1984-11-22

POINT OF ORDER


Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do so somewhat reluctantly. I feel it is important to raise in the House at the earliest possible moment a matter that I believe is of considerable importance. It may in fact constitute a grievance. It may even be a question of privilege at some future date.
As you know, Sir, it has been the practice in the House of Commons to establish the need for the presence of both government and opposition in order to conduct business. I recognize that it may not be absolutely necessary under certain circumstances, but the practice has always been that, for the business of the House to be conducted properly and adequately, there would be representation both from the government and from the opposition at the start of the business of the day. I suggest this practice has been a good practice, one that has resulted in a harmonious relationship in the House of Commons which in turn has resulted in the House being able to deal with questions in a way which brings about their resolution.
At the moment, there appears to be a deviation from that practice, if not in the House itself, in the committees of the House. I would ask Mr. Speaker if he would consider motions that were put in committee-given that the committees have the right to establish their own rules of procedure, they must do so within the generally accepted framework of the rules of procedure of the House of Commons-that have resulted in the establishment of a practice which could disrupt the orderly procedures both in the House and in the committee. In a number of committees, decisions have been made by the Government members that a quorum shall be established based not on the normal practice of representation from both sides, but-


Mr. Speaker:: May I be clear that the Hon. Member is in fact raising a question relating to practices in committees? Does the point of order relate to that issue?


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I am raising the practices that have been pursued in the past.


Mr. Speaker:: In committee?


Ian Deans: The committees are an emanation of the House. The committees operate by the same rules as the House of
Commons. They do not set separate rules. They may set with unanimous consent, as can the House, different rules, practices and procedures, but only with unanimous consent.
I suggest that what is happening is going to cause grievous difficulty not only in the committee but in the House. All I am asking is that there be some attempt made to ensure that the practices that have been followed, both in the House of Commons with regard to quorum and in the past in committee with regard to quorum, be followed during this Parliament. At the moment I have reason to believe that is not the case.


Mr. Speaker:: The Member may have reason to believe that is not the case. The Member is an experienced parliamentarian. He knows the traditions of the House are that the Speaker has no right to intervene in procedures or decisions taken in committee. The committees are masters of their own affairs. The Hon. Member knows well enough that the issue that he is raising may at first blush be an issue that the procedural committee or a committee on reform of the House may want to consider.
The rulings in the past with regard to these questions have been very clear. The committees are master of their own destiny. An appeal from a decision taken in a committee shall be made in the committee to the chair of the committee and, if necessary, resolved in the committee, but cannot be brought before the House. The Speaker has no authority to decide on something that has happened in a committee unless it is reported by the committee in its report to the House. Only in that circumstance does the Speaker have any capacity to deal with a question or a grievance or a point of order that the committee has dealt with. I think the Hon. Member knows that.
I regret to find that, while he may have a point of serious concern, and I appreciate the point he is making, I cannot at the moment find that it is a point within the grounds of a point of order in the House. I therefore think that the matter should end at this point. However, the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain may have a supplementary comment. That is certainly my current view and I am prepared to rule in that manner unless the Hon. Member has something else to say.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I do not deny for a moment the validity of the comments you have made; neither do I question them. My concern is that I may well find it necessary to attempt to raise a question of privilege.
My problem is that the practice that is being followed will cause disruption in the House of Commons as it will cause disruption in committees. That worries me. I raise the matter

November 22, 1984
Ways and Means
since it is of worry to me and I alert the House to the fact that there are problems in committees.


Mr. Speaker:: I think I should leave the matter as I indicated earlier. I feel that a point of order for the purposes of the House has not been established.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of State (Finance)) moved: that a Ways and Means motion to amend the Income Tax Act and Related Statutes, laid upon the Table on Thursday, November 8, 1984, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Barbara Jean McDougall: that Bill C-7, an Act to amend the Income Tax Act and related statutes, be read the first time and printed.


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

Barbara Jean McDougall: that a Ways and Means motion to amend the Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax Act, laid upon the Table on Thursday, November 8, 1984, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Barbara Jean McDougall: that Bill C-8, an Act to amend the Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax Act, be read the first time and printed.


