examined the documents supplied to me by the Hon. Member.


James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Madam Speaker:: While I am making a ruling, there cannot be a point of order.


James Aloysius McGrath: Hon. Members should sit down.


Madam Speaker:: I know they should. Thank you very much.
I usually look around me in a very cross manner so that all Hon. Members will understand that I would like them to listen to me, but it is hard to be cross now. The House is very silent. Thank you very much.
I have examined all of those documents and of course listened to the presentation made by the Hon. Member for Peterborought and by other Hon. Members who expressed themselves on this particular question. I have also taken note of the citations from Beauchesne and Erskine May which were quoted in the submissions of Hon. Members. Nobody, of course, questions their validity as part of the traditional interpretation of the application of privilege. That is, of course, what the interventions were all about.
It is very clear, of course, that an act or omission which obstructs or impedes the House or its Members in the discharge of their functions would constitute a breach of privilege or contempt. The Hon. Member for Peterborough claims that the letter concerned has had precisely this effect, and this is the issue on which the Chair must base a prima facie judgment.
The House has a long and honourable tradition of protecting the freedom of speech, not only of its own Members but of all the citizens of this country. The Hon. Member himself emphasized that he was not questioning a private citizen's freedom of speech, but freedom of speech, if it is to mean anything at all, must allow for the use of strong and even offensive language. Comments may be made which are unjust, inaccurate or even outrageous. If we believe in the right of comment, we must allow it even when it is mistaken, misguided or impulsive.
October 12, 1983______________________________COMMONS
There are numerous controversial issues which are fiercely debated, not only in Parliament but in the columns of the press and in the country as a whole. Metric conversion is one such issue. The Hon. Member for Peterborough is a leading champion of those who oppose metric conversion. He has fought for his position with determination both inside and outside the House. He has every right to do so and to go on doing so. Similarly, we must uphold the right of those who support metric conversion to argue their case with equal force.
Parliamentary privilege is limited in its application. I think all Hon. Members realize this. If Members engage in public debate outside the House, they enjoy no special protection. To invoke privilege, the offence must be attached to a parliamentary proceeding. The Hon. Member referred in his submission to Citation 56(1) of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition which deals with a case involving the Roman Corporation. In this case, a proceeding which took place outside Parliament was deemed by the court to be an extension of a parliamentary proceeding. However, the proceeding concerned, namely a telegram and press release, repeated a ministerial statement which had already been made in the House. One cannot interpret this precedent to mean that public debate on an issue which has occupied the attention of Parliament is, ipso facto, an extension of a parliamentary proceeding.
The Hon. Member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis) attempted to draw a parallel between the question of privilege raised by the Hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Mackasey), on which I ruled on March 22, 1983, and the present case. I would point out to the House that the basis of the submission of the Hon. Member for Lincoln was entirely different. He had been accused of a dishonourable act directly related to his status as a Member of Parliament. The law specifically prohibits Members of Parliament from engaging in the kind of activity of which the Hon. Member was accused. No such accusation has been made in the present case. I should like to quote a passage from that ruling because I feel it is appropriate in the present context. That ruling reads:
The effect of parliamentary privilege is to place a Member of Parliament above the law in circumstances where it provides his only protection in the fulfilment of his duties as a Member. It is not designed to create a privileged class of citizens as such. The Member enjoys his privileges on behalf of those he represents, not for his personal advantage.
I then went on to read an extract from the report of the British Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege presented in 1967, which can be referred to in the ruling.
On February 24, 1982, I had occasion to rule on another question of privilege, also raised by the Hon. Member for Peterborough, which is not dissimilar to the one with which we are now dealing. My ruling on that particular issue included the following paragraphs, and I think I can do no better than to repeat them as they apply equally in this case:
Parliamentary privilege is based on the need to protect members front any action tending to obstruct, or intimidate them or impair their effectiveness in the discharge of their duties. It is not designed to protect them from criticism, however strong, even when the language used might be excessive. The Hon. Member himself quoted the words of a British Select Committee report, cited in a ruling of my predecessor on June 23, 1977, which is as follows:

Petitions
__Ihe House should be slow and reluctant to use its penal powers to stifle
criticism or even abuse, whether of the machinery of the House, of a Member or of an identifiable group of Members, however strongly the criticism may be expressed and however unjustifiable it may appear.
1 would point out that the whole thrust of the report from which the Hon. Member quoted was to discourage the raising of questions of privilege based upon abusive language. It is recommended that where a Member feels he has been libelled or slandered, he should seek his remedy through the courts. I shall quote two of the recommendations of the Select Committee report as follows:
In the future exercise of its penal jurisdiction the House should follow the general rule that it should be exercised (a) in any event as sparingly as possible and (b) only when the House is satisfied that to exercise it is essential in order to provide reasonable protection for the House, its Members or its officers, from such improper obstruction or attempt at or any threat of obstruction as is causing, or is likely to cause, substantial interference with the performance of their respective functions.
I should like to add one more quotation of direct relevance, an extract from a report of the British Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege presented on June 16, 1964. It reads:
It seems to them particularly important that the law of parliamentary privilege should not, except in the clearest case, be invoked so as to inhibit or discourage the formation and free expression of opinion outside the house by Members equally with other citizens in relation to the conduct of the affairs of the nation.
In conclusion, while I recognize that the Hon. Member sincerely believes that his ability to function effectively has been impaired, I doubt that the circulation of the letter he complains of has prevented him from attending to his duties. He has not been threatened, his movements have not been obstructed and his freedom of speech and action has not been inhibited.
The assertions contained in the offending letter represent the views of a single individual, and the matter should not be over-inflated. As to the propriety of a public servant commenting publicly in such a manner, this is not related to parliamentary privilege. It is for the Government to decide whether this official has exceeded the limits of acceptable conduct and whether some kind of disciplinary action might be warranted. I am, therefore, unable to give this matter precedence as a prima facie question of privilege.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Lee Clark (Brandon-Souris):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present to the House a petition signed by 18 residents of my constituency of Brandon-Souris, a petition which was drafted in support of a Private Member's Bill, an Act to amend the Broadcasting Act, introduced by the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald). Even
_______________________COMMONS DEBATES___________________________October 12, 1983
Order Paper Questions
though that Bill has now been withdrawn and the issue has gone to committee, I believe it would be appropriate for the House to receive this petition.


Mr. Sid Parker (Kootenay East-Revelstoke):: Madam Speaker, I have a petition submitted by the women of the community of Golden, British Columbia, which is in the riding of Kootenay East-Revelstoke. These women are concerned about the proliferation of pornography in various media and the Government's failure to act to deal with this insidious problem. They have asked Parliament to demonstrate its opposition to the denigration of women by enacting an Act to amend the Broadcasting Act, which was introduced by the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) and was recently discussed in the House.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. John Evans (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 4,840, 5,009 and 5,025.


Mr. Howie: Did the Solicitor General receive any requests from the Province of New Brunswick for training programs for residents of the Renous area to enable them to take advantage of the construction-related employment and subsequent operation of the penitentiary which is being built in that area?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General of Canada):: The Solicitor General of Canada has received requests, written and oral, from the Member of Parliament for Northumberland-Mirami-chi for priority consideration of local residents for local training and priority in employment in the penitentiary construction and operation.
In so far as the Correctional Service of Canada is concerned: The Correctional Service of Canada has received inquiries from the Member of Parliament for Northumber-land-Miramichi and the Province of New Brunswick pertaining to training programs for residents of the Renous area and penitentiary related employment. The Correctional Service of Canada has also been in contact with the New Brunswick Community College in order to determine areas which may assist in the development of potential employees for the new penitentiary.


Mr. Heap: 1.	What was the date of inception of veterans's insurance for world war II veterans?
2.	What is the funding authority?
3.	What was the amount of the various denomination policies sold?
4.	What was the total number of beneficiaries to December 31, 1982?
5.	What was the total number of dollars paid in benefits to December, 1982?
6.	What is the number of policies lapsed in period since purchased?
7.	What is the number of active policies paid up?
8.	What is the amount yet payable on these policies?
9.	What is the total of accumulated reserve fund?


Hon. W. Bennett Campbell (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: 1.	February 20, 1945.
2.	The Veterans Insurance Act, R.S., c. 279, s. 1.
3.	Policies sold were multiples of $500 to a maximum of $10,000. A total of 56,148 policies were sold.
4.	12,560.
5.	$36,011,031.
6.	2,375.
7.	8,999.
8.	$24,070,700.50.
9.	$27,432,775.97.


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	Were subsidies granted to the Council for the Development of French in Louisiana by the Canadian Consulate General in New Orleans and, if so, to date, what was the total amount of such subsidies?
2.	For how long has the Consulate General been subsidizing the Council?
3.	Are there any other United States organizations which receive any amount of funding through Canadian Consulates General, or any other Canadian representative in the United States, to teach the French language and, if so (a) what is the name of each organization (b) where in the United States is the organization located (c) to date, what amount was received by each organization from the Canadian representative?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The Department of External Affairs does not provide subsidies to the "Council for the Development of French in Louisiana (CODOFIL)". However, the Department does co-operate with the Council in the same manner as the French and the Belgian or the Quebec and New Brunswick Governments for the implementation of certain programs in the cultural field aimed at the promotion of the Francophonie:
(a) A cultural community animation program initiated in 1980/81 whose cost in 1983/84 is $15,000; (b) In association with the University of Moncton, a scholarship program was initiated in 1982/83; its cost this year will be $8,500.
The Department has also implemented cultural programs in association with "Action for the Franco-Americans of New England (ACTFANE)" and with "Association of Franco-Americans (AFA)". The benefits from these cultural pro-
October 12, 1983

grams are not negligible in term of human exchanges. The costs of these programs this year will amount to $12,000.


John Leslie Evans: Madam Speaker, I 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.


John Leslie Evans: Madam Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


Madam Speaker:: Shall the notices of motions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS

["The Chair is prepared to recognize the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary but our time has now expired. Therefore this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at eleven o'clock a.m.\nAt 6.17 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.", 'Thursday, October 13, 1983']
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order please. Shall all orders listed under Notices of Motions preceding order No. 90 be allowed to stand by unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I am almost 15 minutes late for a House Leaders' meeting. I wonder if I might seek the unanimous consent of the House to permit the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) to speak to the motion standing in my name. He is even more capable than I of doing so.


Mr. Pinard:: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the first part of the request.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I agree with everything that has been said as well.
The Budget


Erik Nielsen: That a Special Committee be appointed to inquire into all the circumstances relating to or associated with the disclosure of Budget information by the Minister of Finance on Monday. April 18, 1983;
That the Committee consist of elevent (11) Members of the House; and That the Committee have the power to send for persons, papers and records.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I hope that this will be another Opposition motion that the Government will accept, because it is certainly reasonable and rational. It is time that the question of budget secrecy or otherwise in Canada had ventilation.
The motion refers to an incident which occurred on last April 18. We have had a number of instances of budget leaks but that was the first time in Canadian history that the budget leaker was actually caught in the process of leaking. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) was caught in the process of leaking, by television. The television cameras were actually in the room and took photographs of the Minister leaking. This is the first time in history, as far as I know, that the situation has actually occurred.
All we ask is that a committee be appointed to inquire into the circumstances and send for persons, papers and records. This was originally raised as a breach of privilege by the Opposition House Leader on April 19. The incident came about because, as the Minister said in a statement that he added to his budget on April 19, he received a group of photographers in his office on April 18 as part of a pre-budget photo opportunity session. That Minister in particular should not be one to give photo opportunities. He did give a photo opportunity, however, and a copy of the budget speech was on his desk. He held it up, he turned the pages, and he had a cameraman standing behind him. The cameraman took pictures of the pages with a zoom lens as he turned them, and it became clear later when the pictures were developed that they had budget information. They had the amount that was going to be spent on a recovery program and the amount the Government deficit was going to be-$31.2 billion. This was all revealed on the night of April 18 rather than as part of the budget on April 19. That was the information that was disclosed before the House received the budget.
It was held by Her Honour, the Speaker, that the violation of budget secrecy, if there was one, did not necessarily breach the privileges of the House of Commons. She did not find that there had been a breach of the privileges of the House.
What is budget secrecy? It is a tradition of Parliament based on the common law of this House. It is based on the traditions of this House. There is no statute that I know of, no particular law that requires the Minister of Finance to keep secret the details of the contents of a budget until they are announced in the House. In England and in the Commonwealth and in parliamentary countries of the world there are these traditions of budget secrecy. They are necessary so that conflicts of interest will not arise and so that unauthorized people will not make money through having advance knowledge of what is in the budget.

