1983-10-26

STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21


[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Madam Speaker, while we were truly shocked by the bloody coup d'etat in Grenada two weeks ago and would have supported reasonable international action to deal with that situation, we can in no way approve of the action taken yesterday by the United States Government in invading that small country. There is no doubt that the invasion of Grenada by United States marines is a clear violation of international law, the United Nations Charter and, in effect, constitutes an act of war against Grenada.
If the United States' action was taken solely to protect and evacuate United States citizens after less extreme alternatives were attempted, then there could be some justification. This does not seem to be the case. It is significant that the United States did not even discuss its true plans with Canada, despite the fact that Canada is the senior Commonwealth nation in America.
The other reason given by the United States was to restore democratic institutions. While that is a noble intention, it is hard to believe, since many of the Governments supported by the United States in Central America, the Caribbean, and Latin America, are military dictatorships. If the United States is sincerely interested in restoring democracy in Latin America, will it now invade Chile?
The United States action in Grenada must be condemned, Madam Speaker, not only because it is a violation of international law but also because it allows for the settlement of disputes by force rather than by peaceful means.
Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member's time has expired.


POLITICAL PARTIES
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, would you believe it, Senator Keith Davey sent me-yes, me-a personal letter. He thinks 1 am a Liberal. I am angry, enraged, furious, indignant, fuming, incensed, boiling, maddened, irritated, galled, offended, umbraged, miffed, nauseated, outraged, riled, envenomed, soured, wounded, vitiated, debased, peeved, nettled, defiled, annoyed, smeared, chafed, rasped, triturated, abrased, furcated, defiled, stained, soiled, blemished, stunned, bewildered, puzzled, befuddled, bemuddled, confounded, mystified, perplexed, baffled, baited, devilled, lured, decoyed, vulgarized, debased, and insulted.
The Senator wants me to send him $250 for a ticket for a dinner with the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). 1 am beseeched, entreated, adjured, implored, pleaded, supplicated, obsecrated, obtested, solicited, tintinnabulated, blandished, wheedled, blarneyed, inveigled, blubbered, bothered, buttered, cajoled, wheedled, and coaxed to attend.
It made me disconsolate, inconsolable, unconsolable, comfortless, forlorn, heartsick, soul sick, heartsore, heartbroken, and dejected. I coughed, wheezed, hawked, expectorated, vomited, and puked. In plain English, Madam Speaker, will you tell the Senator that I will not be attending the dinner because I am a Tory.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bob Ogle (Saskatoon East):: Madam Speaker, yesterday Xabier Gorostiaga from Nicaragua visited with several Members of this House to explain the present situation in his country. He is responsible for the creation of the Nicaraguan Institute for Social and Economic Research. He explained to us that during the year 1980 the economy of Nicaragua had progressed by 10 per cent, by 6 per cent in 1981, that there was a bad year in 1982 because of the floods, but that it recovered again by 4 per cent in the first semester of 1983.
He wanted to tell the people of Canada about the fear he has of an invasion which could possibly follow the same model as that which took place in Grenada yesterday. Yesterday's invasion violates international law and contravenes the Charter of the United Nations. At the same time, he spoke of the fear of the Nicaraguan people because this is the time of year when

October 26, 1983
their economy, based on cotton, sugar and coffee, is in the most extreme danger. It can easily be destroyed by guerrilla action. There is already a CIA army in Nicaragua for that very purpose.
I call upon the Government of Canada and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to condemn the policies of the United States in that region of the world, and to look seriously at the peace proposal that was given by the Minister of External Affairs for Nicaragua to the Americans last Thursday, which was blatantly thrown out on Friday. Otherwise, that part of the world could become a new Vietnam, a regional war.

[ Translation]


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Pierre  Gimai@: Madam Speaker, about ten days ago, the newspaper Le Soleil published an article confirming that Alcan had sent written notice to Gaz Inter-Cite Quebec Inc. of its firm intention of purchasing several hundred million cubic metres of gas over the coming years. Madam Speaker, I am delighted with this decision, especially since it means that from $230 to $240 million will be invested, in addition to what the Canadian Government is already doing for the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean area to develop the economy during the coming year. The Company has already sent an application to the Canadian Government and, more specifically, to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Chretien), for the release of necessary funding for construction of a section of the gas pipeline that is vital to our economy. Once again, I want to point out to the people in my riding and in the region generally that natural gas is coming to Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean because a national energy program was established by the Canadian Government and by the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) when he was Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, to develop our economy and attract investment for the creation of permanent jobs in our region, with the objective of helping resource regions like ours to achieve the kind of infrastructure that will help us take advantage of our full development potential in the years to come.


POLITICAL PARTIES
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Madam Speaker, Mr. James Stark of Operation Dismantle
spoke at White Rock on Thanksgiving Day. He said, among other things, of the Leader of the Official Opposition:
... I really don't want to prejudge him, but I think we are actually better off with Trudeau than with Mulroney, and that's saying something. However-and I am saying this everywhere and I want to be very clear about this-1 vote NDP.
I was an NDP candidate.
There it is, Madam Speaker. Finally someone who has been an official spokesman for the New Democratic Party has come out of the closet. We have known for some time that the marriage between the New Democratic Party and the Liberals was consummated in secret. Now the vows have been pronounced in public. It is refreshing to hear at least one member of the NDP who is not ashamed of his marriage partner.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Madam Speaker, on Monday of this week the Minister of Communications (Mr. Fox) made an announcement describing the plans of the Government for the future of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Both the vagueness of the document and the failure of the Minister and the President of the CBC to clarify the goals of the Corporation, and the means of achieving those goals, have led to a questioning of the intentions of the Government in this matter.
Indications are that 500 production level employees of the Corporation will be laid off because the Minister has stated new programming must be paid for by "increased efficiencies", which is a euphemism for lay-offs. While we were asked to accept employment cuts so new production can get rolling, six new vice-presidents have been appointed in the CBC, and the Minister and the Presdident of the CBC propose to create a new and undoubtedly well-paid position of chairperson of the board. Production level firings and increases in executive levels only reinforce the growing bureaucraticism and centralization within the CBC. Production and programming decisions increasingly are made in Ottawa, which is isolated from production centres.
If the Corporation is to improve service to Canadians, produce exciting and stimulating drama, and meet its objectives, where is the money to come from? The Minister sets out a mandate for the Corporation without providing the means to bring it about. The Minister, since his announcement Monday, has been absent from the House. He is unavailable to answer the questions of the Opposition on his plans for the CBC.


Madam Speaker:: 
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Andre Maltais (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Madam Speaker, last week, the magazine La semaine, in its October 22 issue, published the following headline:
Sept-Iles, a dying town
Madam Speaker, I would like to point out that the impression given by the press is false, because Sept-Iles is not dying. It has serious problems, like the town of Port Cartier, except that its problems are directly connected with the iron ore issue, and at the present time, thanks to the Canadian Government and the establishment of the National Harbours Board at Sept-Iles, which is working on setting up a German aluminum refinery in the region, we feel that future developments on the North Shore will be successful. Similarly, the federal Government is working very hard to support the Province of Quebec in reopening the Rayonier Quebec plant at Port Cartier. Madam Speaker, I think it is important to set the record straight about the North Shore. Sept-Iles is not just the Iron Ore Company, there are other companies, including Wabush Mines which is doing very good work. In fisheries there has been a tremendous expansion during the past season, and the federal Government has invested around $40 million in the region in the past year. All of this has been done to provide a proper infrastructure and to diversify. I felt it was important to point this out, 1 hope the Leader of the Opposition agrees with the Member for Manicouagan.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Madam Speaker, just think what it must be like to live in a community which is only accessible by air and is 100 miles or more from the nearest post office. Although I raised this question several times in the House of Commons, and local post office employees are doing everything they can, people in such communities are still stymied by senior post office bureaucrats from the south.
In villages where there are no banks it is especially important that post office services should include CODs and the issuing of money orders. Nahanni Butte, Trout Lake, and Jean Marie River have no post office. Lac La Marte and Rae Lakes have no post office even though the combined population is over 500 and they are served by a regularly scheduled air line.
Oral Questions
It would be easy to establish contract post offices in such locations, as has been done in similar places. People in the north have an equal right to proper postal services, and they are thoroughly disgusted with a Liberal Government which completely neglects their interests.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (York-Peel):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for International Trade who answered questions yesterday with respect to the Grenadian situation. Will the Minister confirm, or otherwise, a recent Canadian Press story which stated permission had been denied to Canada to send a plane to evacuate Canadian national from the island of Grenada? Would he also indicate whether all Canadians on the island are safe?


Hon. Gerald Regan (Minister of State (International Trade)):: Madam Speaker, the national Defence Forces of Canada have a 707 on the ground at Barbados ready to evacuate Canadian nationals who wish to leave the island of Grenada at the earliest point they can get permission from the occupation authorities to land on the island. However, there has now arisen the complication that the condition of the airport may not be such as to receive a plane of the 707 type. Within the next two hours a Hercules aircraft will be departing Canada to be available to airlift Canadian nationals, the Hercules being able to land on the type of runway presently in use on Grenada.
The Americans have not given clearance up to this point in time. They said they were giving priority to military aircraft because of their concern with the conflict which is still under way, and military needs of that type. I have, within the past half hour, met with the United States Ambassador to Canada and requested that he make arrangements on a most urgent basis for permission for a Canadian aircraft to land on Grenada to remove our nationals.