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

Barbara Jean McDougall: that a Ways and Means motion to amend the Excise Tax Act, laid upon the Table of the House on Thursday, November 8, 1984, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Barbara Jean McDougall: that a Ways and Means motion to amend the Excise
Act, laid upon the Table of the House on November 8, 1984, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I should explain something to the House. There is a technical difficulty with proceeding with the Bill regarding this matter because the recommendation for the Bill has yet to be printed in the Order Paper. I believe the Government House Leader (Mr. Hnatyshyn) knows the problem. That is why we will proceed to the next Order of the Day.
U5)


CUSTOMS ACT-CUSTOMS TARIFF
Barbara Jean McDougall: that a Ways and Means motion to amend the Customs Act and the Customs Tariff, laid upon the Table on Thursday, November 8, 1984, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Barbara Jean McDougall: that Bill C-9, an Act to amend the Customs Act and the Customs Tariff, be read the first time and printed.


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

Barbara Jean McDougall: that a Ways and Means motion with respect to the interpretation of Canada's International Conventions relating to Income Tax and the Acts implementing such Conventions, laid upon the Table on Thursday, November 8, 1984, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Barbara Jean McDougall: that Bill C-10, an Act respecting the interpretation of Canada's International Conventions relating to Income Tax and the Acts implementing such Conventions, be read the first time and printed.


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

Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture) moved: that Bill C-4, an Act to amend the Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The motion is to refer the Bill to the standing committee. However, there have been discussions between House Leaders with
November 22, 1984

respect to this legislation and it has been agreed that the Bill would be dealt with in Committee of the Whole in the House. Mr. Speaker, I would ask that you seek the consent of the House for the amendment to the motion at this time.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for Bill C-4 to be referred to Committee of the Whole?
[ Translation]


Mr. Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, we agree. We have no objection to the Bill being referred to a Committee of the Whole or to considering all stages today. There may, however, be someone on our side who will be speaking to the Bill.


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, I would like at the very outset to express my appreciation to my House Leader, as well as to the respective House Leaders of the two Opposition Parties, and particularly to the agricultural spokesmen of the two Opposition Parties, for their understanding and co-operation.
It is with concern for a group of financially hard-hit farmers that I wish to speak briefly this morning. Those particular farmers are tobacco growers and their plight is a common one. They are caught in a very significant cost-price squeeze between rapidly rising input costs, dramatically lower prices and some very significant tobacco acreage cuts. As a result of this, tobacco growers have studied their marketing situation. They have assessed their options and have approached the federal Government with a request. It is in response to their request that I am introducing today for second reading Bill C-4, a Bill to amend the Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act.
This piece of legislation would simply amend the Act to include tobacco as a commodity which may be regulated by supply-management provisions. I want to stress that it is, however, only a facilitating piece of legislation. While the amendments would not immediately provide for a national supply management agency for tobacco, they would allow growers to explore the possibility of establishing such an agency.
Specifically, the legislation would designate tobacco as a farm product for which an agency could fix and determine the quantity of product which could be marketed in interprovincial or export trade circles. The Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act currently restricts the application of supply management to eggs and poultry and their products. At the present time, tobacco production is regulated by provincial marketing organizations and tobacco prices are negotiated between those provincial agencies and the buyers. However, tobacco growers want the legislated ability to work together on a national basis and to act in a unified manner. Surely they are entitled to the same rights as egg and poultry producers if they so wish.
It is well known, Mr. Speaker, that tobacco production was once one of the most lucrative sources of farm income not only in the Province of Ontario but, indeed, in the four other
Farm Products Marketing
producing provinces in Canada. However, that is no longer the case. The domestic market for tobacco has been steadily declining while production and input costs have continued to increase. Domestic demand for tobacco has declined by some 20 per cent since 1983. As a result of these factors, Ontario growers expect to take a significant loss on their 1984 crop. At the moment estimates of that loss run between $50 million and $60 million and it may well exceed the $60 million figure. A loss of that magnitude, of course, is more than just a loss to the farmers. It means a loss of employment for some 5,000 migrant workers and university students who rely on the tobacco harvest to get them through the winter or through their next term at university.
There is as well the impact on the local communities. When tobacco growers do not have any money to spend it affects not only farm machinery and car dealers, but grocery and department stores, travel agencies, indeed virtually every commercial operation in the community.
The tobacco industry has been good for Canada and for tobacco farmers. What makes it extremely significant, Mr. Speaker, is that the amount of tobacco moved out of the farm gate on the average tobacco farm, whether it be in Ontario, Quebec, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia or New Brunswick, contributes somewhere in the vicinity of $1 million to $1.5 million in tax revenue to the two levels of government. Tobacco is a big earner of foreign exchange and it brings in well over $100 million a year.
Of course, many people applaud the decline in smoking and the beneficial impact it will have on the health of Canadians, but we also must recognize that tobacco is an important crop in international markets and Canadian farmers grow some of the best in the world. The researchers at our Delhi research station have worked closely with growers over the years and have been extremely successful in developing new varieties of tobacco which are lower in tar content. They have assisted in developing production techniques and labour saving equipment. At present they are also working on alternate crops that may assist growers to diversify and reduce their tobacco production without accompanying losses of income. That has always been the case, Mr. Speaker, but realistically, although no comparable substitute has been found, we must strengthen our resources, both financial and human, in this direction in the future.
Again realistically, Mr. Speaker, this will not be an easy task. A farmer with 100 acres of sandy soil could make a good living growing 30 or 40 acres of tobacco in rotation with other crops. However, those 100 acres will not earn a living for the farmer if he only grows corn and soybeans. Unfortunately, soil that is ideal for tobacco production is not particularly good for most other crops without a dramatic increase in the use of fertilizer.
Tobacco growers are going through a crisis and they believe a national agency is necessary to help them stabilize their industry. Some critics have suggested that the supply manage-