October 12, 1983
The Budget
In other countries, particularly the United Kingdom, this is treated with a great deal of strictness. Any kind of budget leak, no matter how apparently minor, results in the resignation of the Minister of Finance, except in Canada. We all remember the 1947 incident when Hugh Dalton, the Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer, resigned because, on his way into the House to give the budget speech, when a reporter in the lobby asked him if there would be a change in the tobacco tax, he indicated that there would be. Because that became public and was in the newspapers before he gave the information to the House, he was forced to resign.
Even in this country, Madam Speaker, in earlier years the Liberal Party used to be sensitive to some degree to the traditions of Parliament. In 1963, Walter Gordon, then the Minister of Finance, tendered his resignation. Prime Minister Pearson did not accept it, but Mr. Gordon did tender it because he had consulted four economists. Four persons had been involved in the preparation of his budget who were not members of the Department of Finance. They were from outside Government and they knew the details of the budget. Because he had done that and because of the furore when it became public knowledge, he tendered his resignation. That was at a time when the Liberal Party had some kind of conscience. When it started out in 1963, 20 long years ago, it paid some attention to the traditions of Parliament in the House of Commons and the Minister of Finance of the day tendered his resignation, even though it was not accepted.
Today, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is uncaring about parliamentary traditions. When the Gillespie affair was debated some months ago, even he seemed to recognize that a violation of budget secrecy required the resignation of the Minister of Finance. On February 18 in this House, as reported at page 22978 of Hansard, he referred to the Dalton case, saying that Dalton had inadvertently let out a budget secret and, according to tradition, that is something you should not do and that Dalton chose to resign.
p
The Dalton case is on all fours with the Lalonde case, Mr. Speaker. They both inadvertently-and we will agree it was inadvertent-leaked important contents of their budgets to the press just before a budget speech. The case we refer to of last April is even more grave than the Dalton case, because it occurred over a day before the budget was brought down. In England, the Chancellor of the Exchequer resigned immediately. But in Canada, no. Mr. Speaker, you could not get this Minister of Finance out with a charge of dynamite. You would have to have a very, very stiff charge of dynamite or a major earthquake to move the Minister of Finance from his office in this Government. It would not matter what happened, he has no intention of leaving. What did he do? Instead of offering his resignation, he attempted to weasel out of his dilemma by changing the leaked portions of the budget before he read them to the House on April 19. And this was sanctioned by the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker.
I have a document here which gives the changes and what was added to the budget. The Minister increased spending by $200 million for the so-called job creation program, which is still not creating jobs. He increased the size of the deficit by $200 million over the coming two years. The deficit became $31.3 billion for 1983. What difference did it make, you might ask yourself, Mr. Speaker? Well, it made this difference. On April 19, the day following this leak, at 10 a.m., the Canadian Dow Jones reported, and I quote:
Dealers said reports of a leak of Finance Minister Marc Lalonde's budget presentation tonight, which allegedly will show an estimated deficit of $31.2 billion for the current fiscal year, have added to the Canadian fund's weakness. Dealers said the Canadian fund has slipped as low as 80.66 this morning before the Bank of Canada intervened.
That is some of the damage which the budget leak did, Mr. Speaker. It weakened the Canadian dollar the next morning. Even more than that kind of damage, it undermined the confidence of the public in the credibility of the Minister; that is, if it had any such confidence. I, frankly, have never had much confidence in the Minister's credibility. 1 will say, though, that he is competent. I believe him to be a competent Minister. As to his credibility, the economic record of the Government over the last three or four years and the new energy program of the Minister certainly undermine his credibility. This kind of budget leak, this kind of sneaky and scurrilous behaviour, and this kind of pattern of conduct of sleveenery by a Minister of Finance certainly does away with any credibility he may have.
The Minister gives a budget speech. He mails it across the country. A document then follows telling the people of the country who just read the budget speech that the special recovery program is not $4.6 billion, but should be $4.8 billion. Perhaps we are in 1984 already. Perhaps this is the era of newspeak. You read a budget just produced and printed, then you receive another document from the Minister saying, no, it is not $4.6 billion, it is $4.8 billion. It is not a deficit of $31.2 billion, it is $31.3 billion. And the changes have all been made overnight.
This is similar, Mr. Speaker, to what happened with reference to the conflict of interest guidelines of the Prime Minister. We all recall during the Gillespie affair how the Prime Minister rationalized what was happening. On April 28, 1980 he sent to every one of his Ministers a letter containing the conflict of interest guidelines which said:
Ministers ... have an obligation to meet the highest standards of conduct and to arrange and conduct their personal affairs in a manner which does not conflcit or appear to conflict with their public duties and responsibilities.
That was the Prime Minister's view in April, 1980. Then, of course, the Gillespie incident came to public light. It was clear that both the Minister of Finance and the now Minister of Energy (Mr. Chretien) had violated those guidelines. They had ignored them in order to help their friend, Alastair Gillespie-who is now a corporate basket case-who apparently needed the assistance of the Government in the project in Cape Breton.
October 12, 1983

When this came to public light, what happened, Mr. Speaker? It was not the Ministers who were changed. No. It was the guidelines which had to be changed. It was not the Ministers conduct which was wrong. If was the Prime Minister's guidelines which were wrong. Now we have a task force headed by Michael Starr and Mitchell Sharp which is going to devise a new set of guidelines. Is that not a similar pattern of conduct as the episode of the budget speech and the leak of April 18? There is a budget leak and the Prime Minister produces a magician's hat and says it is no longer a leak because the Government changed it after it was leaked. I can refer you to the actual words of the Prime Minister, as reported in Hansard of April 19 at page 24633. He said:
If there is a leak and we change them-
That is, the leak provisions.
-there is no more leak.
That is the reasoning of the Prime Minister. There was a leak. We changed what was leaked. So now it is a leak no longer. At one time you see it, at another time you do not. It is the same as the conflict of interest guidelines. At one time there are guidelines. The Minister violates them. It is not the Minister who is wrong. It is the guidelines which are wrong. Therefore, we redo the guidelines. That is where this Government has ended up after 20 years in power, self-serving, self-seeking. There is nothing too scurrilous or slimy that it will not attempt in its desperate effort to keep itself in office. It has ex-Ministers who will continue to support their former colleagues in those piteous ways. I say, thank God for men like Walter Gordon, who at least had the backbone, the courage, the good sense and credibility to offer his resignation when he made a mistake. You will never see that lot opposite admit to a mistake. You will never see them offer their resignation or put themselves in jeopardy, no matter what. That is because they are determined to stay in power, no matter what happens to their credibility, or whatever.
1 do not want to chastise Hon. Members opposite too strongly. It is a waste of time, Mr. Speaker. That is why I am speaking calmly and not getting excited today. I did mention the special recovery program, Mr. Speaker. This is another pattern of this Government. It was supposed to be a special recovery capital projects program in which $4.8 billion was going to be spent over the next several years, nearly all of it in temporary Liberal districts in this country. In the Province of Newfoundland there are seven federal districts. Two of them are held and represented by Progressive Conservative Members who execute their duties brilliantly. There are five districts represented by Liberal Members, and the less said the better. A lot of them are very busy with their own pursuits at the moment. There are five Liberal districts and two Progressive Conservative districts. Where are the moneys going which are being invested in the special recovery projects in Newfoundland? Why, they are going into the five Liberal districts, with the exception of a highway which they could not avoid having located in the district of St. John's East, because that is where it was. They could not move the highway, the connecting road.
The Budget
I have information which indicates this whole program is political. Do you know, Mr. Speaker, that the projects which make up that special recovery program-which was one of the Minister's leaks-were approved by people who do not even belong in this House? Otto Lang, the late unlamented Member from Saskatchewan, a former Liberal Minister, decided where these projects should go. He decides for the West. Ron Basford, the late unlamented Minister from British Columbia, decides for British Columbia. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ouellet) decides for Quebec. And lo and behold, the old Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen), old Allan Twist himself, decides for the Maritimes and Newfoundland. I guess Ontario fits in there somewhere. I think it is under the Minister of Labour as part of the process of increasing our co-operation in this country between the different language groups.
So there are four of them who have to agree. Two of them are not even members of Cabinet, and two of them are not even Members of this House. And they are deciding how $4.8 billion is being spent. Otto Lang and Ron Basford, turfed out by the voters. I believe Ron Basford resigned before he could be turfed out, but if he gives them another chance, they will turf him out, so there is no doubt about that. Otto Lang, of course, was junked out by the taxpayers. However, these four decide and everything has to be checked by numbers one, two and three. Number one is Mr. Trudeau. Number two is Mr. Pitfield, now in the other place. Number three is Keith Davey, also in the other place. These three, the terrible trio, join the four brutes in deciding where all this money is going to be spent in projects across Canada. You call this government administration? I call it degradation, Mr. Speaker. I believe you are looking at me as if I were getting near the end of my time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order. I should indicate to the Hon. Member that he may be getting near the end of his rope, not his time. There is a problem about using the Christian names of Hon. Members. That is a problem for the Chair.
I understand that may change shortly and we will not have that problem. However, I would ask the Hon. Member to be kind enough to co-operate in that regard until such time as changes will be made. The other thing I want to say is that, hopefully, he will address his own motion.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, knowing the great respect I have for him, his patience is monumental and naturally I am going to be guided by his every wish. I am surprised that I am still here and not whisked away somewhere. This is a serious subject, Mr. Speaker, but I am coming near the end. 1 got going on that special recovery project's business because I did not know how I would be able to get it in otherwise.
To come back to the whole business of budget secrecy, surely it demeans this House and our whole process, surely it lowers us all in the eyes of the Canadian public, if a Minister can make a serious mistake like that and then escape the

October 12, 1983
The Budget
consequences simply by getting one more page ready during the night to stick in his budget speech. It says at the top here:
Insert after paragraph I, page 3-
It sounds like an instruction from the drugstore:
Insert after paragraph 1, page 3 in this addendum.
Then it goes on. It costs the Canadian taxpayer $200 million to give the Minister an excuse that he had not engaged in a budget leak. That is the most expensive leak anyone we know of in Canada ever had, a $200 million leak. The whole process was just to save the Minister's neck when he should have come in here and resigned following his budget speech and accepted the responsibility and said that these were the rules.
Can the Prime Minister not find another Minister of Finance? There are, what is it, 146 Hon. Members opposite, and yet there are not enough of them so that one other person could be found to be Minister of Finance? We know he tried the Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs, and we would like to have him back. We think it would be a definite plus for electoral purposes if we could get the Celtic Sphinx back. The hon. Celtic Sphinx, I guess I should say, Mr. Speaker. I am not going to use his name, I am saying he is the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-Highlands-Canso, now the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Surely someone else could take over as Minister of Finance.
We know this motion is not going to be accepted by the Government, unless it continues with its changed practices of the last several weeks. All its says is, let us have a committee appointed, have the circumstances looked into and decide whether or not there should be budget secrecy. Perhaps it is time to throw the whole thing out. I notice that the Ontario Provincial Treasurer, Larry Grossman, said today in The Globe and Mail that they are going to open up the budgetary preparation process to allow Opposition politicians and the public to contribute to the development of the budget. He said:
We believe the veil of secrecy surrounding the development of budgets should be lifted-
He goes on to say:
In an era when economic problems are complex and need as much analysis and consultation as possible, the current preoccupation with secrecy is, we believe, over-emphasized.
Well, why not have somebody in the House look at this problem, Mr. Speaker, and devise some sensible guidelines that will not be changed whenever the Prime Minister finds someone in conflict with them, which will define what is today a violation of budget secrecy and what is not, and for what kind of actions the Minister should or should not be found culpable and responsible and open up the budget process? I started that trend myself in 1979. It was the first budget, of course, in which Canadian problems were dealt with in any kind of an honest fashion in the last 20 years. The result was that the NDP and Liberals went berserk and made sure it was defeated, because they do not want to see problems dealt with honestly or straightforwardly or difficult solutions attempted. But we did start to open up the process then.
As a matter of fact, it was in that budget that for the first time five-year forecasts were given. We can see the five-year forecast the present Minister of Finance has brought down. It shows the miserable prospects for us over the next five years, but at least we know what the official thinking is in connection with those forecasts. In the brief eight months we were in power considerable changes for the better were implemented, and it is time now for the Government to open up the budget process, as Ontario says it is going to do. It is time for this House to decide what the rules should be.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I think the Parliamentary Secretary is going to address himself to this. He sits there looking very pleased, and I think he is going to announce that he accepts this motion. I suggest to him that he do that and that we get this matter thought about and have a report that we can consider to bring Canada into a new modern age of honesty, which of course is not too likely as long as they remain in power.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Before I recognize the next Hon. Member may I draw the attention of Hon. Members to the fact that procedurally I made an error earlier today, as I often do. I indicated that the motion stood in the name of the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), and seconded by the Hon. Member for St. John's West, (Mr. Crosbie), but because the Hon. Member for St. John's West then took the floor, that apparently is not acceptable under our rules. If I might have the unanimous consent of the House, we can fix the problem. Accordingly, the motion moved by Mr. Nielsen and seconded by Mr. Crosbie would be withdrawn and, with the unanimous consent of the House, replaced by the same motion moved by the Hon. Member for St. John's West and seconded by the Hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm).


Robert Joseph Ogle: Mr. Speaker, I would like to add a few words to this motion proposed, according to your ruling, by the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie). I would like to go on record as saying we support the general idea of this motion that a special committee be appointed to inquire into the circumstances of the disclosure of budget information by the Minister on April 18, 1983. We are concerned about that incident and we would like to see this special committee set up to investigate it.
I realize that history has passed us by and nothing can be done about that particular incident or what happened following it. As the Hon. Member for St. John's West pointed out, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) did not resign after the breaking of secrecy, as it was understood in this House, and the proceedings of the House continued without having the problem addressed in the form of a resignation and another budget. We cannot undo what has taken place. But I do think the fact that it did take place, that secrecy was broken and the Minister did not resign would certainly justify a committee of this House seriously looking at the whole notion of secrecy as it relates to the budget. It could question our traditions, indeed question us as well as people across the country, to see whether
October 12, 1983