SAFETY OF CANADIAN CITIZENS
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, I would like the Minister to assure the House that all Canadians are safe to this point. Would he also explain to the House the Government's slowness, its lethargy, in getting Canadians off that island, bearing in mind that up until Monday 12 days had elapsed from the time Prime Minister Bishop was deposed, five days had elapsed from the time he was slaughtered along with three other Cabinet Ministers, and why could the Government

October 26, 1983
Oral Questions
not have had the 707 in place earlier to remove these Canadians and ensure their safety?


Gerald Augustine Regan: Madam Speaker, if the Hon. Member's memory goes back as far as yesterday, he will know that his Leader and others were referring to the state of great confusion on the island in those preceding days. We encountered difficulties in obtaining clearance for an aircraft to go in, but we did obtain it eventually from the Grenadian authorities late on Sunday. As the Hon. Member knows, if he was in the House yesterday, we at that time had available an aircraft of a local airline, but there were difficulties in obtaining the necessary permission from all of the islands which participate in the ownership of that airline.
If the invasion had not intervened, our 707 aircraft would have attempted to go in yesterday morning. If one were to look at the situation in relation to the nationals of other countries, I think that one would find that Canada reacted in a very thorough manner in relation to the protection of our nationals and, during those days of confusion, managed to remain in contact with them.
As to their present safety, we have been in contact with all Canadian nationals known to be on the island, although we have not had contact since late yesterday with five of them who are in the town of St. George's. We have no reason to believe that they are in any danger.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, in the explanation given by the Minister of State for the failure to remove Canadians, he overlooked the fact that he was certainly warned about it by this side. My Leader and my colleagues made 18 separate interventions expressing our concern for the safety of the Canadians and asking about the position of the Canadian Government on this matter, all prior to Monday night.


CANADIAN POSITION ON INVASION
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, would the Minister now indicate if he is finally in the process of sending a note to Washington stating Canada's position with respect to the entry of the Caribbean nations and the United States onto the island of Grenada? Second, if he has that note available, would he now table it?


Gerald Augustine Regan: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member refers to a note. What I specifically did was 1 called the American ambassador. As I indicated earlier, His Excellency met with me earlier this afternoon. At that time I outlined in detail a number of Canada's concerns in relation to the military intervention in Grenada, and also in relation to the question of the evacuation of Canadian personnel.


MINISTER'S STATEMENT ON INVASION
Mr. John Bosley (Don Valley West):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the same Minister. The Minister is reported to have said yesterday that he believes the invasion of the island of Grenada is, in his mind, comparable to, or the same as, the invasion of the Falkland Islands. Could the Minister please tell the House whether that is in fact true, and how he could possibly in any way compare those two events?


Gerald Augustine Regan: Madam Speaker, 1 regret that the Hon. Member may want to twist around my words on a matter of such importance in the international sphere, for political reasons.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald Augustine Regan: What 1 said yesterday, and what I would repeat gladly, is that it does appear to me that military intervention into another country should only be taken, if at all, after the widest possible consultation among the other countries involved because of the danger of subjective values leading to a wrongful conclusion as to the degree of justification involved. I used as an example military interventions such as those which occurred by Argentina into the Falkland Islands, and in various other parts of the world in the last few years, albeit of a different character, or of different degrees of justification in our eyes. Nevertheless, the very fact of military intervention into sovereign nations carries with it the danger of increasing world tension, and is a movement toward the possibility of war.


GOVERNMENT'S UNDERSTANDING OF SITUATION
John William Bosley: Madam Speaker, since the Minister refuses to say that there are differences between the two, I would ask him the following question. In the view of the Canadian Government, how much would a government in the Caribbean have to be deposed; how much of the intervention would have to be sponsored by other nations; how much trouble would Canadians have to be in before the Government of Canada would face the fact that there is a difference between the deposition of a parliamentary government, the intervention in that country by Argentina, and the shooting of the leaders of a country, to take over and operate a regime that appears in international terms to have desperate consequences for the people of that country? When will we in Canada understand the difference?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald Augustine Regan: Madam Speaker, what we have said in relation to the invasion of Grenada is that we do not have available to us the grounds that would seem to justify that action. 1 would only say to the Hon. Member, as we have said already, that there may well be good justification that the United States has not disclosed as yet. But the Hon. Member is indeed dealing with a tricky area when he says that internal turmoil will be, in itself, sufficient justification for other countries unilaterally,
October 26, 1983

without consultation with broadly based international fora, to undertake a military intervention of this type.


COMPARISON WITH ARGENTINE INVASION OF FALKLAND ISLANDS
John William Bosley: Madam Speaker, when the Minister says that the invasion of the Malvinas by Argentina is in any way comparable, can he not understand the degree to which he is making it very difficult for others to consult Canada because, when Ministers of the Crown say that, they believe that Canada is proving that it is not trustworthy in the western hemisphere?
Hon. Gerald Regan (Minister of State (International
Trade)): Madam Speaker, there are two things that 1 would have to say to the Hon. Member. I am sure that he does not want to justify actions by the Soviet Union, but the question of internal political strife was exactly what existed in Poland when the Soviet Union wrongfully decided that it was justified to move into that country, and elsewhere.
Let me add that the fact the Hon. Member must keep in mind is that the position that Canada is taking on the American military intervention in Grenada is one that is strikingly similar to the position of the United Kingdom, which is a Government for which 1 think the Hon. Member has some feeling, if not for ours, and it is indeed mild compared to the position that has been taken by Mexico, Trinidad, and all of the South American countries.


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER CONDEMN INVASION
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. It has everything to do with the position the Government is taking on this issue. Considering that the invasion of an independent country in the Commonwealth by forces led by the United States of America not only contravenes international law but violates Article II of the United Nations Charter, will he now join with other national leaders in the world who believe we ought to use peaceful means to resolve difficult problems, and condemn this act of violence in a forthright way?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, that is the substance of the message 1 understand was conveyed to the United States Ambassador by the Minister of State, the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs, and which is being conveyed in Washington today by our officials meeting in the State Department.


POSITION OF CANADIAN GOVERNMENT
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, just for perfect clarification, as I heard the Minister answer a minute ago, he said that he conveyed to the Ambassador of the United States certain "concerns" of the Government of Canada about this invasion of Grenada. I would like the Prime
Oral Questions
Minister to be very specific with the House so that we can send a message around the world on this invasion, which the Prime Minister knows can set off tensions not only in the Caribbean but all over. Is he now prepared to say in the House that the Government of Canada categorically opposes this invasion of Grenada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the language used by the Minister, as I understand it, was that Canada regretted the action, the military intervention. The Minister restated what 1 said in the House yesterday, that unless we had information which showed that this action was necessary to protect and rescue American nationals, and unless there was no other way of doing it, then the intervention would seem unjustified.
Yesterday, I indicated that we thought we might get that information from Secretary Shultz's statement yesterday afternoon. I feel that he did not give any such explanation that they had to invade in order to protect their nationals. Indeed, it seems to me that the reason invoked by the United States and the other Caribbean nations involved is that they wanted a different sort of Government there. It was not so much a question of protecting nationals as it was of ensuring a Government which was compatible with their views as to how a Government should operate. If there is no further explanation than that, I think we would quite clearly say the actions were unjustified.


NICARAGUA-POSSIBILITY OF INVASION BY UNITED STATES AND ALLIES
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, the evidence is clearly out. In The New York Times it has been reported that U.S. envoys who went to Grenada on the weekend were assured there would be no problems for American citizens. We have since learned, also from the same source, that the invasion was being planned in midweek, last week, by the United States of America.
Because of the very serious regional implications, is the Prime Minister aware that in recent weeks the United States re-established CON DEC A, a Spanish acronym for Central American Defence Council, which includes Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, and the United States? Is the Prime Minister aware that the U.S. just recently reconstituted this organization? Is the Prime Minister not concerned that the violent action that has been initiated by the United States in recent days against Grenada will simply be a forerunner of a similar kind of group action taken by CONDECA against the people of Nicaragua?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Madam Speaker. I have not heard of the reconstitution of this group, nor do I share the apprehensions of the Hon. Member. I think the facts, as we know them about Grenada, have led us to make the statement I have just made. I would not want to speculate on a hypothetical situation in Nicaragua or elsewhere.

October 26, 1983
Oral Questions


SYRIA-ROLE IN LEBANON-MINISTER'S STATEMENT
Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister and it also deals with exernal affairs. Last Wednesday and Thursday the Secretary of State for External Affairs was in Damascus, Syria, where he gave a press interview in which he had some surprising things to say about Syria and its role in Lebanon. Among other things, the Secretary of State was quoted as saying:
Syria, like Canada, wants Lebanon to be sovereign and independent.
Is it the view of the Government that that is why Syria, along with 5,000 Soviet troops, is occupying the Beka'a Valley in eastern Lebanon? Is it the view of the Government that Syria is playing a useful role and that the Syrians are there in eastern Lebanon because they want Lebanon to be sovereign and independent?


Gerald Augustine Regan: Madam Speaker, I believe the comments made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs in Syria last week, when accurately read, are consistent with the policy which the Canadian Government has taken, and the rhetorical conclusions that the Hon. Member reaches are not justified by his position.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, I will be glad to send the Minister the quotes of his senior Minister's statement.