November 22, 1984
Farm Products Marketing
ment provisions of the Act should be opened up to include all other agricultural commodities as well. However, today we are concerned only with tobacco because of the urgent cost-price problems of tobacco production and because producers are seeking this change themselves. In contrast, producers of some other commodities have reservations about having the Act altered to include their products and I share that view.
The legislation to amend the Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act was one of the final pieces of legislation considered in the House before it rose last summer. It is worth noting that this Bill is one of the first Bills to be introduced in this new Parliament. It demonstrates very clearly the commitment of this Government to amend the Act on behalf of the tobacco producers in Canada.
I urge Members of this House to support Bill C-4 and encourage its speedy passage. Once the Bill is passed the National Farm Products Marketing Council may hold public hearings to explore the possibility of establishing a marketing agency for tobacco, and negotiations would then be held with provincial signatories to work out details of the actual agreement. It is only fair and reasonable that tobacco producers should be allowed to look into the option of playing a larger role in the marketing of their own product.
In conclusion, I would like to draw to the attention of the House that I have had brief discussions with my counterparts in the two other Parties with reference to a slight drafting problem. Perhaps it would more accurately be described as a bit of a conflict or another legal opinion with reference to making a further slight amendment to the Bill. In the section of the Bill that we are amending we are placing the word "tobacco" in line 9, and line 10 goes on to refer to "the products of'.
We were satisfied by legal advice which we received from our own Department that the simple insertion of the word "tobacco" would cover parts of tobacco. However, to be consistent with the Bill, there is some question as to whether we should again insert the word "tobacco" in line 10 as it relates to products of. My two counterparts appear to be receptive to this. Although I have to be guided by the Chair, I understand that if the agreement holds true, as I am certain it will, rules dictate that it is not possible for me to move the second amendment. However, I understand that another Member of this Party could put this amendment forward. I expect that my colleague, the Member for Haldimand-Norfolk (Mr. Bradley), will be in the House at committee stage, and I would like to serve notice now that this second amendment will be moved at that time.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have an opportunity to speak on Bill C-4, a Bill to amend the Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act. I would like to congratulate the Minister on his appointment as Minister of Agriculture. He is a gentleman whom I have known since our days at the University of Guelph. He is a man who has
demonstrated his concern and interest in the agricultural community of this country over the past many years.
I would like to indicate our support for the Bill before the House today which adds the commodity of tobacco to those commodities which can have a national marketing agency in our country. The tobacco producers in southwestern Ontario, Quebec and the Maritimes have indicated their support for this Bill. They have indicated how desperately important it is for them in the marketing of their products, as it was for other commodity groups that have taken this step in their marketing procedure in the past. We understand the problems they face with a commodity for which the demand is dropping each year. We understand as well the problems they face in dealing with multinational corporations which travel around the world playing one set of producers against another in various countries.
If this legislation is passed it will allow producers to control their production. This will allow Canada to set limits on imports from other countries. I understand imports have fluctuated from below 8 million pounds a year to as high as 15 million pounds. Such violent fluctuations of imports will be controlled with supply management imposed on our own producers.
We agree with this legislation. We agree with other commodity groups having the opportunity to establish marketing agencies as well. We wonder why Bill C-56 was not reintroduced. That Bill would simply have removed the section from the Act and made it possible for all commodity groups within which the majority support a national marketing agency to take the same step. We wonder why the Government is limiting this to tobacco. There are other groups facing difficulty in the country. When the majority of the producers of a commodity want to establish a marketing agency and present a plan to the National Farm Marketing Council which is accepted by the Government, they should have the opportunity to take the same step. However, this Bill limits it stricty to tobacco.
My concern is with regard to why we are debating this Bill today. The Bill was filibustered last June 29, the last day that the House sat in the previous session. From reading a report in the London Free Press it is clear that the Tory House Leader spent a lot of time that day talking about many other things, effectively killing Bill C-56 which would have allowed this agency to be established. By this time it would have been established for five months. The tobacco farmers certainly vented their wrath at that time. The report of the London Free Press of June 30, 1984 states:
Irate tobacco farmers surrounded Conservative MPs outside the House of Commons chamber Friday and accused them of killing a bill that would have enabled establishment of a supply management agency.
The article goes on to mention that the tobacco farmers had met in the morning with the Minister of Agriculture and the Conservative caucus. The article continues:
Liberal House leader Yvon Pinard offered to add 15 minutes to debate time but his Conservative counterpart, Ray Hnatyshyn, refused it, insisting instead
November 22, 1984