or not there has to be some change made in the whole approach.
I understand and appreciate the reason behind the secrecy. As the Hon. Member pointed out, it is so that some groups or some people will not make windfall gains by having premature knowledge of what is going to take place at budget time. That is an important point. However, the point I would like to bring forward is that when the tradition began hundreds of years ago it was done without an Act of Parliament but was accepted in the Parliamentary process not only in our country and other Commonwealth countries, because at that time the possibility of having secrecy broken by modern technological means was not present. Today it is very important to look at the possibility of keeping secret something like the budget, and whether or not a Minister, depending on what Government he happens to be with, would be expected to resign simply because some reporter somewhere found something that gave him a little piece of information that he was able to demonstrate prior to the actual reading of the budget. We had two instances of it in our country this year. Concerning the Ontario budget, there was a form of a leak made around the fact that someone had found some discarded printing material and was able to get some information about the budget. In the incident that was mentioned with regard to the motion, a television cameraman with a zoom lens was able to pick a little bit off the budget that was being shown during a photo session. 1 believe that everyone in the House and people in general now realize how difficult it is to keep something absolutely secret. Technology and the availability of machines and instruments which extend the possibility of hearing and seeing, extend the senses about something that formerly could not possibly have been imagined when the whole process of secrecy was introduced.
My own reaction to the event when it took place, the question that came immediately to my mind, concerned the morality of the media when it comes to a situation like this where, by a fluke or because there is an instrument of which the other person is not aware, one is able to get a small piece of information that can be blown up into what becomes an incident. It seems to me, with my own background of working in the church, and to many others who have similar professions, doctors, lawyers, ministers, priests and teachers, that it has been taken for granted that many things we do will be kept secret. People expect and demand that a person like myself and many others, and all of us, I suspect, in some instances, will keep information secret. I can think of many things in my life about which I have information which could be found by someone who really wanted to find it by getting into my files and looking at my notes, and I keep extensive notes.
Someone could use machinery or technical equipment to listen to a conversation in my office, or could tap my telephone or do many other things. 1 would say that if any of those devices were to be used and information gained made public afterwards, it would be morally wrong. So I question the morality of someone in the media who, because of a similar accident or intended accident, is able to procure material that
The Budget
is secret and is able to turn it into an incident afterward, to the embarrassment of some person. I think it is wrong. I do not think that is covering news in the way people expect news to be covered.
Just a few days ago I read of a recent incident in the United States concerning someone who was able to procure the premedical examinations to be written by students coming from other countries. As Hon. Members know, if someone is able to find the answers to that kind of an exam prior to the examination, one's odds of passing will naturally be much higher than those of people who must use their own knowledge. I understand that as much as $10 million was made from this event. People from various countries were able to get the answers to the exam prior to writing it, which finally meant that the exams had to be written all over again. I do not think anyone would question me on my belief that that is wrong. It would also be illegal, I suspect, to steal that kind of knowledge and sell it so that someone else would benefit.
I appreciate the fact that what took place at the time of the budget is not a case exactly parallel to stealing of exams. Nevertheless, I suggest that the media should somehow examine its conscience concerning all the news that it prints about an incident like this, as to who finally benefits from the embarrassment of the Government. But how much restriction should the Government have to use? What is the human dimension that is required of someone to keep a secret in a place like this? I would say that at certain times in history it was not that difficult. If someone did let a secret out, there was greater responsibility than today, especially when technological machines are being used to acquire the information. If someone gives his colleague a note or makes a vocal statement prior to the budget, letting out a piece of information himself simply by not caring, that is different. But when it comes right down to seeking out, with earnestness, information that obviously has not been intentionally put out, then 1 question that morality.
I think it would be proper for the House of Commons or representatives of the committee such as that proposed by the Hon. Member for St. John's West, to question the level of secrecy that must be demanded and the morality involved in seeking information when it is still supposed to be secret. I would like to see such a committee struck.
At budget time it is much more important to have serious consultation by groups across the country that will be affected by the budget to find out exactly what people are thinking and saying about the economics of the country, about labour, business, senior citizens, hospitals and universities. It is more important to look for more information to make a just budget, than it is to make the whole point of it a secret. The value of the research and preparation on a much broader spectrum is more important than the final, total, absolute secrecy, and keeping the secrecy with these new machines is next to impossible when the possibility of them being broken is so much greater.
The New Democrats would support in general the motion that has been proposed by the Hon. Member for St. John's

October 12, 1983
The Budget
West that a special committee study the incident that took place in the House on April 18 and April 19. However, it would only be the case on which to study much more serious questions about the whole notion of secrecy related to the budget and the morality of the media interfering in a way that could break that secrecy unecessarily.


Mr. Douglas Fisher (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, it is a real pleasure to be able to stand and comment on the motion of the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie), to whose advice I listened with great pleasure and enjoyment. I regard him as an authority on these matters, particularly since he was the only Finance Minister of whom I know who resigned over a leaky budget after he read it rather than before. That is a great electoral tradition for the Tory Party to follow in the future. I hope all the struggling and ambitious Finance-Ministers-to-be over on the other side absorb the procedure and the advice of the Hon. Member for St. John's West. He set a great tradition for Tories that all of us hope will be followed.
To put the issue into perspective, this motion is totally unnecessary. Let me remind Members of the House of three studies that are taking place right now which are creating some change and reform in our institution. The first is the Committee on Standing Orders and Procedures. It has already indicated that it intends to take this matter into consideration and make recommendations on it.
The second is the green paper on the budget process which was published by the former Minister of Finance and followed by the current Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) in the presentation and preparation of his April budget.
The third study to which I bring everyone's attention is the work of the Standing Committee on Finance, which has been looking into some very delicate tax matters and making some good, sensible recommendations before they become final policies in the legislation.
Let me read the observations made in the Montreal Gazette on April 20, in the midst of all this uproar we saw last April on the budget. At that time, Mr. Ian MacDonald said:
It was the world's first high technology budget leak.
And it was kind of fitting, since Marc Lalonde has discarded the hidebound notions of budget secrecy in the last six months.
In the six months since Lalonde effectively took the wraps off the budget-making process, there's been a steady stream of well sourced leaks and trial balloons.
Depending on which paper you picked up, the government would either let the deficit grow to some $30 billion and so allow for some job creation, or cap the deficit at $25 billion in an effort to hold down interest rates.
The other pre-budget trial balloons ran the gamut from Lalonde raising the child tax credit to give poor families some relief from the worst of the recession, to allowing investors inflation relief from their dividend taxes.
Whatever the verdict on the budget itself, Lalonde has changed the rules of the game.
'I've tried to open up the system,' he was saying the other day. 'It's now a process of concertation. The consultations have been very useful for the government.'
The final observation by Mr. MacDonald in this article is:
Lalonde has revolutionized the budget process.
I believe that the April budget was a great success. I think that in the months since it has come into effect business groups, communities, individuals and labour groups right across the country have said that the budget has had a key role in Canada's burgeoning economic recovery. The April budget was a budget for its time. It succeeded marvelously to get our economy going. It is still adding stimulus to the recovery. There is much evidence that people all across the country agree with that observation.
Let us take a look at the events of April 18 and the consequences that would have been brought about if we had followed the advice of various Members of the Opposition. What happened during this famous press conference? We know that a CHCH television careraman was there and that he did a good job. We know that he got a lucky break and pursued it to the best of his ability. We know that he got some photographs of some information on the deficit and on job creation statistics.
We also know that the next day, during the budget, the Minister made some comments about that incident and that he adapted his budget to preserve some of the standards in budget secrecy and parliamentary tradition. What was the result of that incident in the press conference? We had an embarrassed Minister of Finance. We had a very happy newsman. But we did not have any revelation of tax information. We did not have any groups that benefited artificially or prematurely across the country. In other words, we did not have any violation of the traditional standards that have set out budget secrecy.
We heard many irate comments from Opposition politicians. For example, if we look at Hansard of Tuesday, April 19, the then Leader of the Opposition-and many would say the real Leader of the Opposition even today-the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) stood up and said as reported at page 24610:
The credibility of his budget has been placed in question along with his own credibility.
That statement tells us why the Member for Yukon is paid to oppose rather than to give us economic advice. Let me continue:
This leaves the Minister the only option of resignation and the production and presentation of a new budget by a new Minister to be appointed to replace him.
That bald statement is made without any real evidence, without any regard for the traditional rules of budget secrecy. It is just an Opposition demand based on some clowning around.
When we look at the real world, we see that Canadians from coast to coast were very worried indeeed lest the Minister of Finance should follow that advice. People definitely did not need that kind of disruption in the economy just as it was about to take off again. What we needed was some stimulation that a budget would have provided. To counsel a Minister of Finance to resign at that juncture was irresponsible and totally
October 12, 1983

disregarded the real needs of the Canadian economy. We needed that budget at that time. We did not need that kind of harassment and opposition, particularly harassment and opposition that ignored real parliamentary tradition.
Of course, the Minister did change some of the budget figures. He wanted to follow the existing budget standards. Let me quote directly from his speech of April 19, later on in the day, as reported at page 24659 of Hansard:
Traditionally a budget leak involves premature disclosure of a tax matter. Fortunately this is not the case. However, in some quarters any matter or fact connected with the budget might be considered to be of this character. To remove any doubt, I have decided to change the portion of the budget which would otherwise have been prematurely in the public domain.
As the Minister indicated very clearly there, there were no disclosures of vital secret matters. There was no early disclosure of information that would have led to undue financial gain by other interested parties in the country.
Let me continue and read another statement from the Minister. Before doing so, let me say that I see the Member for Yukon here. I look forward to hearing his comments in a few minutes. He was the one who urged the Minister to resign. It would be interesting to see if, in his second round of debate, he can produce the odd fact this time rather than simply bluff and nonsense.
The Minister went on to say in his statement, as recorded at page 24659:
There is some irony in all of this. During the past week, I have debated with myself and with my advisors about the precise nature the budget measures should take. My concern has been that in my desire to be fiscally responsible, I would not provide enough stimulus for the economy to secure the recovery and generate employment. Obviously, this is a matter of delicate judgment and there is no absolutely correct answer. Be that as it may, the events of the past 24 hours have led me to follow what my instincts have been urging me to do all along. If I err in this budget, I want to do it on the side of more jobs.
That was the correction. That reason alone was the basis for the correction.
What was the role of the newspaper man? That was an interesting point. I believe the Hon. Member for Saskatoon East (Mr. Ogle) raised some issues that were of great interest to all of us. I am sure that they are equally interesting to people in the media as well as to politicians. I think that the television man was doing his job as he should. As I mentioned, I think he had some extraordinary luck. Let us listen to what Charles Lynch said two or three days after the event. He said:
-it has long been my view that a press photographer or TV cameraman will take a picture of anything newsworthy that shows up in the lens, whether invited to do so or not. My impression is that this is what photo-journalists are paid to do.
I agree with Mr. Lynch. His article continues:
As to whether high-principled print journalists, like myself, would have peeked and printed, my attitude is that we are in the business of disclosure, and leaks are part of it.
I agree with him.
The Winnipeg Free Press, in a positive development, moving the issue a little bit further along, wrote this in May of this year:
The Budget
When federal Finance Minister Marc Lalonde allowed a cameraman to film a couple of pages of his budget during one of the "photo opportunities" which governments now stage in place of providing information, Ontario's minister, Frank Miller, tut-tutted along with a lot of others.
Now, Mr. Miller finds himself the victim not so much of a leak as of an inundation. A Toronto Globe and Mail reporter has found page after page of his proposed budget sharing a green garbage bag with a banana peel, some used plastic coffee cups and some juice containers.
That is the sort of unsettling experience that leads finance ministers to think gloomily about resignation. It should instead prompt politicians at all levels to think again about how important absolute budget secrecy really is.
A little further in the editorial, the Winnipeg Free Press reports:
New secrecy rules which are less obsessively absolute would serve everybody's interests.
One thing is certain: the more politicians try to keep things secret, the more reporters will try to find them out.
I think all of us as politicians would agree that is their habit, and we usually have a secret or an open admiration for those who are most successful at indulging in that habit. Parliamentary tradition, of course, demands that a Minister of Finance should quit if he discloses tax information or financial information that would provide an individual with an undue advantage.
Let me quote what the Toronto Star revealed about Eugene Forsey's ideas on this topic. On April 20, 1983, a day after the incident, we read this:
Forsey, Canada's greatest Constitution expert, said the inadvertent leak should not cost Lalonde his job because the documents revealed had nothing to do with taxation.
A little further on we read:
"We hear about deficit projections practically on the hour," Forsey said. "They aren't especially startling."
It is interesting to note that his observation ties in exactly with the observation in the Montreal Gazette written by a financial writer about the pre-budget trial balloons that were sent up. The Toronto Star column about Forsey went on in this way:
And he added that "it would take a pretty smart cookie" to make a quick killing in the market on the strength of information the government would be spending $4.6 billion on job-creation provisions.
"if these matters had something to do with taxation, then he would have little choice," Forsey said.
Forsey added it is unlikely Lalonde will be forced to resign.
Tax matters and confidential financial information are the core of the argument here. We have discussed all of this quite widely. The Hon. Member for St. John's West went down the list of Finance Ministers who have been disciplined in various ways over the years. He referred to Hugh Dalton in the United Kingdom in 1947 who resigned because of some premature disclosure of cigarette tax information. As the Hon. Member for St. John's West pointed out, Walter Gordon, the first Finance Minister in the Pearson Government, in 1963 offered his resignation, but it was refused because the then Prime Minister did not feel Mr. Gordon's advisers had had undue advantage or had spread information far and wide.
Donald Fleming, the Minister of Finance in the Diefenbaker Government, offered his resignation when he was the butt of a

The Budget
joke by a reporter. When later information revealed that Mr. Fleming's leg was being pulled and no information had been revealed publicly, Mr. Fleming withdrew his resignation.
There are other cases when a resignation did not occur. The most recent and notable is Ontario's Frank Miller. We just heard about his budget turning up in a garbage can outside a printing company. It was interesting, as reported by the Toronto Sun on April 20, 1983, to read this:
Ontario Treasurer Frank Miller said before the budget was tabled that Lalonde should resign if actual details were leaked.
Miller, who will introduce his own budget at Queen's Park next month, said it is his opinion and that of senior officials in his ministry that Lalonde's breach of budget secrecy was serious enough to warrant resignation.
In Mr. Miller's opinion two numbers were bad enough to force a resignation from the federal Minister, but a whole bag full of garbage was not enough to force his.
In 1981, Quebec's Jacques Parizeau was about to reveal his budget and a Member of the Opposition had it several hours early and apparently was showing it around. Despite that, Mr. Parizeau did not resign. In 1978, the current Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Chretien), shared his budget information with Quebec's Jacques Parizeau. He did so in an exercise to attempt some co-operative pre-budget decision-making. When this was revealed, the Minister said it had been deliberate, that confidentiality had been maintained and that there was no need for his resignation. Of course, in 1983 with our own Minister of Finance, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) pointed out that there was no real, vital economic information disclosed and, therefore, no reason to treat this as a traditional budget leak.
What about the results for Canada as a whole? The Toronto Star on April 21, 1983, wrote, and I will quote just a short part of a very good editorial as follows:
We doubt if the disclosure that the budget deficit is expected to rise to $31 billion surprised many knowledgeable people. Radio, TV and newspapers have been filled with speculation about the size of the deficit, and $31 billion is hardly a new figure.
Further down we read:
The Conservatives argue that a budget leak automatically requires the resignation of the minister of finance.
The article continues:
What they conveniently ignore is the contrary precedents.
In another paragraph, we find this:
What's more, Canada's foremost expert on constitutional matters, former senator Eugene Forsey, is of the opinion that Lalonde's resignation is not required, because the leak had nothing to do with taxation matters.
The final excerpts reads:
But in the absence of any sign of damage from the budget leak-there was no evidence of material effect on the external value of the dollar or on interest rates, the two markets particularly sensitive to the size of the budget-the circumstances do not require Lalonde's resignation.
The Winnipeg Free Press joined in that assessment. On April 20, we find these words:
The opposition, not surprisingly, is calling now for his resignation, citing the case of Hugh Dalton, the British chancellor of the exchequer, who resigned after giving reporters a hint of changes in the tax on beer.
October 12, 1983
This article has beer, we have it as cigarettes.