PALESTINE LIBERATION ORGANIZATION
Harvie Andre: My supplementary question is for the Prime Minister because it deals with government policy. The Secretary of State for External Affairs was also quoted as saying that Canada has authorized the establishment of official contacts with the PLO and that the PLO had a role to play in the peace negotiations. Can the Prime Minister tell the House when Canada officially recognized the PLO and can he indicate which faction of the PLO, that which supported by Syria, or that under the leadership of Arafat? Can the Prime Minister tell the House whether he feels that the PLO has a role to play in discussions on the sovereignty and independence of Lebanon?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member's question is not based on his premises. He asks when have we recognized the PLO. The answer is we have not recognized the PLO.
[ Translation]


FORTHCOMING COMMONWEALTH CONFERENCE IN INDIA- POSSIBLE CANADIAN PROPOSAL FOR GRENADIAN POLITICAL STABILITY
Mr. Louis Duclos (Montmorency-Orleans):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. As a member of the Commonwealth, Canada has a special
relationship with Grenada and with the other Caribbean countries that took part in the U.S. military intervention in that country.
Considering this common membership in the Commonwealth, could the Right Hon. Prime Minister inform the House whether Canada, possibly in consultation with Great Britain, intends to take advantage of the next conference of Commonwealth countries to be held in India next month and which the Prime Minister will attend, to submit to co-members proposals aimed at restoring political stability in Grenada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, we shall certainly be discussing the situation in Grenada at the next Commonwealth conference. 1 believe 1 have already indicated that it was discussed at the last Commonwealth conference, that is, at the Melbourne Summit in 1981, and also at the regional summit held in St-Lucia at the beginning of 1983. We shall certainly be discussing this subject again in November.


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member for St. John's West.


Mr. Crosbie:: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Lisheries and Oceans who was here, but he is like the Scarlet Pimpernel. 1 presume he is behind the curtains somewhere. 1 would like to wait for him to come back, if you do not mind.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Gerry St. Germain (Mission-Port Moody):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. The Minister knows that a healthy private sector is the key to the establishment of long-term jobs for Canadians. However, this past weekend the Minister was reported as saying that he doubts the private sector would be interested in a co-operative program with Government to hire young Canadians in these economic conditions. What does the Minister feel has to be done to facilitate recovery in the private sector so that the private sector would be willing to participate in co-operative programs to hire young Canadians? What are the Minister's plans to achieve private sector involvement in long-term job establishment?


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: No, Madam Speaker, what I said this weekend was that we have not had as strong a take up as we had expected in some of our industrial training and skills development programs. The reason for that has been the reluctance of some employers to take on young people as trainees given the overhead costs involved, even though there is substantial support or contribution coming from the federal Government to
October 26, 1983

encourage that to happen. I believe, as the recovery from the recession continues and strengthens, we will see in the next year that the private sector will be more and more eager to take up the possibilities which those plans envisaged. I expect, therefore, that we will be able to overcome the problem which I described is the one we had last year.
As for the impact of economic recovery, that is a question which 1 and the Minister of Finance have dealt with in the House on frequent occasions. If the hon. gentleman is more specific in his supplementary, I will try to give him a response.


ANNOUNCEMENT OF GOVERNMENT PLANS
Gerry St. Germain: Madam Speaker, my supplementary is for the same Minister. The Minister knows that the Government has discouraged private sector job creation, and we cannot depend solely on the spillover from the American economic recovery. What are the Government's plans for working with the private sector on the establishment of long-term jobs, and I mean in definitive terms? Why does the Ministry seem to be waiting for a Speech From the Throne to announce those plans?


John (Moody) Roberts: Again, Madam Speaker, the assumption of the Hon. Member's question is entirely mistaken. The kind of tax changes which were proposed by my colleague, the Minister of Finance, in his last budget were expressly designed to provide assistance to the private sector in creating jobs. What we do wish to have is a co-operative partnership with the private sector in creating jobs. That is also the premise which we have followed in using, for instance, Section 38 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, to work with the private sector and in using unemployment insurance funds to create jobs through the private sector which will be of long-term benefit to the economy.
In the hon. gentleman's own Province, I could say there are a variety of projects which we have developed, for instance, those under the Employment Bridging Assistance Program which was directed to co-operation with the private sector to create jobs, but the rug was pulled out from underneath those programs by his provincial Government. I wish the Hon. Member would speak to his provincial Government about that.


GOVERNMENT POSITION ON ACHIEVEMENT OF FULL EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. He will know that yesterday the Bank of Montreal suggested the possibility of full employment in Canada was millions of years away and predicted the likelihood of unemployment reaching at least 15 per cent by the end of this decade. Countries such as Austria, Sweden, Norway, and even Japan, have managed to obtain full employment. These countries are highly competitive with us and are highly productive. Why is Canada unable to do the same as they have done?
Oral Questions


John (Moody) Roberts: Madam Speaker, it is difficult to respond to that question with a short reply. I am not responsible for the Bank of Montreal's assessment. There are a whole variety of assessments of what is likely to happen in the future in relation to employment, and there are a whole host of definitions of what constitutes full employment. It is not particularly useful to have rhetorical quibbles over what constitutes full employment. That does not provide any better basis for action than setting objectives in terms of job creation and expenditure programs.
To simplify very much the substance of the reply to the Hon. Member's specific question, I suggest that the most appropriate way to answer the question he posed is to look at the growth of the labour force in those countries which he described. He will find that it is very different from the rate of labour growth in Canada.


Nelson Andrew Riis: We on this side certainly have no difficulty defining full employment. It means that every man and woman in the country who is able to work has full employment. I do not think that is very mysterious at all.


REQUEST FOR MASSIVE STIMULATION OF ECONOMY
Nelson Andrew Riis: Japan has full employment because of a co-operative approach to its economy. It has a planned economy, a low inflation rate, and low interest rates. However, it realizes that a very difficult winter is coming. Japan has just announced a massive stimulation program for its economy.


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Nelson Andrew Riis: The same situation will exist in our country in the winter months-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the Hon. Member could describe the situation in Japan on some other occasion. For the time being, we would appreciate a question.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, why is the Minister not taking similar steps in our country to provide massive stimulation to the economy in order to make Canada's winter a little less bleak for Canadians?


John (Moody) Roberts: Madam Speaker, I do not know where the Hon. Member has been. Quite clearly we have had stimulation.


Some Hon. Members:: Where? Where?


John (Moody) Roberts: Given the levels of deficit we are experiencing at the present time, that constitutes an extraordinary stimulation of the Canadian economy. The bringing forward of the Special Recovery Program of $2.5 billion of construction expenditure, and of the NEED Program in Employment and Immigration, constitutes the kind of stimulation that creates

October 26, 1983
Oral Questions
jobs in the Canadian economy. If one were to limit oneself to the description in the Hon. Member's question, one would have to say that Japan is following our example, not leading it.


MULTICULTURALISM
Hon. John M. Reid (Kenora-Rainy River):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State. As he knows, he made an announcement of a change in programs for migrating Indians. Until now the new program announced in the spring has not had the financing it needs to come into place. When will the Secretary of State be able to get his program through Treasury Board so that new programs can come into place in Native Friendship Centres across Canada?


Hon. Serge Joyal (Secretary of State):: Madam Speaker, I am happy to inform the Hon. Member and the House that the points which have to be dealt with to ensure that the announcement made in the month of May could be implemented were dealt with yesterday, due in particular to the intervention of the Hon. President of the Treasury Board and the Minister of Finance. It is my intention to write today to all Centres across Canada to inform them that the announcement made in May will be fully honoured and implemented by the Government of Canada.


FISHERIES
John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. On July 4 the Minister announced the take-over of the Newfoundland offshore trawler fishery, with the jobs and livelihoods of thousands of plant workers, trawler fishermen and inshore fishermen at stake. Four months have passed since then, and the Government has spent its time fighting with the Newfoundland Government and the shareholders of those companies, and sales have been lost to the United States.
When will action be taken to put someone in charge of this new company? When will there be some central direction so that decisions can be made on the budget for 1984? When will there be decisions on fish quotas for that new company? When will decisions be made on refitting trawlers for northern fishing, and refitting the fish plant at Trepassey so that it can reopen? In other words, when will action be taken to start operations, because everything is at a standstill in that area at the moment?


Hon. Pierre De Bane (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Madam Speaker, I am really surprised, for a Member representing Newfoundland, that he is one of the few people who is
not aware of what is going on. Mr. Peckford signed an agreement which he hailed as being the most important bilateral agreement signed by Newfoundland since it joined Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre De Bané: That was done under the leadership of the Prime Minister. Today Mr. Peckford and I announced that all the legal action taken by CDC has been resolved to the mutual satisfaction of both Governments. As to the question of the appointment of the new presidency of the company, both Governments are working closely together on a short list of names which we will put before our two Cabinets. Finally, 1 am happy to tell the Hon. Member that I have every confidence the new company will be in operation starting with the next fishing season, that is, January 1, 1984.


John Carnell Crosbie: I never asked what agreements were signed. 1 asked what action was being taken. I know that there are 500 people out of work at Trepassey, 400 people out of work at Fermeuse, and hundreds more out of work these last four months while the Minister fiddled around retrofitting agreements.


REQUEST FOR ANNOUNCEMENT OF COMPANY PLANS
John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister when the plant at Trepassey will be put into operation. When will there be a managing director of this new operation? When will it be financed? When will he tell them what are their fish quotas so that they can use their trawler fleet next year? In other words, when will people start to work, or are they to lose all hope altogether? I know what is happening in Newfoundland. It is not the dream world the Minister is occupying up here in Ottawa.


Pierre De Bané: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member is definitely an unguided missile.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre De Bané: When he accuses me of fiddling around, actually he is accusing Premier Peckford of fiddling around because Mr. Peckford is now working very solidly with the federal Government on that issue.
As to the question of fishing quotas, 1 am happy to tell the Hon. Member that I have said publicly we will give the new company a five-year enterprise allocation so that it will know for five years ahead what will be its fishing allocations.