that the House not set a limit on debate time. Liberal MPs and apparently the farmers believed the Tory tactic was used to stall the bill.
Outside the chamber, farmers were seething.
The report goes on to indicate that the PC Member for Haldimand-Norfolk (Mr. Bradley) said later:
"I'm going to be thinking about my future in this place over the weekend." Bradley, one of the chief proponents of the bill in the Tory caucus, was bitterly disappointed by the turn of events.
Although we are glad to see this Bill passed today, Mr. Speaker, we feel that it really should have been passed last June 29. The Tory handbook and election campaign included an item which indicated that they would support farmers in the efficient development of marketing systems of their choice. If that was part of the Tory platform, we wonder why Bill C-56 was not passed as proposed. It would have allowed all commodity groups to establish a marketing system of their choice.
Although marketing is of the utmost importance, I suggest we should be providing this kind of assistance to other commodity groups. We want this legislation to be passed. We also want the Government to introduce legislation to deal with the urgent cost-price squeeze being faced by other commodity groups such as the red meat industry and the grains industry. Their situation is perhaps more crucial in terms of that cost-price squeeze than at any time in many years. One has only to read the report of the Farm Credit Corporation which indicates that some 39,000 producers are facing very critical financial times. In fact, 1,700 producers are facing financial collapse.
The Speech from the Throne contained no proposals to deal with our important resource industries of agriculture, mining and forestry or with tourism. According to the economic statement of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), the question of agri-bonds will simply be referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture. There is no legislation forthcoming to allow the Farm Credit Corporation to provide set-aside provisions. There is no legislation forthcoming such as there was in the Bankruptcy Act to provide for pre-bankruptcy arbitration.
We do not see any activity to lower the cost of money for farmers as was promised in the Conservative campaign platform, or set-aside legislation such as was introduced in the United States with respect to their farmers' home administration. That legislation permits them to set aside a portion of outstanding loans in cases of an individual who is a good producer and is capable of meeting his commitments if he could have a little short-term relief. It is a very ingenious arrangement applying to the commercial banks as well and I believe similar legislation here is urgently needed.
Since these measures have not been announced in the Speech from the Throne or in the economic statement, I am concerned that such legislation is a long way off. Consequently, those 1,700 farmers who are facing bankruptcy this winter will not get any relief.
Farm Products Marketing
The Official Opposition recognizes the urgency of this matter and we support this Bill. The production level of tobacco is dropping precipitously and those producers are facing a monopolistic situation with the international corporations that buy tobacco from ouside the country. We want to see this legislation passed so that this group of producers can work together to address this declining situation.
We hope that the Government will provide the additional research assistance in the hope that some of them will adopt their land and production techniques to meet other opportunities for agricultural production in the months and years ahead. With that, I want to indicate our support to see this Bill go to the Committee of the Whole.


Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to take part in this debate on Bill C-4 to amend the Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act. It will have the effect of permitting tobacco producers to include their product within a marketing plan that will limit the amount of production that is permitted into the country or the amount produced on the farms.
This amendment concerns part of the Marketing Agencies Act which has its roots back in the 1930s. It was a copy of initiatives taken by those in Australia and New Zealand who were looking for methods that would permit their farmers to have similar powers that the state granted to large corporations and to workers to set up labour unions. The purpose of that legislation was to allow agricultural producers to put their products on the market through a single desk-selling agency. In some instances it also provided for a reduction in quotas, the setting of quotas to regulate the amount of product put on the market and even the amount of product produced in some cases.
I am concerned about this section of the Act because I believe it is rather unfair that it prescribes a limitation to producers at all. In any event, this proposal will limit the amount of imports or production in the country to only three groups of producers. They are egg producers, producers of poultry or similar products and now tobacco producers. I will come back to this subject because I believe it is a negative imposition of a set of rules and guidelines that are an unnecessary hardship on agriculture. I will prove that by illustrating how our existing legislation already provides sufficient safeguards without forcing producers to jump through another hoop.
The House is aware that tobacco farmers have been required to lobby for the last two years, including having to picket in the rain for several weeks last spring. The silly attitude taken by various governments forced them to lose another season of benefits from this proposed legislation. After two years, many of them are no longer able to remain in business. They have been forced to come to the House of Commons, hat in hand, to get permission to use that last bit of regulation which would allow them to stay in business.
This type of procedure is no longer required for corporations. We long since gave up sitting in judgment on whether a
478

November 22, 1984
Farm Products Marketing
group of individuals should be allowed to form a corporation. We no longer require such a lobbying procedure by a group of workers in order to set up a union. This is all accomplished through Order in Council according to very clear procedures. Unions and corporations can be set up almost instantaneously.
However, the producers of any agricultural products other than eggs, poultry and tobacco, after today, must go through a long process of bargaining with the Government, lobbying Members of Parliament and even picketing occasionally. This often results in havoc being weaked on the industry before getting a lawful right which should naturally be theirs.
National products marketing agencies are set up in two stages in this country. That in itself is a fairly rigorous hoop to jump through. First, producers must organize on a provincial basis. Depending on the provincial organization, a majority of producers in most provinces-as much as two-thirds majority in some-must agree on a marketing plan. But that is not all. After havig organized themselves within their province, they still do not have powers to regulate the sale and marketing of the product for interprovincial trade or for international export trade. In order to do that, they have to go to the national legislation. They have to prove, depending upon the requirement, that from 50 per cent to two-thirds of producers are proposing to become part of the national legislation.
One can imagine the way in which the political process works in farm organizational terms. To reach that point they have probably spent five years or six years but are not in a position to regulate the amount of product going into the market or to regulate imports of the product. Then they have to convince the Government to introduce a Bill before the House of Commons. This requires the Government finding time in the House to debate the Bill so that it can be passed through all stages and proclaimed. At that point they finally get what they set out to do. As a result of the period of time required, often the initiators of the program have gone out of business. Some of them have died by natural causes. It is a long, stupid process.
In this case it would have been much better to have simply deleted Clause 17(3) from the Bill. This would have permitted producers of any product who had jumped through the two sets of hoops at the provincial and federal levels to get what they wanted initially. Again I indicate that in some cases as many as two-thirds of the producers have to be in agreement. With the deletion of that clause and producers having gone through two road-blocks, they would have been able to have those powers and to begin to function as part of the Canadian society, as is the case with large corporations and unions.
It is a discriminatory practice to continue with these limitations. We will be permitting the tobacco amendment to go through. Later on at the proper stage I should like to introduce an amendment which would in fact eliminate this particular clause of the Bill. I am not sure what Mr. Speaker's ruling will be on such an amendment since the Bill in front of us is a very short one. However, Hon. Members should look into the
procedures required to set up a marketing organization and to conduct that organization in a business-like fashion, having some control of imports and some control of the amount of goods offered on the market. Such an amendment is certainly required. If we cannot get it today, certainly we will in the near future.
There is a great deal of difficulty facing tobacco farmers in the country at the present time. There are approximately 185,000 acres of land, in southern Ontario mostly, which lends itself to the production of tobacco. It is almost too sandy to produce any other crop which yields the same amount of income. Farmers have been under pressure for a number of reasons. There is reduced demand for tobacco because of the fear of lung cancer, as well as various environmental demands of society today. They are under pressure from imports. The Minister's proposed amendment would help provide some protection from various parts of the tobacco plant coming into the country as imports. Also they are under some pressure as a result of potential substitutes and some experimentation which has been conducted with various varieties of lettuce and the processes through which that crop has been put. There is a very clear need for some control of the amount of product introduced into the market from outside the country. The farmers require the ability to continue with acreage controls which they have placed upon themselves.
The cut-backs in the industry to this point have been quite substantial. There are approximately 2,000 or more growers in the industry now. They took a 21 per cent production cut last year by agreement. This has meant approximately 5,000 fewer tobacco workers at harvest time and probably between 500 and as high as 1,000 workers no longer having jobs in the manufacturing and distribution parts of the business. Probably close to 500 of those 2,000 farm families are faced with being forced out of business. This particular change to the law will give them the power to control the amount of imports with which they are faced, but it will reduce only marginally the pressure facing the industry at the present time.
We think it is a necessary amendment to help the tobacco industry. My only regret is that the Minister did not see fit to do away with the limitation clause so that producers of all farm products, having jumped through two sets of very strict requirements at the provincial and national levels, would have been able immediately to control their products in a manner which would provide them with adequate incomes.


Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, indeed I am pleased to be here today representing the constituency of Oxford. Having gone through the recent election promise that we would do certain things with respect to agriculture, I am pleased that within a matter of a couple of short weeks we are able to bring before the House something for which we have been fighting for months and months. In the last Parliament the then government refused to bring forward an amendment which would have easily suited the needs of the Canadian tobacco industry.
I will not become involved in a long dissertation about the steps which took place going back almost a year now. At the
November 22, 1984

wish of a large majority of tobacco producers, approaches were made to the government. It promised to have an appropriate Bill in the House within a few weeks, and then within a few months. One promise after another was made. Finally, by the end of June the Liberal government had broken several of its commitments to the tobacco industry. The Bill was brought in at the last minute, not even as a priority. It was about fourth on the list for one of those last days. As a result of that deliberate attempt by the Liberal government, the Bill did not pass.
Tobacco growers in southwestern Ontario were concerned about that. I will have to modify what I say somewhat because it is fair to say that the majority of tobacco growers wanted a simple amendment passed which would allow the inclusion of the word "tobacco" in the federal Marketing Agencies Act. As it was, a significant number of growers had reservations about it. However, it was certainly the feeling of the Progressive Conservative Party that producers of the country should have an opportunity to decide whether or not they wanted to be involved in a national marketing board. Our intent last year during those preliminaries leading up to the introduction of the Bill in the House was for tobacco growers to have that opportunity. That is all we asked. We wanted the former government to give them the privilege, as producers producing a particular commodity, of deciding how they would like to go. The next step would follow according to what they decided. As we all know, it was not possible with the attitude of the former government to do that. It brought forward a complicated Bill. It was not a simple Bill that could be voted on in a hurry, the way we can here today. As a result, it did not pass.
Agriculture, of which tobacco is a significant component in this country, is one of the basic components of our economy. Whether we are on the Government side or Opposition side, I sometimes wonder whether we really understand the significance of agriculture as the basis of our Canadian economy.
I have occasion to meet from time to time with repesenta-tives of the Federation of Agriculture, in my constituency the Oxford Federation of Agriculture. They continually impress upon me the importance of the agricultural sector. No matter which side of the House we are on, all of us must bear in mind that even though we are pretty well agreed on the need for some cuts in our over-all economy in order to get at the deficit problem, we have to look very seriously at whether we can afford to cut very significantly in the agricultural area.
As it is now, the input costs of most farmers, whether they are in tobacco or any other field of agriculture, are far in excess of what they used to be, more so than their revenues. As a result, farm incomes have dropped in an absolute manner from five years ago. The agricultural community across this country is suffering as much as, if not more than, many of the other economic sectors. We had better look very seriously at to what extent we can afford to limit support for the agricultural community in Canada.
Farm Products Marketing
One of the most important commodities in my constituency of Oxford is tobacco. The Town of Tillsonburg, which is known as a tri-county town, lies in the constituency and County of Oxford. It touches the border of Haldimand-Nor-folk. It is within a mile or two of the constituency of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise), which is Elgin. Tillsonburg is the headquarters for the Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers Marketing Board.
The amount of tobacco grown in Oxford is not as great as the amount grown in Haldimand-Norfolk. My estimates are not precise to the nearest decimal point, but approximately 60 per cent is grown in Haldimand-Norfolk, 20 per cent in Oxford, and 20 per cent in Elgin. Smaller amounts are grown in Durham-Northumberland. On a national basis, small amounts are also grown in western Quebec, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. If my recollection is correct, 90 or 95 per cent of all tobacco produced in Canada is produced in the area around Tillsonburg.
If I were here today to defend the dairy farmers of this country, I could cite many proud facts which have a bearing on this tobacco Bill as well. In these stressful times being experienced by the farming community, those farmers perhaps least stressed are the dairy farmers. In the last three years I have received very few letters from dairy farmers indicating problems, with the exception of young men and women wanting to get into dairy farming who are having difficulty finding money to purchase the farm and quota. We must ask ourselves why the dairy farmers are having less problems.
By way of an aside, I am proud to speak of the dairy industry in my area. Although the constituency of Perth, and my friend and colleague from Perth (Mr. Brightwell) will understand and agree, has more cows than we have in Oxford, what is interesting is that we produce more milk. I do not know whether that suggests that we have better farmers in Oxford. I would not want to say that. Maybe they are better farmers in Perth. However, we have expertise which allows them to be the highest producers of milk of any constituency in this country.
They have had some help. Not only do they have ideal land conditions, a very temperate climate and so on which is conducive to dairying, but they have good organizational skills. The Ontario milk marketing plan provides for them, along with what is provided through the Canadian Dairy Commission, the opportunities to market their milk in a satisfactory manner. This has prevented them from suffering quite as much as other farmers have from the economic downturn in recent years.
Tobacco growers have observed this. It does not take a very acute mind to see that dairy farmers, both in Oxford and across this country, have done reasonably well over the last while. We should give some credit to the fact that they have had in place a national and provincial plan which has given them the opportunity to market their milk in an orderly fashion. It has provided them with returns that are reasonable, certainly in comparison with other commodities.