Mr. Deans:: They are wrong on the whole thing.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: The Winnipeg Free Press article goes on:
The situations are not identical, Mr. Lalonde did not himself reveal any part of the budget... Three pages did not include any tax changes. The size of the deficit which it predicted was already well known in the community and the revelation had no effect on financial markets. If anything, the incident underlined how out-of-date much of the current obsession with budget secrecy has become.
The then finance critic is from Vancouver. She was irate, overheated and steaming about this leak. She felt apoplectic and she felt it was just about the most terrible thing she had ever seen. However, the Vancouver Sun did not agree with her. On April 20, the Vancouver Sun printed this in an article:
And, arguments of a budget leak notwithstanding, most of the facts and figures in the document have been the subject of analysis and reporting for almost a month now.
It was Lalonde's unfortunate accident with the camera crew that focused attention on how tentative the budget really is, and hence how believable it may be in the face of sustained opposition attack in the House of Commons.
The Times Colonist, also on April 20, 1983, wrote this:
It's hard to tell who deserves the most scorn-those Opposition MPs calling for Finance Minister Marc Lalonde's resignation or the unprincipled media types who pounced on this so-called budget "leak."
What, after all, really happened?
The article concludes with these words:
As for the opposition members demanding Lalonde's resignation, notably PC leader Erik Nielsen and the NDP's Nelson Riis, their incredulous expressions of shock reveal either the quality of their acting or just how removed they are from genuine public concerns.
I conclude by drawing attention to a more recent document, "Canadian Tax News" published by Coopers and Lybrand. It contains some very good advice for all of us.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Will the Parliamentary Secretary either do that in 30 seconds or seek the unanimous consent of the House to continue his remarks?


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Thirty seconds will be more than adequate. I will read very quickly. I quote:
As Mr. Lalonde said, budget secrecy is an outdated tradition-and so it is. But the principle cannot be changed without the consent of Parliament and it is a pity that the problem has not yet been addressed. The Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedures of the House of Commons has indicated that it would consider reforms relating to the opening up of the budget process and about all one can say at this stage is "Get on with it!"
This is an unnecessary motion. We are already hard at work on this problem.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, it is deja vu to be speaking on this topic today on the motion put forward by the Hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). Prior to the Hon. Member for Mississauga North (Mr. Fisher), I was the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance. I was exposed to the kinds of problems that were raised with regard to budget secrecy. I remember the kind of security that surrounded
October 12, 1983

budget making and the documentation that was in preparation for budgets, the confidentiality of that information, the kind of security that had to be enforced in the Department of Finance, for example, and other Departments, and the kinds of problems raised with lock-ups for the press, Members of the Opposition and Members on the Government side who might be critics or vitally interested in commenting immediately upon presentation of a budget. Along with some other matters, those difficulties led to the introduction of a green paper by the former Minister of Finance, now Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen), on how we might open up the whole budget process.
] agree with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance that this motion is totally unnecessary. There is no reason for us to refer to any committee of the House the question of budget secrecy or whether or not there was a budget leak, which should lead to an inquiry by the House, by the current Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) at the time of the last budget. It is clear from all the commentary my colleague brought forth that there was not such a leak. Leaks of that nature have never led to serious concern by Ministers of Finance. I agree entirely with my colleague as to the kind of matters that should give rise to concern.
If the Minister of Finance had made reference to a matter in some way that got out to the public which related to a tax matter or expenditure matter whereby the individual who received that information could obtain personal gain as a result of that information at the expense of the public or at the expense of a small group of taxpayers, then the Minister had made a fundamental error which would require his resignation. However, that was obviously not the case, as my colleague pointed out quite clearly.
With regard to the other matters the inquiry might consider such as the question of budget secrecy as opposed to this specific incident, I think they have been looked at very carefully in other forums. The Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure certainly looked at that matter. The Finance Committee looked at that matter in relation to the green paper. We have had a new opening up of the procedures in budgets. Ways and Means motions are now as a matter of course referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs. We go over Ways and Means motions prior to the introduction of legislation which is to be considered by the House. This facilitates the process and involves individual Members in the committee process, and the bringing in of witnesses to look at matters of taxation prior to the consideration by Committee of the Whole, which is the way tax matters are considered.
We have made great strides. We have undertaken the kinds of issues this motion asks be undertaken by a special inquiry. Therefore, there is no need for a special inquiry. If the special inquiry to which the Hon. Member for Yukon is referring is in any way to be a witch-hunt, and I do not believe that it is, there are no grounds upon which the hunt for witches can be pursued, as my friend from Mississauga North showed so clearly in his earlier remarks.
House of Commons Act
I understand you are about to rise, Mr. Speaker, to indicate that my time has expired.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Parliamentary Secretary is correct. Pursuant to Standing Order 24(2), it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings because the hour for that section of Private Members' business has now expired.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Shall all orders listed under Private Members' Public Bills preceding Order No. 487 be allowed to stand by unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


HOUSE OF COMMONS ACT (INTERNAL ECONOMY) MEASURE TO AMEND
Mr. Gerald Laniel (Beauharnois-Salaberry) moved: that Bill C-687, to amend the House of Commons Act (internal economy), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Management and Members' Services.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased with this opportunity to speak to Bill C-687, an Act to amend the House of Commons Act (internal economy), which was given first reading on June 14, 1983 in this House. At the time, I commented as follows: "The purpose of this Bill is to increase the autonomy of the House of Commons with respect to its internal administration. It defines the Executive of the Commissioners of Internal Economy which the present Act does not do, and provides for the appointment of two more Members as Commissioners, to be chosen from among the backbenchers, one from each side of the House, to increase the involvement of the House in its own administration."
The whole question of internal economy and involvement of backbenchers (by delegation) in decisions affecting the administration of the House of Commons has been debated several times on the floor of the House in recent years, but I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that it is still a matter of concern for most Members.
On October 30, 1969, our former colleague, Mr. Frank Howard, the then Member for Skeena, introduced Bill C-32 which was debated on February 24, 1970 and whose purpose was to abolish the rights of Privy Council Members regarding the internal economy of the House by simply repealing sections 16 and 18 of the House of Commons Act.

October 12, 1983
House of Commons Act
The weakness of his proposal, Mr. Speaker, lies herein that the Hon. Member failed to provide any alternatives, substitutes or replacements. During the present session, the subject was debated twice when the House considered Bill C-273, introduced by the Hon. Member opposite, the Member for Edmonton-West (Mr. Lambert), on November 6, 1981 and again on May 18, 1983. The purpose of this Bill was to replace the four members of the Privy Council who are also Members of the House of Commons by five backbenchers, who, with the Speaker, would form the Internal Economy Commission of the House of Commons.
In each debate a number of suggestions were made by Hon. Members, and I am sure that further proposals may be made this afternoon if the debate is prolonged.
However, there is unanimity on one point, and that is the need to change an administrative structure that is now obsolete and that was established when the staff and services of the House of Commons were not as numerous and Parliament was sitting only a few weeks a year so that Members were not in Ottawa for the same periods of time they are now.
Mr. Speaker, the concern about this matter has reached the point that in its ninth report, the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure made a concrete proposal to restructure the Internal Economy Commission, more specifically by reducing Cabinet participation and adding a number of private members. In fact, these proposals were aimed at bringing administrative decision-making closer to the members themselves.
I have neither the intention nor the time at this stage to go through all these suggestions, and there are several, although I do feel that the majority are acceptable or can at least be considered an improvement. I shall be dealing mostly with my own plan, which has one advantage in that it does not try to change everything and could be considered as a step, a kind of trial balloon that would eventually lead to further changes if Hon. Members feel they are appropriate. The reasons for my interest in this matter are many. First of all, nine years experience in the Chair brought me closer to the administrative concerns of the House in general. There is also my membership in the Advisory Council, which does not always gives the impression it is very advisory and which still has no specific terms of reference, and finally, my membership on the executive of various parliamentary associations, in addition to the 21 years I spent in this institution.
I believe that lines of communication in the House of Commons have never been as poor as they are now. The general discontent is creating a situation I quite seriously would call explosive. I have never heard so many complaints and so much grumbling among Hon. Members and House of Commons staff, but nobody seems to care. The House is no longer a pleasant place to work, Mr. Speaker. I agree that
some things had to be changed, certain controls were lacking, but although these changes were well-intentioned, for many people they have become so many constraints and elements of divisiveness and oppression. A system based on favoritism has been replaced by a another, more sophisticated system. It used to be that Hon. Members could discuss their problems and difficulties with the Speaker, the Clerk or the Sergeant-at-Arms, who were all part of the administrative structure of the House of Commons, where incumbents reacted quickly to complaints or representations by Hon. Members. I am told that the Clerk is no longer interested in administrative concerns, and the House is aware that the Sergeant-at-Arms has lost most of his powers. Today, the number of executive positions has been increased tremendously, and responsibility for all these people lies with the Administrator, who has no inkling of the political, social and human repercussions some of his initiatives may have, and who is waiting or hoping for the day when he himself, as is being whispered, will become Deputy Minister of the House of Commons.
Mr. Speaker, I believe all this is evidence of the fact that the Internal Economy Commission has become far removed from Members and the House of Commons staff in general. The Commission's members are all too busy elsewhere, and its decisions are made on the basis of information or the interpretation of the Administrator. Up to now, the Internal Economy Commission has always refused to hear Members of the Standing Committee on Management and Members' Services at one of its meetings, because the Committee is supposed to address its complaints and recommendations to the Administrator. I suggest we ask those who work night and day for the parliamentary associations what they think about the present rules on consultation and budgetary policies, which, in the final instance, will cost more because they encourage spending instead of "economy".
In any case, my proposal might have led to the same unfortunate results, but at least we would have the satisfaction of being consulted and would not have the impression which is anathema for a parliamentarian that a public servant is making most of the decisions without consultation or communication with Members. When we mention the dissastisfac-tion of Members to the members of the Internal Economy Commission, they run off a list of everything the Commission has done to improve services to Members, and this is all quite true, so that they feel somewhat aggrieved by our representations. I can understand that, but that is not the point, Mr. Speaker. All we want, all I want is for them to understand, and all I want the Chair to understand is that a proposal like mine is, in fact, aimed at doing away with the frustration of not being heard, not being consulted, a frustration that would not exist, or not to the same extent, if two backbenchers were to sit on the Board of Internal Economy, the Board of Commissioners of Internal Economy for the House of the Commons, as I said in my proposal. In fact, it is an administrative
October 12, 1983

structure not, as yet, defined by law and whose powers have not yet been described.
Mr. Speaker, in addition to adding two backbenchers to the Commission of Internal Economy, the purpose of Bill C-687 is also to describe and define the Board of Commissioners of Internal Economy and its specific responsibilities, especially the major responsibility for approving the estimates of the Speaker, the Clerk and the Sergeant-at-Arms and submitting them to the Minister of Finance, who subsequently submits them separately to the House of Commons.
Mr. Speaker, this Bill is as well-intentioned as all the others, but it also demonstrates a concern for ensuring that the House of Commons again becomes what it was before, an instrument that provides services to Members, and that is administered to their satisfaction, with the consent and under the control of the Members.


Hon. Ron Huntington (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to compliment the Hon. Member for Beauharnois-Salaberry (Mr. Laniel). I am very interested in the Bill and the arguments as presented.
As some Hon. Members already know, Mr. Speaker, I have been involved in the Public Accounts Committee and in the whole question of a new form of the Estimates. 1 have also been involved in dealing with the fact that spending within the federal system is out of control. I have been working with the former Auditor General and the Public Accounts Committee on this matter, and we have been trying to address it with a new way of disclosing information.
As I look at this Bill, I remember the many hours of debate and struggle within the committees and the steering committees that were involved in setting up new disclosure of information provisions to allow for a better accountability factor for Government spending specifically dealing with the House of Commons. We on this side of the House would have been very pleased to hear a motion to the effect that the subject matter of Bill C-687 go to committee for study because, as the Hon. Member said, the Bill is one of several Bills dealing with the matter of better use of information for better accountability and a more effective use of taxation resources attributed to the House of Commons for its various functions.
Section 16(2) of this Bill, dealing with appointments, talks about the appointment of four Privy Councillors and two Members from the backbench of the Opposition. I should like to see members other than Government Privy Councillors sitting on this Board of Internal Economy, Mr. Speaker. As things are structured now, the Government has all the control, the spending powers and everything else. As a witness who appeared before the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure said, if you are dealing with the knot in the rope in the tug of war of power between Government and the House of Commons, that knot has to move back toward the House of Commons.
House of Commons Act
1 think the House of Commons has lost control over its expenditure watchdog functions. We are not functioning as elected directors of the taxpayers in the examination of expenditures. We are not properly using the information that is made public because it is not organized in a useful fashion. We are buried under an avalanche of paper. We get grocery baskets full of mail, reports, ministerial statements, Crown corporation reports, the subject matter of task forces, special committees and royal commissions. It all comes as an avalanche and we are buried under it. Much of it is trivia and is not organized in a form that would allow those of us with certain special interests or who represent ridings with an interest to use it.
I would not want to see four Members of the Privy Council who are incumbent Members of the Government sitting on any board that deals with the House. I should like to see Members of the Privy Council on that board, but if we are to move the knot of power back to the House so that we will have a higher standard of accountability over the Government, then we common Members should be deciding more things. We should be improving and strengthening our powers of inquiry, improving our efforts to hold the Government answerable for its actions.
I should like to see the subject matter of the Bill go to Committee so that some of our concerns can be discussed there. We should be able to improve the Bill to allow a new phase of operations to take place in the House of Commons.
The Hon. Member who presented the Bill spoke of discontent. He said that the kettle is boiling; that the House of Commons is no longer an agreeable place to work; that the best intentions of Members of Parliament are often frustrated by the oppressive measures they have to deal with; that we get more and more studies; that we are always referring things to committee but get no decisions and no tangible corrections. I share his frustration, as I am sure other Hon. Members do. I was once told by the former member for Peace River that one must not be impatient in this place. One must figure oneself lucky if three years of effort on one tiny segment of business moves it forward one notch and brings about an improvement for the people of Canada or an improvement in the processes of the House of Commons or of Government.
I have had trouble learning that, Mr. Speaker. I came here out of a taxpayer frustration. I know how hard it is to pay taxes and watch them be dissipated and spilled on carpets so that new carpets can be rolled in. I know the absolute disregard for the hours of labour and toil that go into the real taxes that come in to support the place. That is one of the reasons 1 am here going into my tenth year, although I have nothing like the experience or, probably, the depth of frustration of the Hon. Member who presented the Bill, who said he has been here 21 years. But before I allow myself to succumb to a shrug, Mr. Speaker, I had better get out and let someone else come in who is fresh and can carry the anger that I had when I arrived.
In spite of nine years of hard work on committees along with many colleagues, I see no improvement in the care and delivery of services or in the care for the tremendous amount of
27958