John Carnell Crosbie: When? When will they know?


Pierre De Bané: When? When I receive-


John Carnell Crosbie: They are out of work in Fermeuse, Trepassey, and in other places.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.
October 26, 1983


Pierre De Bané: All the participants in the fishery in St. John's were there to prepare their consultative reports to the Minister of Fisheries. 1 will not jeopardize the consultative process wherein all participants have their say. The Minister of Fisheries, with the provincial Minister of Fisheries, will be making a decision on time for the new fishing season.


John Carnell Crosbie: These are your decisions.


Pierre De Bané: 1 think it is time the Hon. Member realizes that Newfoundlanders are fed up with a guy playing politics with Newfoundland's most vital industry.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: Come down and run there, and you will see.


FUTURE OF INDEPENDENT FISHING COMPANIES
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Madam Speaker, I, too, wish to direct a question to the Hon. Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. When he nationalized the "big five" in Atlantic Canada, in Newfoundland and Nova Scotia, he actually made sacrificial lambs of the 200 or more independent operators who survived the Government's mismanagement of the fisheries. Since the spokesman for the independents stated that the Government-created monster could destroy the life investment of private operators and thousands of jobs in Atlantic Canada, will the Minister take steps to see that the independents are involved in the Government-controlled company's negotiations on wage settlements, on fish prices, on quota arrangements, and on fishing zones?


Pierre De Bané: Madam Speaker, I am sure the Hon. Member remembers that the Premier of Nova Scotia, when he gave his joint press conference with me, took pains to emphasize that we were not talking about nationalization. We are talking of a company with several shareholders because that company is on the stock market, as you know. It will continue to be publicly traded. The creditors will sit on the board. No civil servant will be part of it, certainly not from my Department, precisely not to put the Department in a position of conflict of interest.
Second, I have the greatest sympathy for our dynamic private entrepreneurs in Atlantic Canada, particularly in Nova Scotia. I can give them the assurance that while that company will be run as a commercial business and will have to compete in the marketplace, it will be looked at by the Department in exactly the same way as others. 1 can give the firmest assurances on that to our dynamic private sector in Atlantic Canada.


REQUEST THAT AUDITOR GENERAL EXAMINE BOOKS OF RESTRUCTURED COMPANY
Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Madam Speaker, when the federal Government owns 60 per cent of the stock in this
Oral Questions
restructured company, the provincial Government owns 25 per cent, and the Bank of Nova Scotia owns 15 per cent, that, in my view, is nationalization. That is what we face.
The Minister's deputy has stated publicly that the restructured company has no set policy on profit margins. Will the Government permit the Auditor General of Canada to examine the books of this new Government-supported company annually? How will the Government of Canada inject its $75 million into the Province of Newfoundland and its $90 million into the Province of Nova Scotia? When will the Government release its secret agreement with the Bank of Nova Scotia?


Pierre De Bané: Madam Speaker, in response to the first part of the question, I am surprised that the Hon. Member puts the Bank of Nova Scotia in the public sector. This is quite a stretching of reality.
As for the other questions, I can say to the Hon. Member that I take notice of two or three specific inquiries that he made and I will answer him as quickly as possible. I want to assure the Hon. Member that that company will have to be run as a commercial business. If a Government ever wants to destroy a corporate decision of that company it will have to pay the full cost of it. That company will have to compete in the marketplace and not be permitted to count on unlimited funds. It should make its services available to the private sector which would like to use them for marketing or other purposes. I do not see that company as an unfair competitor. If that were so, then the remaining independent sector would have legitimate grounds for grievance.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Canadian Indians appearing before the United Nations working group on indigenous people protested child welfare practices that led to apprehension of their children, their placement in non-Indian homes, and their eventual assimilation. In response the Government indicated that it was now transferring responsibility to Indian communities for their own child welfare. In light of these facts why has the Minister disallowed recent band by-laws that would have recognized the bands' responsibility for child welfare in their own jurisdiction?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Madam Speaker, as the Hon. Member has quite accurately stated, we have moved very significantly in three or four Provinces toward entering into agreements with the Indian people and the Provinces for turning over welfare services to Indians so that there will not be Indian children put with non-Indian families any longer.
With reference to some by-laws that Indian bands may have passed, I have no choice. If independent legal advice indicates

October 26, 1983
Oral Questions
that a by-law is in contravention of the Indian Act, then 1 have to obey the law of Parliament as it stands, irrespective of what I may think of it. I think the Hon. Member knows that I think the Indian Act is very much outdated, as I am sure does he.


ROLE OF PROVINCES
James Douglas Manly: Madam Speaker, the Paul Band in Alberta objects to the Department's attempt to push it into a tri-partite agreement with the Province of Alberta regarding child welfare. Does the Minister not recognize that Indian people want to develop their own child welfare models rather than being forced into the assimilation-ist apprehension model followed by the different Provinces? Will he now extend to these Bands the right to control their own child welfare instead of trying to extend provincial jurisdiction to Indian reserves?


John Carr Munro: Madam Speaker, in all of the agreements signed so far it is not a question of extending provincial jurisdiction to Indian reserves which has been the motivation behind the federal Government and the Indian people signing agreements with the Province. The Provinces have indicated they are prepared to lend expertise to the Indian people at their request in order to run services, hire Indian personnel and, in many cases, be supportive financially. It is not a question of forcing the Province or the Indian people. It is a question of three parties entering into an agreement voluntarily.
As far as Alberta is concerned, it is not a question of forcing the Indian people to do anything. If they do not want to sign the agreement, they do not have to sign it. We then bilaterally have to endeavour to do the best we can to attain the same objective. In most cases it was the Indian leadership itself that wanted the Province involved for the reasons I have stated.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. Jacques Oliver (Longueuil):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour.
The Minister is aware that for more than ten months there has been a very serious labour dispute at Tele-Metropole, a major television station in Quebec. Could the Minister inform the House, first of all, whether following negotiations or meetings with the union or the Company, the Minister would be willing to appoint a special mediator, if both parties were agreeable to finding someone who could resolve this conflict?
Second, would the Minister also be willing to make a commitment to the effect that, as soon as he receives the
consent of both parties, he will appoint a special representative and settle a conflict that has gone on far too long?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Labour):: Madam Speaker, two of my departmental officials have already intervened in this conflict with a view to reaching agreement between the parties concerned. First Mr. Saint-Hilaire, as conciliator and then Mr. Drouin, as mediator. Obviously, if both parties feel that appointing a special mediator or a special investigator would be useful I would be glad to appoint such a person. However, I want to be sure that both parties agree that this is what they want and that the appointment will be useful in helping this matter progress towards a final settlement.


HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Bruce-Grey):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. The Government's program to assist people who have urea formaldehyde in their homes terminated as of September 30. Does the Minister feel that this program has fully met the needs of Canadians who have urea formaldehyde in their homes, and is she aware of any difficulties within the program?


Hon. Judy Erola (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Madam Speaker, there are always difficulties within a program but, by and large, we have dealt with most of these problems very fairly. We treat each case that comes to our attention on a case by case basis. The $5,000 grant has met the needs of most of those home owners who have been faced with the problem. The latest figure indicates that an average figure of $4,900-odd is the submission, it is very close to the $5,000 mark that we have offered to home owners.


REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF PROGRAM
Gary Michael Gurbin: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same Minister. The CHRP Program has been discontinued and can no longer assist home owners. In rural areas the contractors in many cases have not been able to make proper estimations and there have been some real difficulties in getting registered contractors. In view of this, is the Minister considering extending the Program beyond the September 30 date, or would she consider some special measures that would allow people to co-operate in some way in order to make the $5,000 grant more effective?


Judith A. Erola: Madam Speaker, no, we do not intend to open up the deadline, which was September 30, but we intend to honour all those submissions made in time for the September 30 deadline.
October 26, 1983

1 should like to bring to the attention of the Hon. Member that we have a urea formaldehyde advisory committee with which we are working very closely. A number of problems have been brought to its attention, which are then discussed and possible solutions investigated. The committee is open to discussion and advice. In those areas where there are problems we offer the services of this committee, which then works with us and the Urea Formaldehyde Centre.


PETITIONS
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions presented by Hon. Members on Tuesday, October 25, 1983, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Pinard:: Madam Speaker, I should like to designate tomorrow as an Opposition day, this being subject to change.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg-St. James):: Madam Speaker, I have a petition from about 1,000 residents in my constituency who state that on February 10, and April 21, 1983, the Canadian and U.S. Governments concluded weapons testing agreements that paved the way for testing the unarmed Cruise missile in Canada; that the technological capability of the Cruise missile clearly makes it a weapon for fighting a nuclear war and not for deterring such a war; that the Cruise missile is being tested for deployment in western Europe, which would further escalate the nuclear arms race, and that such escalation poses the most grave and immediate threat to world peace and the survival of humanity. Wherefore, the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to demonstrate its commitment to suffocation of the arms race by refusing to permit testing of the Cruise missile in Canada.
Madam Speaker, 1,000 members of my constituency have signed this petition of concern with regard to testing the Cruise missile but I must point out that there were 12 constituents who were in favour of the testing.
Motions


INTEREST ACT
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-693, an Act to amend the Interest Act.