November 22, 1984
Farm Products Marketing
On that basis, I rise today in support of Bill C-4 which represents an attempt by tobacco producers across this country to gain some of the opportunities the dairy farmers have had. There may be some resistance to this from other parts of the country. I am not here today to get involved in that kind of an issue or conflict. I am here to speak on this Bill and also to do so on behalf of the producers who I know are anxious to have this Bill passed as quickly as possible. These producers are working and trying to earn a living under desperate conditions in the constituencies of Elgin, Haldimand-Norfolk and Oxford. As I mentioned earlier, I am proud to state that the headquarters for this constituency are in Tillsonburg in the constituency of Oxford.
I have received representations from constituents asking why the Member for Oxford, who himself does not smoke, is trying to support the tobacco industry when he is a physician and should be opposed to the use of tobacco. I understand their concerns. As a physician, I realize that there are definite health hazards from the use of tobacco. I accept that. As a physician, I am convinced that that is the case. However, I remind these constituents who write to me in this vein that, be that as it may, I still represent the tobacco farmers in Oxford. They are involved in the legal business of the growing of tobacco. There is nothing illegal about it. I have an obligation to them and I indeed want to support anybody who has a problem that should be aired in the House of Commons and L may be of assistance to them.
A number of things have happened that make it difficult for the tobacco growers, and this makes me want to speak today on their behalf. For instance, in the past both the federal Government and provincial governments have deemed it fair and wise to impose extra taxes of one sort or another on the tobacco industry largely at the retail level. By so doing, these governments are greatly increasing the amount of tax to which that particular industry is subjected in an over-all sense. I sometimes ask myself whether or not that is quite fair.
There are various approaches one could take to influencing people in their daily habits. Whenever 1 get to my medical office, which is very seldom these days, I try to influence people not to smoke or certainly to cut down on their smoking for health reasons. That is fair enough. I believe it is fair enough for those of us, either collectively as governments or as individuals, who are convinced that tobacco is a health hazard to try to influence people that it is probably not wise to smoke. I have no difficulty with that.
However, when it comes to taxation of the tobacco sector, 1 want there to be some fairness and equity. The way we should be exerting that kind of influence on people is through an educational process at the federal and provincial levels and through the various health groups. I do not want to see the Government indulging in over-taxation which is discriminatory to one particular sector.
It is a pleasure for me to be here today because we now have a Government that is prepared to look after the interests of the
farmers of the country. The Government has now selected this one particular sector which the previous government refused to help and we have before the House today Bill C-4, a Bill which I am fully prepared to endorse. I hope my colleagues on both sides of the House will see the wisdom of this very simple amendment that will hopefully make the lives of tobacco growers much more acceptable to them.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions or comments on the speech made by the Hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday)?