October 12, 1983
House of Commons Act
effort that goes into earning a taxpayer's dollar. A dollar of savings is so expensive and so precious that it cannot be risked in any equity. We have to go to Hong Kong or Switzerland or other places where there is less oppressive taxation. That is where we must borrow the money that the private sector needs to take a risk in the marketplace.
The Government is out of control. I am not going to speak just of the Government; the whole system, Government and the bureaucracy, is out of control. I have to ask who controls the bureaucracy. If the Government is going to stay in power it is not going to risk any attack on a bureaucracy or a correction of it. Where is anyone going to bite the bullet? Indeed, is it possible to bite the bullet in our type of political system so that care and common sense can be put back in the Government when dealing with the wealth-creating sectors of the country?
I stand here totally frustrated, Mr. Speaker. I say to you and to the Member who presented the Bill that that is the kettle that is boiling. If there is frustration in the hearts and minds of some of us here, then I want to tell you that there is anger in the land because this place does not function properly. If we are not doing our jobs as Members, then the kettle is boiling. The reason I stay, the reason I work here and the reason I do not play too much around here is that I am afraid that the kettle is boiling over. We are threatening the survival of a social system that requires the tender loving care of the wealth we produce in order for it to survive. That is what is at stake.
When we do improper things-with the Crow Bill, for instance-when we do not figure out the spin-off effects on future generations so that they can pay for our extravagance, then the country is in very serious trouble. What we are talking about is accountability and control. I have to blame each and every one of us here for that. I do not think there are 30 Members of the House of Commons who are prepared to man the four accountability committees recommended by the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure. We must try to pull the knot of accountability back to the House of Commons, away from the Government and away from the bureaucracy. I do not think there is a will to do that. A few of us are breaking our hearts trying to, but there is no will to haul it back in here or to train and discipline ourselves to ask the questions that expose things.
I have to live with the ghost of James Macdonell Mr. Speaker. When I was Chairman of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, he and I spent hours and hours together. I happened to be present when the new Auditor General's Bill was allowed through by the late Robert Andras, then President of the Treasury Board. Following that, he allowed the Comptroller General's Bill to go through and then we put in place a marvellous new acronym called IMPAC-improved in management practices and control. We have had Auditor General's Report after Auditor General's Report since 1976, and all dealt with accountability and control of the public purse. But the situation today is worse than it was in 1974 when James Macdonell started his work. It is absolutely out of control. There is no one in the House of Commons who is prepared to
get to work, to bite the bullet and bring it under control for the sake of the freedom of our kids tomorrow.
That is the issue and that is what this kind of Bill addresses. That is why I would like to see the subject matter of this Bill discussed in committee, so we could bring something about.
Having complimented the Hon. Member, I must say I differ with him in respect of the fact he is worried about the powers of an Administrator. As an Hon. Member who has served on the Public Accounts Committee, I agree with the Administrator. I do not know why we are so secretive in the House of Commons about the tremendous amount of work which the present Speaker has done. I believe, when the whole story is known, that we are going to find that Madam Speaker has indeed been a marvellous manager and that she has put together the right division of responsibilities for the Table to function more effectively, for the Sergeant-at-Arms to function more effectively, and for the Administrator to function and organize the information in a manner in which all of us, with all our warts, pimples and acne, can understand.
I do not know why the Management and Members' Services Committee and the other committee want to keep some of the progress which is being made in the management of the House of Commons under wraps. If they were truly concerned about the need for a new form of estimates which organizes the information we need on all Departments, they would want the form of the estimates of the House of Commons widely published. I can tell you, Sir, that in the new form of estimates which are coming from the Treasury Board under the Comptroller General, the Part I is very good but the big Part II is the same old thing. It is organized in such a manner that a few Hon. Members with 26 years of experience can perhaps handle it. Then there is Part III of the estimates, and these volumes which are coming down from departments and various commissions are so well massaged, Sir, they are almost advertisements. They are not delivering anything, really, in a tangible, usable form to bring about a better accountability equation or effort on the part of Members of Parliament.
I asked the Administrator of the House of Commons some questions and he referred to a book and gave me answers, bang, bang, bang. I asked what the book was and found it was his form of the estimates for the House of Commons, which was organized in such a manner that if the Comptroller General of Canada used it for the organization of the estimates of all departments, if he just took what exists here in the House of Commons and used that over in his department, he would resolve the problem his departments are having with the new form of the estimates.
There might be some here, Mr. Speaker, who think that a departmental manual on Part III should be no thicker than a quarter of an inch. However, I want to tell you that the original concept was that it would be a fairly small book on a department, but it would grow much larger and would be organized in such a manner that those who want to inquire and ask questions and receive the public information which is
October 12, 1983

available would have it in a totally organized form, suitable for the average abilities of a Member of Parliament.
I do not stand as any academic, Sir. 1 am a very average guy, like most other Hon. Members here. That is why I am here. I am a commoner who is representing the people and the taxpayers. But by God, Sir, the kettle is boiling. If we do not get this new form of estimates finished, we fail; we threaten the system and the freedom of our kids tomorrow, because I do not know how they are going to pay for the extravagant spending which we have been guilty of in the ten years I have been here.
I compliment Madam Speaker for the job she has done and I will defend, as long as I am a Member here in the House of Commons, the quality of her work in organizing the information-which is public knowledge, in any case-in terms of running this place. If the Comptroller General will take the format which this House of Commons has under its Speaker and organize the information in all other departments in that form, it would be one giant leap ahead for the freedom and future of Canada.
That is why I stand here and make an appeal to Hon. Members on this important Bill. I believe it is a tragedy that we cannot get its subject matter to committee so that the matter could be discussed. I feel we need every opportunity we can get to discuss this subject of accountability and answerability in order to bring a runaway system back under control.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I was very interested in the comments of both the mover of the Bill, the Hon. Member for Beauharnois-Salaberry (Mr. Laniel), and the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington). I believe the mover of the Bill expressed concern primarily about the operations of the House of Commons, much of which, I might say, has validity. The Hon. Member for Capilano extrapolated that argument into a discussion, perhaps a little beyond the Bill itself, but nevertheless an important one for the purposes of Members of Parliament.
I would like to say to the Hon. Member, however, that when he says he is just a very average guy, we do not agree with that.


Mr. Ellis:: One above average.


Ian Deans: I did not say that.


John Raymond Ellis: I did.


Ian Deans: I would like, however, to deal with the subject matter. To begin with, I would like to say there is no doubt that the House of Commons and certain of its emanations must be under the control of the Members of the House of Commons. The day to day operations of the House, the expenditures undertaken on behalf of the Members of the House of Commons, the provision of services to the Members of the House of Commons, the questions which arise as a result of providing access to the House by way of television and other media for the public, the question of the environs of the House of Commons, surely must be clearly dealt with and dealt with in a straightforward way by the Members of the
House of Commons Act
House themselves. For that reason, I subscribe wholeheartedly to the principle of Bill C-687 which was brought forward by the Hon. Member for Beauharnois-Salaberry.
I do have a little knowledge of a similar kind of situation which is in place at the moment in the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Ontario. The Hon. Member for Capilano may well be aware of this, but perhaps he is not. The Board of Internal Economy of the Province of Ontario Legislative Assembly is an all-party board which is made up of the representatives of the Crown, together with a representative of the caucus supporting the Government, a Member of the Official Opposition and a Member, in this case, of the New Democratic Party. They, together with the Speaker, comprise the Board of Internal Economy.
This started, I believe, in 1975, although it may have happened just prior to that. The experiment probably was viewed with some skepticism by Members of the Government who, up until that point of time, had complete control and total say over what happened in the general management of the Legislative Assembly of the Province. However, at the time the restructuring of the Legislative Assembly was before the Assembly itself, it was proposed by those of us on the Opposition side, and supported by the Government, that there ought to be Opposition Members there for balance. The House, after all, was made up of both the Government and the Opposition. We recognized that no government works efficiently without an effective opposition and no opposition works efficiently if it does not work in harmony with the House itself in an effort to try to find ways of dealing with public business.
Therefore, we made a judgement at that time which was quite simply that concern for the operations of the House-it goes beyond that and I will speak about that in a moment-and its environs was a concern of all Members. The responsibility for good and orderly operations, including good fiscal management, was the responsibility of all Members. It was not a Government responsibility and the Government need not accept unto itself all of the criticism which can be levelled in cases where there may, at least in the public's view, have been expenditures that were not easily understood or perhaps were unjustified. Those expenditures were taken on behalf of all Members. The provincial Legislature, recognizing that, proceeded to amend its proposal and in doing so included as part of the Board of Internal Economy, both, as I say, Members from outside Cabinet, including a representative of the Government caucus, if you will, outside of the Cabinet, and Members from the two Opposition Parties.
In addition to the sort of normal functions one might envisage, the Board had control over the expenditures of the Ombudsman inasmuch as he came before the Board and presented his estimates complete with his staff justification. The Board analysed it with the benefit of their administrative officers and took responsibility for its approval, just as a Minister would take responsibility for the approval of the estimates of his or her ministry. The Board of Internal Econo-

October 12, 1983
House of Commons Act
my in the Ontario Legislature appeared annually before the estimates committee, if I recall correctly, and answered for their decisions. They were questioned by their colleagues from both sides of the House and I can recall taking my turn as one being questioned. It happened to be the three House leaders who were primarily answerable at that point. That is not necessarily the only formula, I concede, but on that occasion the Government House leader would be answerable for a period of time and then the question would go to the Opposition House leader and subsequently to the third House leader. As representatives of the House of Commons they would share, as would the Government caucus representative, in being answerable for decisions taken.
I happen to believe that was a very valuable contribution to bring the provincial Legislature into a position of more respect than it had been previously. Members of the House knew they could make representations either through their own individual representative, although we never felt as if we were representing a particular caucus, or directly to the Board itself. The Board, almost without exception, arrived at its decision unanimously. I say that with some pride because that was putting aside what could by some be viewed as an opportunity for partisan differences. But we worked very hard at finding adequate and suitable compromises. Where we could not agree, we did not go ahead until we had tried to find a workable alternative formula.
I say this to you, Mr. Speaker, because I think it may be important and that Members should understand that what is being proposed by the Hon. Member is workable, practical, not revolutionary and does not dilute the power of the Government. It in fact transfers certain responsibilities to where they rightfully belong.
From my own point of view, I think, and I hope I speak for my colleagues, that we could have a better understanding of the day to day operations of the House and its various parts and we could avoid the situation which continues to arise as a result of the structure we presently have. At the moment we have an advisory committee, the Management and Members' Services Committee. They work extremely hard. I have sat on that Committee from time to time and they put in very long hours and devote a great deal of time to careful consideration of questions placed before them. But unfortunately they have no direct input, neither do they have any responsibility. What we have is a Committee, which surely should be charged with the ultimate authority, being asked simply to make recommendations, the future course of which they have no control over. They have no direct representation with the existing Commissioners of Internal Economy and certainly much can be and likely is lost in transmittal of their ideas. At least some members of the Members' Services Committee feel quite frustrated because there is no two-way communication. There is the communication from the Committee through the Speaker, presumably to the Commissioners of Internal Economy, but there is no communication in return indicating why or in what way their suggestions were not worthy of consideration and could not be dealt with.
I think the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington) mentioned that the Auditor General's Report has recommended this kind of structure should be in place to protect the integrity of the House of Commons in the broadest possible sense. I think there is a need for the Government to acknowledge there is value in further consideration of this matter.
I do not anticipate this Bill will pass this afternoon, neither do I propose for one minute that this form is exactly the form. I think you could well appreciate that I might want to put in additional safeguards for a situation such as the one we are in or for future situations. But I think the subject matter is valuable. I think the Government would be prepared to allow it to go to committee for consideration; that would be of longterm value. It would show the Government's attitude is not sort of narrow. I do not think it is in fact. I know I have raised this question on previous occasions privately with people who have a responsibility for things such as this and I did not find their attitude at all negative towards its consideration. So I would like to urge that we accept this as a workable proposition. It is desirable and would have a long-term, beneficial effect both on the operations of the House of Commons and on a day to day basis; and it would also transfer the responsibility for decision-making where it rightfully belongs. It would charge those who are the beneficiaries of the decisions of the Board with the responsibility for making the decisions. It would also charge them with the responsibility for making the decisions on all other matters pertaining directly to the House of Commons as they affect expenditures or fiscal matters.


John Leslie Evans: What about the ninth report of the Special Committee?