Some Hon. Members:: Explain.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, the purpose of this important Bill is to permit the renegotiation of any residential mortgage of a term of one year or more, as opposed to the present five-year requirement. Thousands of Burnaby home owners are trapped in very high interest mortgages which banks and trust companies are refusing to renegotiate now that interest rates have dropped. This Bill would require that these financial institutions use some of their recent record profits to prevent home owners from being locked into these exorbitant interest rates.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Madam Speaker:: Motions.


An Hon. Member:: A point of order-


Mr. Mazankowski:: A point of order.


Madam Speaker:: The Minister of Transport.


Mr. Axworthy:: Madam Speaker, I move-


Donald Frank Mazankowski: A point of order.


Mr. Nielsen:: A point of order.


Mr. Epp:: A point of order.


Mr. McKnight:: A point of order.


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Vegreville.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I move:
That the Hon. Member for Yukon be now heard, Madam Speaker.


Yvon Pinard: A point of order.


An Hon. Member:: There is a motion on the floor.


Yvon Pinard: A point of order.

Madam Speaker, with due respect, you are aware that I may raise a point of order before the Chair puts the motion, which it has not yet done. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy) had already started to speak when the Member opposite was recognized on a point of order, and consequently, he is out of order and does not have the right to move his motion at this time.


Erik Nielsen: The motion must be put, Madam Speaker.

October 26, 1983
Motions
IVIadam Speaker: I am really consulting to find out whether the Hon. Minister had already said "Madam Speaker".


Some Hon. Members:: Yes.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Madam Speaker:: Obviously if he had already said Madam Speaker, he already had the floor legitimately.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, the record will show that regardless of what you may or may not have seen the President of the Privy Council do or not do, the Chair clearly recognized, and was heard by Members to have recognized, the Hon. Member for Vegreville.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: The Hon. Member for Vegreville then, at the invitation of the Speaker, rose and put his motion. I suggest-


An Hon. Member:: On a point of order.


Erik Nielsen: I suggest, Madam Speaker, that the Chair has no alternative now than to put that motion without further debate. To those who say that it cannot be done on a point of order, I say it can only be done on a point of order.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, what happened is that the Chair recognized the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy) under the item Motions. The Minister started to speak under this item. He said: Madam Speaker. Then someone on the other side, and this is the sequence of events, asked to be recognized on a point of order. The Chair had no choice but to recognize the Hon. Member to find out what he wanted, but you then realized that he was proposing a motion to give the floor to another Member, which is out of order, because the Minister of Transport had started to speak. It was therefore normal for the Chair to recognize the Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski), but the Chair was correct in not putting the motion, because the Minister of Transport had started to speak, and considering the nature of the motion, it was out of order.


Mr. Deans:: Madam Speaker, 1 have been watching the proceedings very carefully. 1 distinctly heard the Hon. Member for Vegreville shout, "Point of order" as the Minister was rising.


Madam Speaker:: I think Hon. Members will recognize that the important point is whether the Hon. Minister was in possession of the floor. The indication that he would be in possession of the floor, as I stated earlier, was whether he had uttered the words, Madam Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: In these particular circumstances it is obvious that when a Member is in possession of the floor he cannot at that time be interrupted on a point of order where a motion is-


An Hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: 1 certainly gave him the floor not knowing what the point of order was.
A point of order whereby a motion is offered that another Hon. Member be now heard, cannot be entertained once another Member legitimately is in possession of the floor.
I could entertain a point of order on something else, but in this particular case 1 cannot entertain the point of order.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Lloyd Axworthy: That in relation to Bill C-155, an Act to facilitate the transportation, shipping and handling of western grain, and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof, two sitting days shall be allotted to the consideration of the report stage and one day shall be allotted to the third reading of the Bill; and
That, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided by Government business on those days, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required, for the purpose of this order and, in turn, every question then necessary in order to dispose of the stage of the Bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.
He said: Madam Speaker-


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank Hon. Members for their gracious welcome to this motion.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


Lloyd Axworthy: The fact of the matter is that we have now been examining the matter of the Crow rate for over two and one half years.


Mr. Smith:: Right on.


Lloyd Axworthy: This Parliament has been seized of the matter since last spring. On second reading, over 97 speakers had the opportunity to express their point of view.


Gordon Edward Taylor: We do not want to hear the snake from Winnipeg.


Lloyd Axworthy: We then had three solid months of committee hearings at which time over 200 representations were heard. At that point in time, Madam Speaker, the Government allowed an additional two weeks beyond the allotted time in which that committee could go through every single amend-



October 26, 1983

ment proposed, give it full examination, and decide upon that amendment.


David P. Smith: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Axworthy: On report stage, Madam Speaker, there have been over 78 different speeches presented. We have consented to a wide number of amendments. The fact of the matter is that during all that time, at report stage, rather than dealing with the matter according to the proper etiquette-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: -and proper orders of debate, Hon. Members of the Opposition proceeded simply to filibuster that Bill.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: Instead of acting in the spirit of positive, constructive proposals to make the position of the western farmer better and more effective-


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Lloyd Axworthy: -all we got is the kind of howling and yowling-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: May we have order in the House, please.


An Hon. Member:: That's disorder over there.


Lloyd Axworthy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


An Hon. Member:: Let's go to the people.


Lloyd Axworthy: 1 feel it is important for all Hon. Members who are seriously engaged in this debate to recognize that there should be a degree of order prevailing so that this House can proceed with the business of dealing with the important amendments, of dealing with the necessary and essential legislation which we provided.
The one thing that Hon. Members of the Opposition do not want to recognize is that this is the single most important economic initiative which has taken place in this decade.


David P. Smith: Right on!


Lloyd Axworthy: This Government is building a second railway across western Canada


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: -to move our grain, to move our potash, to move our coal.
I hear the Hon. Member from British Columbia yelping and I see him jumping in his seat. I want him to go back and tell his constituents that he opposed the Crow. We want them to hear that he opposed the Crow.
Time Allocation


Mr. Huntington:: I am in much better shape than you are. You will not come back here.


Lloyd Axworthy: Because, Mr. Speaker, in that Province alone over $5 billion of benefits will accrue to that Province.


Mr. Fennell:: That is absolute nonsense!


Lloyd Axworthy: There is a Member of Parliament standing in his-


Gordon Edward Taylor: Communist, that is all you are, Communist.


An Hon. Member:: Sit down!


An Hon. Member:: Wait until the voters get hold of you, Lloyd.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, they just want to talk about the-


Some Hon. Members:: Sit down!


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


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


Gordon Edward Taylor: Turn the microphones off. We do not want to hear you.


Lloyd Axworthy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The other reason why it is very important that this Bill pass is that it is quite clear that the number of major construction projects which are standing in the wings waiting to occur in Alberta, British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Manitoba-


An Hon. Member:: Order!


Gordon Edward Taylor: That is nonsense.


Lloyd Axworthy: -which will provide for the proper capacity to move to export those major goods of western Canada, will stand in abeyance unless this Bill is passed, Mr. Speaker. The future of economic growth and over 300,000 jobs which Canadians are waiting for will be standing in abeyance. How long have we heard from Members of the Opposition, since we have been back in session, that the issue is jobs, jobs jobs? I would like to know why they are howling in their seats today against a measure which will bring forward-


Gordon Edward Taylor: We do not like your sneaky, dirty tricks, that is why.


Lloyd Axworthy: -over 300,000 of those jobs.


David P. Smith: That is right.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: That is nonsense. We are not standing in the way.


Lloyd Axworthy: I would like them to stand up in the House and explain to Canadians why they are trying to frustrate the will of the House, to frustrate the proper Parliamentary proce-

October 26, 1983
Time Allocation
dures, to frustrate the proper courtesies of introducing a Bill, and why they are standing in the way of over 300,000 jobs being created in this country.


An Hon. Member:: We are not standing in the way.


Lloyd Axworthy: That is important, Mr. Speaker. They will have to answer for that some day. They are going to answer for their hypocrisy, their contradictions, their flip-flopping and their jumping around.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: That Party will have to answer for the fact that it does do not believe-


Gordon Edward Taylor: You are a snake.


Lloyd Axworthy: It does not believe in creating jobs in this country. Otherwise those Hon. Members would be standing in their places and saying to the Minister of Transport of the Government, "Get on with the job and get the Bill passed."


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Axworthy: Let me also point out, Mr. Speaker, that during the course of this debate, this Government has at all times responded with the utmost flexibility, responsiveness and willingness-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh!


Gordon Edward Taylor: Snake!


Lloyd Axworthy: -to accept amendments and changes to alter proposals. Some 20 amendments were accepted from the opposition during committee stage alone. We accepted amendments during report stage. We did that on the grounds that we want to put in place-


Gordon Edward Taylor: Tell it to Moscow. Canadians do not want to hear your communistic talk.


Lloyd Axworthy: -a statute which will provide a good and effective transportation system for western Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I believe that we demonstrated our good faith and our willingness to act in a spirit of co-operation. 1 believe we have shown that we came to this House willing to construct in a positive way the kind of legislation which will allow the western rail to begin to grow and expand. All we ask for, Mr. Speaker, is one small iota of willingness from the other side to at least allow the proper parliamentary procedures to continue. But all we have faced from the time we brought that report in the House was various acts of filibuster, frustration and obstruction to the parliamentary procedure. We were faced with a form of parliamentary guerrilla warfare, of parliamentary blackmail. That is the
reason, Mr. Speaker, we had to bring in time allocation. We cannot allow a Bill which is so important to the economy of this country-


Gordon Edward Taylor: You cannot allow it? That is more
Communism.


Lloyd Axworthy: -which is so important to the farmers of western Canada to move their grain and products to market, and which is so important to the men and women across this country who want to go to work-


Gordon Edward Taylor: More Communism.


Lloyd Axworthy: -which is important to the steel industry in Trenton, Nova Scotia, and to the steel industry in Hamilton and to the people who make locomotives in London, and which, above all, is most important to the farmers, suppliers and producers in western Canada who know full well that within a year or two, unless that capacity is in place, their grain cannot move to market and we will not be able to sell our produce to a world which is willing to pay the price. That is the point of the motion we have brought forward today, Mr. Speaker. We must get on with the proper business of the House and allow Parliament to decide on an issue which carries with it much of the future growth of western Canada, and with it the future economic growth of the entire country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, this is indeed a very sad day for Parliament.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The actions of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy) today only prove that there is no room for reasonableness, constructive criticism and the offering of positive alternatives. This House has been treated to the most extreme exercise in trickery. What is in essence happening here is that the elected representatives of western Canada are being ignored, they are being denied the opportunity to have their views debated and put forward on a very major issue. What this amounts to is an exercise in taxation without representation.
I really regret what the Minister has done today. The position of this Party has been one of constructive criticism. We have offered alternatives, tried to improve the Bill and seek out reasonable solutions. But the Minister is so skittish about his own Bill that he has to move closure. He will not allow the alternatives to be debated. The interpretation in western Canada can only be that this Government is engaging in another attack upon the West. First of all, this Government does not have a mandate to dismantle the Crow take system. It was not an election issue. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said time and time again that the Government would not proceed on any measure to dismantle the Crow unless there was a consensus in western Canada. I humbly submit to you,
October 26, 1983

Mr. Speaker, that there is not a consensus in western Canada, certainly not for the proposals outlined in this Bill. There is no support from any corner of the agricultural community or any agricultural organization. The grain producers do not support it. The livestock producers do not support it. The commodity producers do not support it. Every farm organization has found fault with this Bill.
Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, the livestock and commodity groups have really been sucked in by this Government. They too were betrayed. They worked toward developing a realistic and comprehensive approach which would serve the broader interests of agriculture in western Canada, and the Government pulled the rug out from under them. So the Government really has no friends and no support out there whatsoever. 1 repeat, there is no consensus that this Bill should be proceeded with, yet the Government is hell-bent on forging ahead.
Let us look at the history. After two days' debate on second reading, the Government moved time allocation. In the committee stage it put on an artificial time limit. We worked day and night-it was the most rigorous exercise committee Members have ever gone through. Here we have an opportunity to debate some of the positive alternatives advanced by our Party, and that is being denied. What is so sad is that we are dealing here with a western issue, one which affects the lives of every person who lives in western Canada. It is more than simply a freight rate issue. It goes to the very economic and social fabric of western Canada. And here we have a Government with no membership in the House from rural western Canada. This issue is really being resolved by a centrally dominated Government. I say to you, Sir, that it is only going to cause further alienation, division and disharmony, and it will increase the strains on Confederation.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, how much more can this country stand? We have gone through a number of very, very contentious and controversial issues. But nothing has been handled with the callous contempt with which the Government has handled this issue. It surely has a blatant disregard for western Canada. Rather than working toward a solution, the Government decided to use force. We have offered a proposal which would ensure the retention of the existing statutory rate until the review process is completed. The Government obviously has some misgivings about this legislation, but it insists on forging ahead. We said, "Back off, wait a little while, do your analysis before you strangle the producers of western Canada with these enormous increases in freight rates". But no, it decided to move.
Members opposite suggest they are acting in the best interests of the country because they are being stubborn. If this Government believes that through stubbornness it is demonstrating strength, 1 can tell you that we view it somewhat differently in western Canada. If the Government believes it is demonstrating leadership through confrontation, I can tell you as well that we view that in another context. It is that kind of stubbornness and confrontation which has divided our country and destroyed our economy. We have seen it in the Constitution, in the National Energy Program and now we see it in the
Time Allocation
Crow. Those are three areas in which the Government has engaged singularly in an all-out attack on western Canada.
I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that we in our Party have tried to work toward a positive and satisfactory solution. We have opposed and we have proposed. We have offered alternatives. We have listened to the evidence before the committee, listened to farm groups and we have offered alternative proposals. We did it in committee and again in the House. But we are very saddened by the fact that we have not been able to debate the alternative proposals we believe would go a long way toward improving this Bill. We have not even had a chance to debate the Government's own amendments in committee or in the House. Moving closure before the Government has a chance to debate its own amendments is to me, totally ridiculous and incomprehensible. We can only conclude, Sir, that it does not have the necessary confidence to defend its own proposals. Members opposite do not have any confidence in this Bill because they know it cannot withstand the critical test of debate. If the Government is so skittish and paranoid about this issue, why does it not go to the people and call an election?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, my suggestion is that rather than this Government's moving closure it should dissolve the House and call an election and let the people decide. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen):
That the Orders of the Day be now read.


Mr. Evans:: That is out of order.


Erik Nielsen: It is not. Mr. Speaker, if there is any-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Is the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) rising on a point of order?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker if there is any doubt in the mind of the Chair as to the acceptability and regularity of that motion, I would like to speak to it before any ruling is made.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.

October 26, 1983
Time Allocation


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Call in the Members.
[DOT]	0710)
And the division bells having been rung:


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. It now being 5.12 p.m., under the provision of Standing Order 82, the two hours since the commencement of the proceedings on the motion now before the House have expired. Accordingly, under the terms of the Standing Order, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put every question necessary to dispose of the motion. The Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen).


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I thought you would be seeking advice from Members prior to putting the question.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: I am still prepared to listen to advice. That is why I recognized the Hon. Member; I thought he had some advice to give me.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, the Chair was faced, of course, with a problem in the interpretation of Standing Order 82. Since that Standing Order found its way into our rule book, this is the first time upon which an occasion has arisen where we are confronted with a situation of voting on a procedure established under Standing Order 82 with a dilatory motion, which the Chair has described so often, in front of it, namely the motion put by the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski).
That was brought about, with no intention whatsoever of reflecting on the actions of the Chair, by the process of this afternoon when at the same time the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy) rose, the Hon. Member for Vegreville rose, and I rose. It came to the application of Standing Order 33 which sets forth:
When two or more Members rise to speak, the Speaker calls upon the Member who first rose in his or her place; but a motion may be made that any Member who has risen "be now heard", or "do now speak", which motion shall be forthwith put without debate.
I have had the opportunity during the interval prior to 5.12 p.m. to examine the "blues". What transpired was that the Minister of Transport had risen in his place and the Chair recognized the Minister of Transport. The Minister of Transport got so far as to say "I move". That is where it stopped. Then the Hon. Member for Vegreville, who was on his feet at the time-
[DOT]	(1720)


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Before.


Erik Nielsen: Let us be fair and say that we were all on our feet at the same time. He then sought recognition and he was recognized by the Chair. He had the opportunity of putting the full text of his motion. That appears clearly on the tapes and on the "blues". We, of course, believe that at that point the Chair was boxed in, as I submitted before, but the Chair has made a contrary ruling. That has brought on this dilemma with which the Chair is now confronted.
This all stems from the application of Standing Order 82. Without reading the entire Standing Order, the last sentence-and this deals of course with the motion made by the Minister of Transport for the allocation of time-on page 87 reads;
Not more than two hours after the commencement of proceedings thereon-
That is on the motion of the Minister of Transport.
-the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of the said motion.
Two matters arise here that should be taken into consideration in deciding whether we are in the right time frame in taking this vote. I intend to support my submission that the vote should be taken at six o'clock rather than at 5.12 with my submissions to the Chair.
If we were only confronted with the motion of the Minister there would be no problem, because there can be no question that during the time the bells were ringing the clock was running and the debate would have terminated at 5.12, two hours after the proceedings had commenced. Normally, had debate continued, at the end of that two hours there would have been a 15-minute bell and the vote would have been taken. But here we had, in front of the motion for time allocation made by the Minister, a dilatory motion.
The two points I have to make with respect to Standing Order 82 have to do with the interpretation of the word "motion" where it is referred to in the final sentence of Standing Order 82-"to dispose of the said motion", namely the motion made by the Minister of Transport. The other point I have to make has to do with the interpretation of the word "proceedings". I will be contending and supporting it by authorities that the word "proceedings" in effect means debate.
To deal with the first question with respect to the interpretation of the words "to dispose of the said motion", I submit that the obligation of the Chair under Standing Order 82 is to put every question necessary to dispose of the motion of the Minister of Transport, and I contend that in the ordinary case that would be done two hours after the debate had commenced by the initiative of the Minister of Transport. However, in this case we had an intervening proceeding, namely a dilatory motion, a motion which the Chair has so often ruled is a dilatory motion, in front of the motion of the Minister of Transport. That led me to the interpretation of this Standing Order and, in the absence of any precedent whatsoever with respect to the interpretation of these particular circumstances, to the conclusion that the dilatory motion could only be disposed of regularly by waiting until six o'clock. Then, based on the precedents the Chair has repeatedly set in defining
October 26, 1983