Ian Deans: The Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Evans) says quietly to me, what about the ninth report of the Special Committee. The problem we have, of course, is that we must deal with what is before us when it is before us. At the moment this Bill is what we are dealing with. I would like to suggest that if the Parliamentary Secretary is prepared to rise and say he has been authorized to give us an assurance that the ninth report of the Committee, together with the eighth, seventh, sixth, fifth and so on, are to be approved-


Arthur Ronald Huntington: And the tenth.


Ian Deans: And the tenth, are to be approved, then the need for further study on this matter may not be evident. But I do not think he is going to do that so I would like to suggest that we support a reference if it were to be allowed. We will certainly support going in the direction that this particular Bill proposes. We would argue, quite strongly, that there is overwhelming evidence to show that what the Hon. Member is requesting is already in place in other parts of the country and works extremely well and to everyone's satisfaction.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I will take about two minutes,
October 12, 1983

because I would like to use the Bill to remind the next speaker that I have had a hobbyhorse in front of him and his Management and Members' Services group for some time. 1 have just had the good news from some of the Chief Electoral Officer's estimates that my riding has 125,000 to 140,000 voters. We have about 200,000 people living in Mississauga North. This is the third time 1 have stood in the House and requested some fairness from the people at Management and Members' Services and Internal Economy for big ridings like mine.
Population makes work, just as geography makes work. In our regulations, we have made allowances for geography. We have said that there are remote ridings in this country and those ridings receive extra allowances to permit Members of Parliament to do a better job on behalf of their constituents. Since my riding happens to be the biggest in Canada by population, that is unfair treatment of the people in my district.
Of course, every ten years there is a redistribution which adjusts the situation. I have made a proposal to the Commission that it be a little more flexible in between redistribution so that we could have some allowance and help for the individual voters in big ridings. Our proposals was that we use the number of electors on the electoral list to measure the top 10 per cent of ridings across Canada by population. Those people would then have an extra staff member, or perhaps two staff members, to handle personal and business problems.
We petitioned the group which includes the Hon. Member for Hastings-Frontenac (Mr. Vankoughnet). The petition included names from every Party and every region in this country. We requested that there at least be consideration, but we have not even received an answer. I would like to receive a little bit of an answer from the committee so that we could home to the electors in our area and give them an answer as to why we are not getting proper representation for them.


John Raymond Ellis: Mr. Speaker, my notes are scrambled and slightly rambling. I admit to not having the eloquence of the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) or perhaps the passion of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington). However, in the next few minutes I hope to answer some of the comments that have been made and make some points with regard to the Bill, which I support. Because I feel it should be made, I would like to put on the record a motion 1 had hoped the Hon. Member would make.
Let me begin by saying that the Bill is one that has been supported by most of the members of the Management and Members' Services Committee. In fact, a colleague of mine, the Hon. Member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), who has been on the Committee almost since its inception, has placed a similar motion before the House at different times in the past. His perhaps went a little further in that he wanted to make all members of the Commission non-Privy Councillors, but that is a very minor distinction.
Second, the Hon. Member for Dauphin-Swan River (Mr. Lewycky), a Member of the New Democratic Party who also
House of Commons Act
sits on the Committee, has indicated his support and, through him, the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain also supported the Bill.
The fact is that it is the unwillingness of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard), as represented here today by his Parliamentary Secretary, to refer the subject matter of the Bill that exemplifies the problem we have had. There is indeed and has been a stranglehold on the Commissioners of Internal Economy and the operations of the House of Commons by the President of the Privy Council. That is the reason we have not progressed. If the Hon. Member for Mississauga North (Mr. Fisher) will listen, I will tell him that that is the reason we have not had an answer to his question.
The fact is that the Members' Services Committee has produced, on behalf of Members, a number of changes, and many more are coming about. Most of those things concerning which we have petitioned the Commissioners have indeed come to pass.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council will be as aware as anyone in the House of the Office Automation System and Information Services now being prepared and under way. The acronym OASIS is the one that we use for the most part. He is aware that that system is under way. He must also be aware that it would have been in place had it not been for the opposition of the President of the Privy Council. That is the sort of thing that has held us up.
You will find, Mr. Speaker, that in the last two days of February, 1984 there will be tremendous change in the telephone service of the House of Commons. It is something we have been looking for over the years. That could have been in place two years ago had we had an Administrator such as we have now in the person of Mr. Silverman. I would go a step further than my friend, the Hon. Member for Capilano, and add some support to his Chief of Support Services, Mr. Desramaux, because the two of them have worked on behalf of the Members of the House of Commons to provide services well above and beyond those we have had in the past.
While I know the Hon. Member for Beauharnois-Salaberry has some problems there, I suggest to him, through Your Honour, that those problems are not the result of the coming into place of a proper Administrator and that the savings of $22 million in last year's budget alone are not causing the discontent that he finds-"a kettle boiling in risk of explosion", as I believe he said. The discontent that he Finds is being fostered because the patronage, the porkbarrelling that was exclusively the premise of the President of the Privy Council to this point, is being slowly eroded away from him.
The Hon. Member for Capilano is absolutely right when he says that the Speaker has done a magnificent job of administration. There are those in the House who may disagree with some of the things that have happened in the House under the Speaker, but when it comes to administration and the implementation of services for the House through an Administrator who is competent, qualified and prepared to show us where the money has been spent, she has been really quite magnificent. The staff that have been put together under the Administrator

October 12, 1983
House of Commons Act
are all extremely competent. They know what they are doing. They have cut down on expenses. They have actually, for a change, made me proud to be a Member of this House of Commons.
Considering the fact that all of these positions are not porkbarrelled, there will certainly be some discontent. However, I suggest there are further changes needed. Eventually, once the civil service, if you will, of the House of Commons becomes the professional civil service that it should be, then we will begin to see the esprit de corps that I know can and will exist within this House of Commons.
The reason services have been slowed, the reason the promises of a competent Administrator have not yet been fulfilled, the reason that the Report of the Auditor General has not been finally completed-and I admit fully to being a party to the originating of the Report-is that we have been opposed, step by step, by the President of the Privy Council. I want to go on record as saying that I would like to think that we will in fact see those changes come about in the near future.
Before 1 move the motion 1 intend to make, may I say one brief word. The Hon. Member for Capilano mentioned briefly that he felt frustrated because he had not been able to achieve those things which he believed we should have been able to achieve in his nine years here. He mentioned the Hon. Robert Andras, in terms that 1 thought were complimentary, and the former Auditor General.
I suggest to the Hon. Member that while things may be worse now, thanks to him in his position as chairman of the committee and others like him, they are not as bad as they might have been. While it is relative, at least we are slightly better off. When there are people in the House who are prepared to bite the bullet, it seems to me a crying shame that we should not be allowed to have the Member who presented the Bill move that it go to committee. Therefore, 1 will move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie):
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word that and substituting the following therefor:
"Bill C-687, an Act to amend the House of Commons Act (internal
economy) be not now read a second time but that the order be discharged, the
Bill withdrawn and the subject matter thereof referred to the Standing
Committee on Management and Members' Services''.
That will put the issue before the House. We still have lots of time to deal with it and vote on it. Let us see if the President of the Privy Council or his Parliamentary Secretary has the courage of his convictions to let us act in the way this House should act.


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


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I think there was some question at issue with regard to the Bill itself. The Bill put
forward a specific configuration for the Commission of Internal Economy.


James Aloysius McGrath: It is the subject matter.


John Leslie Evans: The Hon. Member says that it is the subject matter. The difficulty with referring the subject matter to a committee is that a committee of the House has already dealt with this subject matter and has tabled a report, the ninth report of the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedures. It has tabled a report that dealt with this issue and which puts forward a new configuration. It takes into consideration all the issues raised by the House today.
Let me quote from the report that deals with this. Paragraph 5 of the ninth report of the Committee states that:
5. Consequently your Committee proposes that a new Board of Internal Economy be set up, and we have included a draft bill with this Report to effect this change. The draft bill is aimed at modifying the make-up of the Board by enlarging the range of its members to ensure the participation of Members of Parliament who are not Cabinet members. The Board would in the future be composed of the Speaker, the Deputy Speaker, two Ministers of the Crown, the Leader of the Official Opposition or a Member designated by the Leader, and four others: two Members appointed by the government caucus, and two from the opposition caucuses including at least one from the Official Opposition. The draft bill does not specify how the representatives of each caucus are to be chosen. We recognize that this is a question to be dealt with by each caucus independently, but we favour the idea of organizing elections within each caucus for this purpose.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Would the Hon. Member accept a question at this point concerning what he is saying?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Does the Hon. Member accept a question?


John Leslie Evans: It is not a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary says that it is not a point of order. This is the usual way of inquiring if the Hon. Member would accept a question. In any case, the Hon. Member has the floor.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Say yes or no.


John Leslie Evans: Obviously the answer is no. I want to finish my remarks. Time is running out.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Why do you not move concurrence in report No. 9?


John Leslie Evans: The Hon. Member asks if we are going to concur in the report. It is under discussion right now.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In view of the words and views expressed by the Parliamentary Secretary, I would like to move concurrence in the ninth report of the Special Committee.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. Pursuant to Standing Order 24(2), it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings.
October 12, 1983


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Shall all items listed under Private Members' Notices of Motions preceding Item No. 26 be allowed to stand by unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


SEARCH AND RESCUE
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, January 16, 1981, consideration of the motion of Mr. Siddon:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should consider the advisability of initiating an independent commission of inquiry to investigate the serious deficiencies within the administration of Search and Rescue services on Canada's West Coast.
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to address this most serious question. It is now approximately one year and seven months since the sinking of the Ocean Ranger with the loss of 84 lives off the south coast of Newfoundland. That sparked an evaluation of our search and rescue capability on the East Coast.
Of course, this motion deals specifically with the West Coast and I congratulate the Hon. Member for Richmond-South Delta (Mr. Siddon) for introducing it. I want to serve notice now that it would be my intention to amend the motion so that the inquiry which is called for under the resolution would include the East Coast as well as the West Coast.
Following the sinking of the Ocean Ranger, we had the release of the report on the evaluation of search and rescue. This was the interdepartmental study that was released approximately a year ago in September of 1982.
It is nothing short of a national disgrace, a blot on the record of this Parliament, that this report has not been the subject of committee study and that the sinking of the Ocean Ranger has yet to be examined by a committee of the House. This is notwithstanding the fact that shortly after that tragedy it was the subject matter of a study by a congressional committee in the U.S. House of Representatives. It was also the subject of a study by the U.S. Coast Guard and I believe there was one other U.S. study into the sinking of the Ocean Ranger that was completed.
That rig was operating under a Canadian licence, it was operating in Canada's economic zone, under Canadian jurisdiction and primarily with a Canadian crew. Yet we have yet to address ourselves to an inquiry into the cause of that disaster and the impact or adequacy of our search and rescue capability in dealing with this kind of a disaster, and this is difficult, if not impossible, to understand.
Search and Rescue Services
The purpose of this motion is to point out that Canada's search and rescue on both coasts is in a mess, an incredible mess. The fact the Government has been able to circumvent Parliament by not having this subject before a parliamentary committee speaks to the ingenuity of the management of the business of this House, but it does not get away from the fact that search and rescue is nevertheless in a mess. We will probably be just on the verge of another disaster before we have another evaluation of the capability of our search and rescue.
I know from my own experience as Minister of Fisheries and Oceans that many of our fishermen on the West Coast of Canada have to depend upon the U.S. Coast Guard for protection. That is a disgrace and it should not be allowed to continue. On the East Coast dispersal is such that only a small area is adequately covered. That speaks to the tragedies surrounding the sinking of the Ocean Ranger.
I want to speak for a moment about the report on "Evaluation of Search and Rescue" from the perspective of my own Province and the inadequacy of search and rescue in Newfoundland. First, the report does not concern itself with the loss of life. The statistics in the report relate to incidents. The DND internal report, which objectively ignores the lives lost, explains that such figures would distort their basic statistics and set the fluctuation in activity statistics "wild" by one or two incidents, such as the Ocean Ranger.
In other words, although 83 people were lost in the Ocean Ranger, if you were to use that figure in the statistical compilation it would set the whole thing awry. That is the kind of convoluted logic that we get. It is more than that: the Ocean Ranger was a warning to us all. The sobering conclusion to be drawn from this is that since all major incidents are to be found in and around Newfoundland, they are not to be used statistically to reinforce the argument.
The greater the distance the rescue co-ordinating centre is from the scene of an incident, the longer the decision time and thus the longer the response time. I am making these points as briefly as I can to allow other Hon. Members to address this motion. I make these observations on the evaluation of search and rescue.
Newfoundland, it has to be said, by virtue of the configuration of the Atlantic region which takes in millions of square kilometres, is permanently locked into what has to be an inherent time delay because of the location of the rescue co-ordination centre in Halifax. This lag in response time has been a major factor, or has been referred to in just about every inquiry into every incident on the East Coast, certainly every incident off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador.
The fixed-wing aircraft based in the Halifax area, which includes P.E.I., are such that they are not suitable to respond to offshore incidents off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador. This speaks to the desperate need for the location of fixed-wing aircraft in the East Coast area off Newfoundland.
The report also makes reference to the fact that there should be a separate marine rescue co-ordination centre. I have made

October 12, 1983
Search and Rescue Services
the point, and I make it here again today, that there should be separate rescue co-ordination centre in St. John's, Newfoundland, to cover the area of the northwest Atlantic to satisfy our obligations under the International Aviation Agreements, whereby we take in a vast area of ocean in terms of international air traffic, and also to protect our mariners, fishermen and offshore workers.
We should have a rescue co-ordination centre in St. John's with decision-making capabilities supported by adequate personnel and fixed-wing aircraft. The Newfoundland question has to be addressed separately. There are no policies, no standards for performance and levels of service, and no objectives for the current search and rescue program. That is a fact; I defy anyone to tell me otherwise. Therefore, there is no method by which to decide or even to measure what is adequate and what is not.
The marine industrial environment has changed over the past decade by the advent of offshore exploration, and this will ultimately increase. It is increasing now. Once the question of jurisdiction has been settled, there will be further increases in activity out there. The massiveness of those offshore structures-and we have the tragic evidence of the Ocean Ranger to stand there as testimony-and their exposure to the ravages of the unique environment of the northwest Atlantic correspondingly increase the chances of still further major marine disasters off the coast of Newfoundland.
I emphasize and parenthesize "the coast of Newfoundland". If you take a look at the offshore activity that is taking place off Nova Scotia, you find there is adequate coverage there provided by the fixed-wing aircraft based in Summerside, P.E.I., in Nova Scotia and by the MoT vessels and fisheries vessels based in Halifax. I do not even have to mention the fishing grounds of the northwest Atlantic, the Hamilton Banks, the northern fishing grounds which are now used by our fishermen on a year round basis and, of course, the area of the Banks of Newfoundland where we have thousands of our fishermen daily exposed, especially from now until June of next year, to the extreme hazards of a very hostile environment.
In order to arrive at a reasonable and realistic conclusion on the adequacy and deployment of search and rescue resources in Newfoundland, certain factors must be considered. We are talking about adequacy because we have an internal report, additional to "An Evaluation of Search and Rescue", commissioned by a Minister of National Defence and released by the Minister which shows there are adequate resources, that there is adequate deployment. I am making the point that the resources are far from adequate and the deployment is most inadequate.
Standards will have to be developed so that there will be similar rules applicable throughout the region. Those standards must be based on all pertinent factors, such as distances to be covered, miles of coastline, marine activity, environmental factors, capability of SAR vehicles, time factors in response, causes of delays and so on.
Further, independent statistics must be developed that take into account the reason for disparity in incident rate at different levels of SAR service availability, preparedness of mariners and boaters for the missions undertaken, the incidence of self-help and mutual assistance and the recording and reporting thereof, the number of lives lost per incident and in total. I repeat, the number of lives lost per incident and in total.
A value must be placed on the different activities, that is, commercial, petroleum exploration and production activity, fishing, and pleasure and priorities assigned. Obviously, if we have an oil rig in trouble off the coast of Newfoundland, Labrador or Nova Scotia with 80 to 100 men on board, that has to receive much higher priority than a pleasure boat which has probably run afoul of weather and where there is no immediate threat to life.
In my opinion, only a fact-finding body could attempt to find answers to some of the questions I have tried to place on the record. That is why I am pleased and welcome the opportunity to stand and speak in support of the motion put foward by my hon. colleague. The first step for the long term is to establish a basis based on a solid statistical and practical background.
In the short run, the existing service resources should be deployed on the basis of a set of common factors so that all may have equal access and we can eliminate once and for all this often tragic but certainly regrettable time lag.
I have risen in this House time and time again after every accident off our coast to speak to the inadequacy of search and rescue in our country. We are one of the major, if not the major, fishing nations of the world. Our coastline touches three oceans. Apart altogether from our sovereignty, it strikes me as passing strange, and I certainly find it difficult to understand, why our search and rescue on our East and West Coasts is so woefully inadequate. I do not in any way reflect on the capability of our search and rescue personnel, both in the Canadian Coast Guard and in the Armed Forces. They are extremely dedicated people working under very difficult circumstances without adequate equipment. That is what it is all about.
Why is there not adequate equipment Why must they continue to operate under difficult and almost impossible circumstances? Why can there not be adequate equipment deployed on both coasts? Why should the fishermen off the Queen Charlotte Islands have to depend upon the U.S. Coast Guard for their protection?
As Members of Parliament, the representatives of the taxpayers of this country, we are entitled to an answer to that question. Why can we not have fixed-wing aircraft support in Newfoundland to protect our offshore oil workers and fishermen? It was not until the sinking of the Ocean Ranger that the three search and rescue helicopters now stationed in Gander were equipped with all-weather radar, and that was in response to another tragedy. Because they were not so equipped, it affected their ability to respond to the Ocean
October 12, 1983

Ranger disaster. It is possible that lives could have, 1 do not say would have, been saved. That will have to await the report of the Royal Commission into the sinking of the Ocean Ranger. I understand it will issue a report shortly on the adequacy of search and rescue as it impacts on that particular tragedy.
I make the case to the House that it is about time the Government dealt with this and not wait until there is another tragedy. Why should we have to wait for another tragedy? Why should we wait for more lives to be lost to stand in our place in this House and raise these questions with the Government?
If we build a subdivision in one of our cities, the first thing we do is ensure that there is adequate fire protection. So we build a fire station. We make sure there is access to hospitals and that there is adequate ambulance service. We have not taken into account what is happening on our East Coast in terms of offshore drilling and exploration. We have not made provision to deal with that new fact of life, not to mention our ability to be able to protect our mariners and fishermen. It is in the interest of saving lives that I once again make the case and support the position put forward by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Richmond-South Delta.
I understand the motion that I was going to move has already been moved by the Hon. Member for Burin-St. George's (Mr. Simmons). In any event, if it is in order, I would move:
That all the words after the word "Canada's" be struck out and the following added thereto:
"East and West Coasts".
I presume that motion would be seconded by the Hon. Member for Burin-St. George's, who is now rising in his place.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: It is moved by Mr. McGrath, seconded by Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):
That all the words after the word "Canada's" be struck out and the following added thereto:
"East and West Coasts".


Hon. Roger Simmons (Burin-St. George's):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few words on the motion, and in particular on the amendment. I am surprised that my friend from St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) felt it necessary to move the amendment, given his concluding remarks in which he said that he understands that very soon the Royal Commission on the Ocean Ranger tragedy will be addressing itself in an interim statement to the very issue that he would embody in his amendment.
I am a firm believer that if a study can achieve some worth-while result, we ought to have it. If a study can answer some questions that are not being addressed elsewhere, we ought to have it. The House will agree that the most expensive, and hopefully the most thorough, inquiry into a marine disaster is now under way. It is being funded jointly by the Government of Canada and the Government of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I refer, of course, to the Ocean Ranger inquiry. As the Hon. Member just pointed out, that inquiry will soon address the very matter that he seeks to have
Search and Rescue Services
embodied in the resolution. The issue for which he shows some concern is already being addressed in a fairly expeditious manner, I would hope, to the point that he can inform the House that we are about to hear the results of it in so far as search and rescue adequacy on the East Coast is concerned. After we hear that, if he has some further concerns, let him come back to the House and we can perhaps look at the question at that time.
The motion addresses itself to alleged deficiencies in search and rescue on the West Coast of Canada. While my friend from St. John's East did not spend much time addressing himself to that part of the motion, the rules of the House require that we do that, at least in part. At the same time, I would like the same liberty that he exercised to say something about East Coast search and rescue.
The search and rescue program is and has to be of vital importance because, in the final analysis, search and rescue is concerned with the saving of lives. This Government has long been committed to making sure that the Canadian search and rescue program meets that objective so far as is humanly and reasonably possible. The nature of this undertaking is such that it is always easy to point the finger. It is always easy to talk about what might have been, what could have been done that was not done, how things could have been different if there was a different arrangement for search and rescue capability at any time.
The Hon. Member for St. John's East knows, as all Members of this House know, that the Ocean Ranger tragedy is a subject which is very close to the hearts and minds of every Newfoundlander, indeed every Canadian who is aware of the impact of that tragedy. Because the Hon. Member for St. John's East is so aware of it, he ought to exercise all the more care when talking about that tragedy. It is all very well to refer to that tragedy when making a point as long as in the process we do not misuse that tragedy or misrepresent our point. He knows full well, Mr. Speaker, that we do not need to wait for an Ocean Ranger inquiry. He knows full well that we do not need any new inquiries to tell us what the awful result would have been on that night a year or two ago. He knows full well that if the entire search and rescue capability of St. John's and St. John's alone, the nearest point of land to the site of that terrible tragedy, were mustered that night, the result could not and would not have been any less tragic.


James Aloysius McGrath: That's not true and you know it. Helicopters need to operate from St. John's and not Gander. There are no helicopters in St. John's and 1 am surprised at your ignorance of the facts. Tell the truth for once.


An Hon. Member:: You shouldn't be surprised at that.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker-


James Aloysius McGrath: You should know all the facts about that because it is your constituency.


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

October 12, 1983
Search and Rescue Services


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for St. John's East is justifiably excited about this particular issue. However, that should not mean and must not mean that I will feel obligated to give the House his version of the facts. The facts are tragic enough without our having to bicker about them.
For the deliberation of the House, Mr. Speaker, let me present a few facts which relate to the hon. gentleman from St. John's East, since he wants to be the focus of the debate. He is known by every living soul in Newfoundland. There can be no person in Newfoundland who does not know exactly where the Hon. Member for St. John's East stands on search and rescue. To his credit, every living Newfoundlander knows where he stand on this subject. To their credit as Newfoundlanders, they also know where he stood when he was in a position to do something about it. That is the acid test, Mr. Speaker. The test is not how loudly he can shout, how incriminating he can become, how much he can impute the other fellow's motives and alleged ignorance of the facts, but it is what he does about the facts when he, the Hon. Member for St. John's East, is in a position to do something about them.
When would he have been in a position to do something about those facts, Mr. Speaker? How about the period from June, 1979 to March, 1980, when he was a member of the Cabinet of the Government of Canada? During that period, he never lifted one finger to improve the search and rescue capability on the East Coast of Canada. He talked long and hard. He throws allegations across the House. He stands with an attitude that is holier than thou. But given nine months to do something about the problem, he was too busy doing other things.


Mr. Taylor:: You've had ten long years.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Roger Simmons: Oh, they do not like that! I have upset them.


Gordon Edward Taylor: You've had ten years, what have you done?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. Does the Hon. Member rise on a point of order?


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, may I rise on a point of order to correct the record? The Hon. Member is misleading the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: I would invite Hon. Members first to observe the normal rules of debate, which require as a matter of courtesy that the Member who has the floor be allowed to speak uninterrupted. I appreciate that perhaps the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) may want to seek redress as a consequence of certain remarks made by the Hon. Member for Burin-St. George's (Mr. Simmons), but that could well fall under the category of debate. In any case, I will give the Hon. Member the benefit of the doubt and hear him out for a moment or two.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman was not in the Cabinet long enough to determine what the facts were. He was only there for ten days.
During our brief period in office, we commissioned an interdepartmental study into certain-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, order. That is debate. The Hon. Member for St. John's East is an experienced Member of Parliament and I invite him to cooperate with the Chair.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, I did not particularly want to raise the blood pressure of Hon. Members of the Conservative Party this late in the day. I just wanted to present to the House some facts. They may not be facts that are pleasant to the ears of the Hon. Member for St. John's East, but as he has confirmed himself in the last few moments, they are facts. His response to my comment is that they did another study. His response is to get abusive and personal.


An Hon. Member:: Oh, listen to that.


Roger Simmons: I will be the first to admit to the Chamber that I now have something in common with the Hon. Member for St. John's East and with several other Members on his side of the House. I admit, as he reminds me, that 1 was not in Cabinet for a very long time. I admit that I have something in common with Tories in the country because we all went through Cabinet on a conveyor belt. I admit that, but that does not allow him the privilege of hiding behind his short time in Cabinet. His time in Cabinet was not ten days, it was ten months.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Yours was ten years.


Roger Simmons: What does he do? He waves a report of another interdepartmental study.


Gordon Edward Taylor: You've been there for years.


Roger Simmons: The Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) has come briefly awake, Mr. Speaker.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Tell us what you've done in ten years.


James Aloysius McGrath: What have you done since 1979? You have been in the House since 1979. What have you done? Tell us what the Government has done since 1979 to improve search and rescue in Newfoundland? Tell us.


An Hon. Member:: Nothing. They are incapable of doing anything.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. The Chair seeks the co-operation of all Hon. Members to respect the right of the Hon. Member for Burin-St. George's.


An Hon. Member:: He is not even sitting down properly.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: proceed in an orderly fashion with debate. Hon. Members may agree or disagree with what is being said, but traditionally we must respect the Hon. Member's right to submit an opinion to the House. He was recognized to make a speech and I invite him to continue.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying a moment ago, during the nine or ten months the Tories were in office, despite their pontifications about what needs to be done for search and rescue, they did not use that golden opportunity to put their money where their mouths were. They did nothing. They did absolutely big, fat zero.
The Hon. Member for St. John's East has just indicated that in making this statement I am misleading the House. I challenge him to demonstrate how that is true. I challenge him to tell the House and the people of Newfoundland, for whom he pontificates so loudly about search and rescue, what he did when he had a chance to do something about it. I know the answer to that question but it is best coming from him because he is an honest man. He will tell the truth if put to the test. Let him tell the people of Newfoundland what he did. If he tells them what he did and documents the facts, and if I have in any respect misled the House, I shall be the first to correct the record, Mr. Speaker. The issue is-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. The Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) rises on a point of order.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, on the West Coast at least, search and rescue is in the hands of the Department of National Defence.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. I must invite the Hon. Member to state his point of order. He is indulging in debate at this stage.


Donald W. Munro: I was stating a fact.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. This is beginning to be an abuse of the rules. Hon. Members should not rise on points of order to participate directly in debate. Surely if they have not already spoken, their turn will come eventually, I trust.
Again, it is incumbent on the Chair to protect the right of the Hon. Member who was recognized to make a speech. I say that it is incumbent on the Chair to allow him to proceed and to make sure that the proper rules of debate are respected. He should not be interrupted, as is very clearly indicated by the Standing Orders.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, the resolution would call for another study. If the Hon. Member for St. John's East has in his possession a study that was done two or three years ago, why is he not advocating some of the solutions presented in that particular study? Surely he has found something. Surely the Cross report found something. Surely the Ocean Ranger inquiry will find something. Do we need another study? If we believe the drafter of this resolution, he wants a study for the
Search and Rescue Services
West Coast and, I presume, another for the East Coast and perhaps another for the Arctic. We do not need more studies, Mr. Speaker. We need a little dialogue around here.
In the last few minutes we have demonstrated that none is so deaf as those who will not hear. On the benches opposite the whole game in the last few minutes, on a quiet Wednesday afternoon, is to interrupt and prevent a Member of the House from saying what needs to be said in the debate.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Don't start crying.