dilatory motions and their effect, that would have called the motion of the Hon. Member for Vegreville up at six o'clock, at which time that motion would have been disposed of, and the debate having been deemed to have been over at 5.12 on the motion of the Minister of Transport, the vote on the motion of the Hon. Member for Vegreville would be immediately followed by a vote on the motion of the Minister of Transport. That all hinges on what interpretation the Chair chooses to place on the word "proceedings".
1 contend, in the context in which that word is used in Standing Order 82, that the word "proceedings" can only mean one thing, and that is debate; and that debate can only mean one thing, and that is debate on the motion put by the Minister of Transport.
The other interpretation, of course, which can be placed on it is that included in the interpretation of the word "proceedings" is the motion of the Hon. Member for Vegreville. Because Standing Order 82 never contemplated a situation such as this, it is my respectful submission that that would be a distortion not only of the literal wording of Standing Order 82 but also the intent of Standing Order 82.
In Bourinot's Parliamentary Procedure, we find no specific reference to "proceedings" and its definition, but we find a reference to "Incidental Interruption to Proceedings" at page 228, which sets forth the following under paragraph XIV:
Incidental Interruption to Proceedings.
Besides such interruptions of business as are prescribed by the rules of the house, such as private bills at 8 o'clock on Tuesdays and Fridays, or by a member, after due notice, rising to move a closure of debate, or by some special order, the time for a consideration of which has been reached, the proceedings of the house may be interrupted by a question of privilege or of order which calls for the immediate interposition of the house, by occasions of sudden disorder in the house and proceedings occasioned thereby, or by a message from the governor-general requiring the attendance of the house in the Senate. When the cause of the interruption has ceased or the proceedings thereon have been disposed of, the debate or business in hand is resumed at the point where the interruption had occurred.
My submission is that such an interruption occurred in the proceedings triggered by the Minister of Transport in the form of the motion made by the Hon. Member for Vegreville. Therefore, I cite that paragraph in support of my contention that his motion should have been disposed of at six o'clock rather than now, and then we would have proceeded with the motion made by the Minister of Transport.
One further submission I wish to cite in order to support these submissions to the Chair-regardless of what happens here tonight vis-a-vis the vote, it is going to happen; but I hate to see a bad precedent sitting on the books with respect to the timing-from the Eighteenth Edition of Erskine May. I do not believe the wording has been altered in the more recent Nineteenth Edition. At page 84 of the Eighteenth Edition, the meaning of the term "proceedings in Parliament" is set forth. Allow me, Madam Speaker, to cite at some length from that
Time Allocation
precedent:
The meaning of the term "proceedings in Parliament."-
The primary meaning, as a technical parliamentary term, of "proceedings" (which it had at least as early as the seventeenth century) is some formal action, usually a decision, taken by the House in its collective capacity. This is naturally extended to the forms of business in which the House takes action, and the whole process, the principal part of which is debate, by which it reaches a decision.
I cite that particular passage from that precedent, Madam Speaker, to support my submission that "proceedings" as used in Standing Order 82 means debate and that the two terms are interchangeable and exclusively so. The citation goes on:
An individual Member takes part in a proceeding usually by speech, but also by various recognized kinds of formal action, such as voting, giving notice of a motion, etc.-
1 could write the words in there "a motion to proceed to Orders of the Day", such as that made by the Hon. Member for Vegreville. I again quote:
-or presenting a petition or a report from a Committee, most of such actions being time-saving substitutes for speaking.
One might question the veracity of that observation, Madam Speaker. I quote:
Officers of the House take part in its proceedings principally by carrying out its orders, general or particular.
And so the precedent goes. My submission is-I am having difficulty, even with the assistance of the public address system, overcoming the murmurs opposite. I am sure they would not want to see a bad precedent put on the books any more than we would. The time is being-


Madam Speaker:: Order.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, the time is being very usefully spent and I am very happy that the Chair and its officers want to hear these submissions for the purpose of coming to decisions in the future with respect to this kind of situation.
The submission that I am making is that the term "proceedings" used in Standing Order 82 is limited to debate and that the question on the motion put by the Minister of Transport should have been put after the time for the lapsing, according to the Chair's own numerous rulings, on the motion of the Hon. Member for Vegreville.
It is, in my submission, more logical to interpret Standing Order 82 to have meant that we should have returned here at six o'clock, had the bells rung that long, for the purpose of voting on the motion put by the Hon. Member for Vegreville, and then immediately thereafter have proceeded with the motion of the Minister of Transport. However, it may not be necessary for the Chair to come to a conclusion which might- 1 do not suggest it will, but if my submission are accepted I could use that term-set an improper precedent.
If the question were now to be called on the motion of the Hon. Member for Vegreville, it is going to take us 10 to 15 minutes to record the division. The Chair will then be obliged to call the motion of the Minister of Transport. The yeas and

October 26, 1983
Time Allocation
nays having been heard, the bells are then limited to 15 minutes and that will take us to six o'clock.
May I suggest to the Chair that, this argument having been made, it is not necessary to make any firm decision at this point as to the regularity or propriety of having come back here at 5.12. 1 know that the Chair has been advised and is convinced that it is right in having done so, but the Chair does not have to adopt that position in view of the time and may leave this question open for a later decision rather than having a questionable precedent on our books.
I make that submission sincerely since it is not necessary to come to the kind of conclusion which 1 anticipate the Chair might do if we still had two hours or more to go.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I should like to disprove some of the allegations the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) has just made. After I have completed my remarks, he may not have to rely on the bell ringing for an additional 15 minutes and calling Hon. Members for a vote to reach 6 p.m., the time for the adjournment of the House. I wish to indicate to the House that there is in Beauchesne's 5th Edition a single citation which disproves the point the Hon. Member for Yukon has been trying to make concerning the definition of proceedings or deliberations.
Before coming to that particular citation in Beauchesne's which clearly states that proceedings include the holding of a vote and the voting procedure, I should like to return, for the information of the Hon. Member, to the previous course of events. About 3.12 p.m., you recognized the Hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy) under the item Motions and not on a point of order. He rose under the item Motions and was about to start his remarks, and as was indicated by the Hon. Member for Yukon himself, the Minister of Transport had had time to say "I move-" I submit that was enough to stop any Hon. Member of the House from moving a motion under Standing Order 33 which provides that when several Hon. Members rise at the same time, one of them may rise and suggest that some other Hon. Member be heard.
You were perfectly aware of Citation 302, which appears at page 99 of Beauchesne's 5th Edition and which reads:
(2) A motion that a Member "be now heard" must be moved before the Member recognized has begun speaking.
That is clear, Madam Speaker, and justification enough for you to say after a while to the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) that his point of order was unacceptable. Still, since he had called your attention to raise a point of order, it was only logical that you listen to his point of order. That is why you had to interrupt the Minister of Transport who had begun speaking, even though he had not gone very far, he had said at least two or three words, but indeed you had to know the nature of the point of order which the Hon. Member was trying to raise. When he moved his motion, you
were then in a position to realize that he was moving a motion pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 33. I raised my objection and drew your attention to the fact that the Minister of Transport had begun speaking. You remembered Beauchesne's Citation 302 and said to the Hon. Member for Vegreville: "I cannot entertain your motion because, according to parliamentary procedure experts and past practices, it is out of order". You made your ruling on that, and I do not think that the Hon. Member for Yukon wanted to challenge or question your ruling when he referred to those facts. However, we have to go back to those facts to understand where we stand now.
Therefore the debate on the motion under Standing Order 82 began at 2.12 p.m. Standing Order 82 concludes as follows:
-two hours after the commencement of proceedings thereon, the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of the said motion.
The word "proceedings" is used.
It seems quite clear to me that you have made the proper decision. The Standing Orders are quite specific and bind the Speaker who "shall" put an end to the proceedings. We have to ask ourselves, since the Hon. Member for Vegreville had subsequently moved that the House proceed to the orders of the day, if calling in the members must be considered part of the proceedings. The answer to that question, Madam Speaker, is found in the fifth edition of Beauchesne. First, citation 251, at page 85, I quote:
Motions, amendments, references to committees, and the three readings of bills come under the term of "proceedings in Parliament". They are the means used to the end that a matter may be considered and disposed of by the House. The word "proceeding" is derived from the verb "to proceed" which means "to advance" or "to carry on a series of actions". Members take part in the proceedings usually by making speeches; however, many proceedings take place without any debate.
In view of the late hour, I spare you the rest of the quote. But there is another quote in Beauchesne that is still more specific it supports and confirms my point, and it refutes that made by my learned colleague from Yukon. It is found at page 91, citation 284, paragraph (2), bottom half of the page. It is short but precise. I quote:
It has never been understood in the House of Commons that the word "proceedings" covered speeches; it is not applied to arguments but it covers such things as utterances bearing directly on making motions, moving amendments, presenting reports, putting the questions, answering questions placed on the Order Paper, voting, naming a Member; it is construed as relating to procedure and not to debates.
Therefore, Madam Speaker, it is clear that you had to stop the ringing of the bells, you had to stop the voting procedure on the motion presented by the Hon. Member for Vegreville, because Standing Order 82 provides that two hours after the commencement of proceedings on a motion to limit the debate, you shall interrupt the proceedings. Proceedings are involved when the bells ring! . . . they are proceedings because a voting procedure is involved, and this is established by the quotes I
October 26, 1983

just referred to. Finally, when my hon. colleague says that the Chair must put the motion of the Minister of Transport before the motion of the Member for Vegreville, i must insist that this indicates a poor comprehension of Standing Order 82. The Standing Order provides, and 1 quote:
Not more than two hours after the commencement of proceedings thereon, the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of the said motion.
The motion of the Minister of Transport.
Therefore, the matter of calling a vote on the motion of the Member for Vegreville must be disposed of before putting the motion of the Minister of Transport. I think that is clear, and 1 feel we must not lose sight of what is involved here, unless we want to create a precedent that may prove troublesome for the Official Opposition in the future. It seems to me the Standing Orders are sufficiently clear. If the Chair says the Member for Yukon is right or if it refrains from interpreting Standing Order 82 as we just did, it will subsequently be impossible for the House to vote on a matter in the case of time allocation, because an Opposition Member would be able to move, not only a dilatory motion but another motion that is not dilatory, and the Chair would have no justification for terminating the proceedings at 6:00 p.m. on the grounds that the motion in question was dilatory.
Consequently, we might well find ourselves with limited debates that would be limitless. Thus, the Chair made the right decision, and we support it. The Standing Orders are clear and Beauchesne is clear. I think my hon. colleague from Yukon is satisfied. In any case, the House will adjourn at six o'clock before disposing of the items scheduled before getting to the Order of the Day, and I think the ruling made by the Chair will prove very useful in future as a contribution towards more orderly proceedings in this House, so that when we limit debate, it will in fact be limited and Members will not be able to make undue and abusive use of dilatory measures.
I English]