Roger Simmons: I do not expect the Hon. Member for Bow River to get excited about search and rescue, Mr. Speaker. I do not believe he can get excited about many things.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, would the Hon. Member accept a question?


Roger Simmons: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


James Aloysius McGrath: The Hon. Member is determined to deal with the past. Perhaps as spokesman for the Government he can explain to the House why it has refused to accept the recommendations of the Mahoney inquiry commissioned by the Government into the sinking of the Arctic Explorer. That report called for adequate deployment, for fixed-wing aircraft, and it made a number of recommendations which have been ignored. Perhaps the Hon. Member would address that question.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, as recently as last Spring when the then Minister of National Defence was in St. John's, he announced a new deployment and there have been a number of new deployments since that particular report. The capability available to the Government through DOT and DND is constantly being redeployed. That is not to say that the redeployment, however adequate or brilliant, will ever have the approbation of the Hon. Member for St. John's East, because once he gives that, he removes the whole basis of his argument. He removes his entire platform. He has the village reputation of a crusader-not a doer, Mr. Speaker.
I know he does not want to hear about the past, even the recent past. I have challenged him and I do so again, now that I have answered his question. Again I ask him where the proof is that the Government of which he was a senior and prominent member did anything to address the very concerns he now raises and has raised for a number of years? That is the acid test.
On a continuing basis the Government has deployed and redeployed. If the Hon. Member is asking whether the system is perfect, the answer is no, it is not perfect. No matter what the resources or how many dollars are applied to this particular activity, there will always be room enough to point the finger. This motion is another finger pointing exercise. As soon as a Member on this side of the House tries to put the other side of the argument, Hon. Members opposite do not want to hear.

October 12, 1983
Search and Rescue Services
Is it a perfect system? No, it is not. Is there a need for a study? No, there is no need for another study. We have studies coming out of our ears. What we need is a little less rhetoric, a little less pointing of the finger and cheap politics, a little less undermining, a little less bad mouthing of the men and women involved in search and rescue in the country. They get a raw deal from people who continually shout that everything is wrong. They get a raw deal from people who keep saying that everything is bad. Those people are doing a very good job and if they had more resources they would do a better job. No one argues that point.
I suppose if we had an unlimited number of helicopters in every community, things would be better. There are 135 communities in my riding and I am sure every one of them can see the need for one place in or near that particular community. This whole thing could be carried to the ridiculous, as I have done in the last few moments, in order to make a point.


James Aloysius McGrath: You are the disgrace.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, if the yardstick for my disgrace is that I take a position different from that taken by the Hon. Member for St. John's East on search and rescue, I am glad to be the disgrace.


James Aloysius McGrath: You are when you are the only Newfoundlander to-


Roger Simmons: The Hon. Member says I am the only Newfoundlander, etc. I will give him a unique category. He is the only Newfoundlander who went into a Cabinet without lifting a finger on an issue which he says is important, and that is the issue of search and rescue. He never lifted his finger for nine or ten months. That is the kind of action we got from the man who now would be the solver of all problems. Search and rescue needs less rhetoric and a little more support for what is a good system and would be a better system if it were not continually undermined by people like the Hon. Member for St. John's East.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Look who is talking.


Mr. Siddon:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As the mover of the main motion I should like to ask the indulgence of Hon. Members present to extend the sitting until 6.15 p.m. so that the full hour might be accorded to this important debate and a more positive light might be placed upon it than has been the case by the speaker who just resumed his seat.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: The House has heard the proposal put forward by the Hon. Member for Richmond-South Delta (Mr. Siddon). Is there consent to that proposal?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this motion although I regret the tone of debate in the last half hour with name calling on both sides of the House rather than dealing with the very serious issue. The motion that stands in the name
of the Member for Richmond-South Delta calls for an independent commission to inquire into the whole question of search and rescue on Canada's West Coast. Incidentally, I support the amendment that would extend this to Canada's East Coast. We have to take the broad view of this subject.
There are certainly some very serious problems on the East Coast. In this Party we recognize that it is a difficult coast to monitor. It has a sparse population in some areas, the costs are high, but there have been some very tragic losses of life on that coast. It is the responsibility of the Government to provide adequate search and rescue facilities there.
Another interdepartmental study would do nothing to help deal with the many problems associated with search and rescue on the coast. An independent commission with members who would look at the whole context of search and rescue-for example, the use of volunteers, the need for helicopters, the kind of vessels that could service the area-all this would be helpful, rather than people who are concerned with protecting their departments.
The motion came up as a result of the tragic accident that occurred on Christmas Day of 1979 when 30 crewmen lost their lives in the sinking of the Lee Wang Zin off the northern coast of British Columbia. Sometimes it takes a major accident like that to arouse the public and bring its attention to what is really happening. This situation has been raised time and again in the House. While a tragedy the scope of the Lee Wang Zin has not been repeated on the West Coast in the last four years, it has been on the East Coast so the problem is a continuing one. In any given year there are dozens of smaller sinkings and smaller incidents. It has been estimated that an average of 50 lives are lost per year in incidents off our coasts.
As a United Church minister, it has been my responsibility at different times in the past to deal with the families of some of the people who lost their lives. It is a difficult task at best but how much more difficult and tragic it is when the situation could have been prevented had proper search and rescue facilities been in place and proper procedures followed. This, Mr. Speaker, is why we urge that this motion be adopted and a commission appointed.
We have raised this issue a number of times but progress is very slow. It seems that the Government has trouble in responding to distress calls along the Pacific Coast. When comparing the facilities and the equipment which are available to the Pacific Coast with that which is available to the East Coast, we find that in terms of the miles of coast which have to be covered and the number of incidents, we are far behind in the apportionment of money and resources.
The Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) has raised the problem of the type-400 search and rescue vessels which were recently deployed on the West Coast. They had to be taken out of service, Mr. Speaker, because it was found that the welding was defective. Those vessels are now back in service. However, a letter from the former Minister of Transport to my col-
October 12, 1983_____________________________COMMONS DEBATES
league, the Hon. Member for Skeena, pointed out that it has been demonstrated that after two years in operation:
__the Type 400 vessel has some shortcomings for operations in the worst
conditions encountered at certain times of the year in northern British Columbia waters. Therefore, to provide effective SAR coverage in the areas of Hecate Strait, Queen Charlotte Sound and Dixon Entrance, where regional SAR authorities had originally planned Type 400 vessels, the CCG is investigating other options.
The Canadian Coast Guard are investigating other options, but in the meantime, Mr. Speaker, we have a continuing situation where human lives are at risk.
The Hon. Member for Skeena has repeatedly urged that there should be a properly equipped helicopter stationed either on the Queen Charlotte Island of Masset or in Prince Rupert. However, this is not a request which the Minister has seen fit to accept. The Government promised two more search and rescue vessels earlier this year, one for Bella Bella and one for Prince Rupert. The money has been made available by the Treasury Board. But it is not just money which has to be voted for the acquisition of these boats; the boats have to be put in place.
There is a need for multi-tasking of all Government vessels. Certainly, it is required by law that all Government vessels, and indeed all vessels on the coast, should respond to a distress call. However, Government vessels are not all properly equipped or co-ordinated to take part in such services. Studies have repeatedly pinpointed the lengthy delays in alerting search and rescue systems after the initial notification has gone in.
This underlines the continuing need for better co-ordination of the facilities which we already have. It underlines the need for greater use of volunteers. One very simple suggestion which has been made is that volunteers should have paging devices issued to them so that if there were an incident for which they were to be called out, it would be easy to contact them.
The Canadian Marine Rescue Auxiliary, the CMRA, has been formed recently, but it has not been properly utilized. It has been utilized in a way which has, in fact, left many of the smaller lifeboat societies out in the cold. This is really ignoring the very important resource of volunteers. If there is going to be an adequate search and rescue component on the West Coast of Canada, we must use volunteers. The very length of the coast and the sparseness of the population in some areas require that we use adequately trained volunteers, but we have not done that. It is almost as though volunteers are looked upon as somehow getting in the way of the professionals.
The overview presented by the British Columbia Lifeboat Society has a description of the volunteer, and I would like to read it into the record because I think it accurately describes the kind of person these volunteers are and their dedication:
He typically expends a considerable amount of his available resources, be it time, vessel and equipment or money on his avocation-frequently equipping his vessel in a manner improving efficiency in handling Search and Rescue tasks. Small vessel handling skills and knowledge of local marine conditions have been
Search and Rescue Services
generally developed over a long period of time, he is most frequently a respected individual in his chosen vocation or profession. These are resources that cannot be purchased much less contracted.
He gives much, asks little-in general-deems to have received less from the authorities.
So I urge there be greater attention paid to the whole question of volunteers.
Another area 1 think the Commission should be directing more attention to is that of prevention. This is especially important in the southern part of the coast, the part I represent, including the Gulf Islands where there is increasing use of pleasure boats. 1 believe it should be mandatory to require licensing not only of the vessels but of the operators, especially smaller vessels, because there is nothing to prevent someone from going out and buying a boat, putting a high-powered motor on it and go roaring off into the ocean without any training whatsoever. A test or examination should be required for vessel operators similar to that which we require for people who are going to drive automobiles. We should ensure vessel operators are properly equipped with the knowledge and training which will enable them to provide for their own safety and also be of some use in the event another boat gets into difficulty.
Another preventive measure I strongly advocate is that Coast Guard officials be given the power to terminate voyages which in their opinion are manifestly unsafe. I refer, for example, to situations where the people in the boat have been drinking to the extent they are no longer capable of safely handling a boat. We are able to do that with automobiles but Coast Guard officials do not have that power, only the RCMP has.
I know there are other people who wish to take part in this debate so I will conclude simply by emphasizing that we support the motion. We want to see some positive improvements made in search and rescue. We believe one way to do that would be an independent inquiry which can look into all facets of search and rescue on both Canadian coasts and come up with recommendations that a Government which has the will can implement.


Stanley Hudecki: Mr. Speaker, I must first indicate my concern and displeasure at the approach and direction this debate has taken. The motion expressly indicated the West Coast and the problems facing search and rescue. I, through the Department, have taken time to take that concern to heart and have pointed out exactly what has been accomplished since the issuing of the Cross Report.
I think there has been so much rhetoric as to make it impossible to get that information across in the time allotted. So rather than going over the steps taken, some of which have been brought forward by the previous speaker, 1 will quickly indicate what has happened and what is being done in this particular field.
First of all, the Cross Report was tabled in the House of Commons in December, 1982. Since then, the Cabinet decision called for a new management system, the goal of which was to

October 12, 1983
Search and Rescue Services
establish more clearly the fine line of responsibility for policy making, planning, programming, monitoring and review of search and rescue. The line of responsibility would run from the lead Minister, the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Blais), through a single chairman of the interdepartmental committee supported by an independent secretariat to the line departments.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. I beg the indulgence of the Parliamentary Secretary. There was a mixup on the Chair's part as to who the next speaker should be. The Chair recognized the Parliamentary Secretary but at the same time the Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) rose. The Chair should have recognized, in all fairness in terms of the usual rotation of speakers in the House, the Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich.
Having recognized the Hon. Member, I cannot unrecognize him strictly speaking, at this time. I would ask him, though, without prejudicing his right to speak further in the debate, if he would now cede to the Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich.


Stanley Hudecki: 1 will follow your directions, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: The Chair is not actually directing the Hon. Member. I am explaining the situation the Chair has put itself into, not in a deliberate way, I suppose, but I appreciate the Hon. Member's co-operation and the Hon. Member reserves his right to speak after the Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich if he so wishes.


Stanley Hudecki: I feel I should reserve the right to speak again after the Hon. Member has completed his remarks.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Such should be clearly understood. I now recognize the Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich.


Donald W. Munro: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary.
I will draw to your attention. Mr. Speaker, the importance of this matter as far as the West Coast is concerned in terms of numbers. However, in a matter of this importance, it is vital that there be advance notice of the appearance on the Order Paper of motions of this sort. In fact, concerning Private Members' days, I know the Table is having trouble lining people up two or three days in advance. However, last night at six o'clock, the Hon. Member for Richmond-South Delta (Mr. Siddon) was informed that his motion would be on for debate today. A motion of such importance deserves more notice than this. There is a great deal of preparation involved. There is statistical preparation. I plead with the Chair and the Table to
twist arms a little more strongly and see that things are organized on Monday so that we know, well in advance, that a certain motion is coming forward.
I did mention to Your Honour that I would indicate the importance of the motion in statistical terms. It has been estimated that something of the order of 200,000 pleasures boats sail waters on the West Coast and that 5,000 to 6,000 commercial fishermen also work those waters. I would say that we are roughly talking somewhere in the order of half a million people whose lives are at the whim of the elements. For that reason, it is vitally important that we have an improved system of search and rescue on the West and East Coasts.
I am delighted that we had this broadening of the motion because it gives us an opportunity to insist that this study be carried out on both coasts. Do I have until 6.15 or 6.17, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: I suppose the intent was to provide for the whole hour. The Hon. Member for Richmond-South Delta (Mr. Siddon) did refer, in his motion, to 6.15. I take it that he meant 6.17 p.m., which would take us to the full hour.


Donald W. Munro: That gives me two minutes to add a few comments. We have already had the tragedy of the Ocean Ranger brought to our attention. We have also heard mention of the Christmas tragedy of the Lee Wang Zin. While the Prinzendam was a tragedy in terms of a vessel, it was happily not a tragedy in terms of human lives. In that instance, however, we had to rely on the U.S. Coast Guard, and that is unfortunate.
This highlights in a manner which we apparently are unable to do in a debate in the House the importance of a broadened search and rescue system on both coasts. That being the case, along with the one report we have seen and the recommendations that it made, I think it is worth mentioning that there were something in the order of 53 recommendations put forward by the evaluation team. It indicated for example, that faster response comes in more often than not. We talked about the 32 hours before anyone responded to the tragedy of the Taiwanese vessel, the Lee Wang Zin.
Our time has almost expired and therefore I move:
That the question be now put.


Stanley Hudecki: I was given assurance that I could speak.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: The Chair is prepared to recognize the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary but our time has now expired. Therefore this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at eleven o'clock a.m.
At 6.17 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, October 13, 1983