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, since the Government House Leader is interested in the facts, I would suspect that he might be interested in what actually transpired in the House during the course of the exchange, according to the "blues". If he will check he will note, according to the "blues", that you, Madam Speaker, called for motions. At that time an Hon. Member raised a point of order and it was followed by:


Donald Frank Mazankowski: A point of order.
Then Madam Speaker said:
The minister of Transport.
The Minister then said:
Madam Speaker, 1 move-
And then the following appears:


Donald Frank Mazankowski: A point of order.


Erik Nielsen: A point of order.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: A point of order.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: A point of order.
Time Allocation
Then Madam Speaker said:
The Hon. Member for Vegreville.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: 1 move that the Hon. Member for Yukon be now heard. Madam Speaker.
The exchange went on from there. If the Hon. Government House Leader is interested in the facts, it should be clearly noted that, according to the exchange that took place in the official record of Hansard, it was very clear that I was on my feet before the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy) and that it should be so recognized.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I think my hon. colleague from Vegreville should make the distinction: I said that the Member had not been recognized before the Minister had started his speech, and that is the Standing Orders.


Madam Speaker:: May I start by answering the point made by the Hon. Member for Vegreville. It is quite possible that Hansard has recorded in a certain order what has been heard on the floor of the House. If someone is in a room and several people are speaking at the same time and there is some secretary who is taking a verbatim report, that person will certainly organize it in a certain order.
What has to be clear and what I reaffirmed before the House is that several Members rose at the same time, and at any rate the Minister of Transport did catch the eye of the Speaker, in my view first. Then I heard points of order and I recognized the Hon. Member for Vegreville. I think the House has to allow that the Speaker, standing or where she is sitting, is supposed to be well placed to determine inasmuch as it is humanly possible who has risen first and who has risen second and third. However, that being said, we have entered into a proceeding and at this point we are deciding on something else.
I listened very carefully to the presentation made by the Hon. Member for Yukon and the only thing I did not really like about it was that he was inviting me to shirk my responsibility, not make a decision, pretend that the clock was just ticking by and that I need not make a decision now. That is not the kind of Speaker you have.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: I will live or die on the decision but I feel impelled to make it because I did decide to come into the House at 5.12 p.m., indicating then that that was my interpretation of the Standing Orders.
The rest of the Hon. Member's remarks I enjoyed very much because he is always very careful to bring forward arguments which help the Chair to take its decisions. It seems to me that the Hon. Member was inviting me to let the bells ring until six o'clock so that I could lapse the motion that an Hon. Member be now heard, as I have lapsed other motions at six o'clock. Indeed, that motion probably would have lapsed at six o'clock. I could have lapsed it but the situation is quite different in that we were in the midst of a proceeding whereby a motion had been presented by the Hon. Minister of Trans-

October 26, 1983
Time Allocation
port under Standing Order 82 where a two-hour debate is to take place after which-and the Standing Order is quite clear in this when it says:
Not more than two hours after the commencement of proceedings thereon, the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of the said motion.
It seems that the two-hour limit hangs on the interpretation that is given to "proceedings". I am very fortunate in that 1 do not have to interpret it myself. It has been interpreted by other greater authorities than I and interpreted based on the experience of several Parliaments, including our own. I will read back to the Hon. Member from Erskine May's Nineteenth Edition, which is the one I have, but I think the wording has not changed very much as he says. It reads as follows:
The primary meaning, as a technical parliamentary term, of "proceedings" .. . is some formal action, usually a decision, taken by the House in its collective capacity. This is naturally extended to the forms of business in which the House takes action, and the whole process, the principal part of which is debate-
As debate is the principal part of it, it does mean that "proceeding" may have other parts to it, namely all other actions which may be taken by Members, such as voting, presenting amendments, presenting motions, etc.
An individual Member takes part in a proceeding usually by his speech but also by various kinds of formal action, such as voting, giving notice of a motion, etc., or presenting a petition or a report of a committee, most of such actions being timesaving substitutes for speaking.
I will read from Beauchesne's "Interpretation of Proceedings":
Motions, amendments, references to committees, and the three readings of bills come under the term of "proceedings in Parliament" ... The word "proceeding" is derived from the verb "to proceed" which means "to advance" or "to carry on a series of actions". Members take part in the proceedings usually by making speeches; however, many proceedings take place without any debate. Speeches arc not essential; they either help or hinder a proceeding-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: It is nice to see that Beauchesne had a fabulous sense of humour!
-but they are not a proceeding.
It seems clear to me that I am obliged by Standing Order 82, as it states very clearly "two hours after the commencement of the proceedings", to take all votes necessary to dispose of the question.
The Hon. Member argued that it is all votes necessary to the "said motion", as the Standing Order said. I agree with the Hon. Member that "said motion" means the motion presented by the Minister of Transport. However, in the way of "said motion" I have another motion, and the House must dispose of that motion, which is the motion presented by the Hon. Member for Vegreville.
If I were to deal with that motion afterward, that motion simply would not make sense. Therefore, the motion presented by the Hon. Member for Vegreville is in the way of the motion with which I must now deal, according to Standing Orders,
two hours and some after the commencement of the proceedings. Therefore I am obliged to put the question to the House.


Madam Speaker:: 1 declare the motion lost.
Motion negatived.


POINT OF ORDER
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. As Your Honour knows, I gave notice earlier today of my intention to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 30, concerning a subject of great importance which is recognized by all the Parties in the House, namely, the invasion of Grenada. I know that by the time we finish the second vote it will be past six o'clock so I am asking if we can obtain the unanimous consent of the House to have the Chair make its ruling on that motion after we take the next vote.


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member is asking in fact that we go through all of Routine Proceedings before adjourning?


John Edward Broadbent: Yes.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to allow the Chair to go through Routine Proceedings past six o'clock?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Madam Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.
Pursuant to Standing Order 82, it is my duty to put the next question which is as follows: Mr. Axworthy, seconded by Mr. Pinard, moved that in relation to Bill C-155-
Shall I dispense?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Madam Speaker:: No-an Act to facilitate the transportation, shipping and handling of western grain, and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof, two sitting days shall be
Time Allocation
allotted to the consideration of the report stage and one day shall be allotted to the third reading of the Bill-
[ Translation]
-and-
-that, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided by Government business on those days, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required, for the purpose of this order and, in turn, every question then necessary in order to dispose of the stage of the Bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Madam Speaker:: All those in favour please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Madam Speaker:: All those opposed please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Madam Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Madam Speaker:: Call in the Members. Shall we dispense with the bells?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Erik Nielsen: Ring the bells.


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen).


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, this is a closure motion: the bells will be rung.


Mr. McDermid:: They have to be!


Madam Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.



[Stage Direction]
Munro
(Hamilton East) Nicholson (Miss) Olivier Ostiguy
Turner Watson Whelan Yanakis-122.
++NAYS
Messrs.
Frctz
Fulton
Gamble
Gass
Gilchrist
Gurbin
Gustafson
Halliday
Hamilton
(Swift Current-Maple Creek)
Hargrave
Hawkes
Heap
Hovdebo
Howie
Huntington
Jarvis
Jewett (Miss)
Keeper
Kempling
Kilgour
Knowles
Kristiansen
Kushner
Lambert
La Salle
Lawrence
Lewis
MacDougall
Malone
Manly
Mayer
Mazankowski
McCain
McDermid
McGrath
McKenzie
McKinnon
McKnight
McLean
McMillan
Mitchell (Mrs.)
Mulroney
Munro
(Esquimalt-Saanich)
Murphy
Neil
Nickerson
Nielsen
Nystrom
Ogle
Orlikow
Parker
Patterson
Riis
Robinson
(Burnaby)
Roche
St. Germain
Sargeant
Schellenberger
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There seems to be some doubt with respect to whether or not we in the Opposition, as of right, have the privilege of filing notice of an allotted day subject after six o'clock. It is clearly after six o'clock now and if the House would feel so disposed to grant its consent to extend time for filing under Standing Order 47, we would want to move the following motion for tomorrow's allotted day which has been designated by the Government House Leader:
That this House condemns the Government for its contempt for the taxpayers of Canada, which it demonstrates by the creation of a taxation system in the form of the Income Tax Act that is increasingly incomprehensible for individual taxpayers and by its failure to end capricious and unfair practices of the Department of National Revenue.


Madam Speaker:: I do not think I will hear much argument. I will ask whether there is unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Madam Speaker:: No, I am sorry. It being past six o'clock, I must adjourn the House until eleven o'clock tomorrow morning, pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 6.34 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.



Thursday, October 27, 1983