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Hon. Member. It seemed to me that he stepped tenderly on the actual Tory filibuster that took place last June when this Bill was before the House. The Hon. Member for Haldimand-Norfolk (Mr. Bradley) is not present today. Obviously the Hon. Member for Oxford could not have been present last June 29 when the previous Bill, Bill C-56 which provided for the tobacco marketing agency to be established at that time, was before the House. At that time the Hon. Member for Haldimand-Norfolk said in an interview with the London Free Press:
"I'm going to be thinking about my future in this place over the weekend." Bradley, one of the chief proponents of the bill in the Tory caucus, was bitterly disappointed by the turn of events.
I wonder if the Hon. Member was actually present in the House when the previous Bill, C-56, was filibustered and did not pass last June 29.


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have a great deal of respect for my colleague, the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster). He has brought up the name of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Haldimand-Norfolk (Mr. Bradley), who is not present today. I think the Hon. Member for Algoma will recognize the danger of quoting from an article published by any newspaper. The London Free Press is a newspaper with wide circulation in my part of the country. It is usually accurate. However, the Hon. Member knows that it does not accurately reflect-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I do not think that that is a point of order. I would like to have the Hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday) reply to the comment.


Bruce Halliday: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the question put by the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster). To answer his question specifically, in actual fact I was not present in the House that day because I was in Vancouver on parliamentary business. Unfortunately, I was unable to be here to take part in that debate.
It is my memory, and I would challenge my colleague across the way to deny it, that there was a commitment made by the government on the day before or two days before the 29th of the month to the effect that it would bring in the tobacco Bill as the second order of business on that day. Instead of bringing it in as the second order of business, it was brought in as the fourth or fifth order of business. That is why that Bill did not get passed. It was not a filibuster on the part of this Party at
November 22, 1984

that time but a deliberate attempt on the part of the then Liberal government to put another Bill before the House that it knew was controversial and would take the whole day or even longer to debate. That is the reason the Bill was not passed. The Hon. Member for Algoma knows that and should have admitted it when asking his question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Algoma on a further short question.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to ask the Hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday) to check his facts, not only with Hansard of the day-page 5343 indicates the actual debate that took place-but also with his colleague who was bitterly disappointed that the Bill was talked out. As well, the tobacco producers from southwestern Ontario who were present were bitterly disappointed that the Bill was filibustered and not passed. If the Bill had not been talked out, then we would be well on the way to forming the agency right now.


Bruce Halliday: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that that was a question but I would certainly like to reply to it. Although I was not present on that day, I have it from reliable sources that what actually appeared in Hansard that day may not reflect exactly what was shown on the audio-visual record for that day. As I read Hansard, I found that it was very confusing and I daresay that those who were present recall that day as being very confusing. It is my understanding that what is indicated by the audio-visual recording for that day is not precisely the same as what was recorded in Hansard.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I was listening to the exchange which just took place. I would like to suggest to the Hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday) that while he may want to believe that his interpretation is entirely accurate, there are certain flaws in it. I remember the day very, very well. I was involved in the negotiations that took place in an attempt to have the matter resolved on that day. In fact, I offered to sit beyond the appointed hour of adjournment in order to allow the question to be resolved in its entirety. As I recall it, and I am sure I do recall it accurately, the Government indicated that it would sit for an additional 15 minutes. The Official Opposition indicated that that would not be long enough. During the course of the exchange, which lasted for about 15 minutes, it became apparent that the question of how long it would take would not be resolved. The Speaker rose and adjourned the House at that point.


John Wise: Two Members saw the clock.


Ian Deans: The clock was seen. I think it is fair to say that the only people who were trying desperately to find a solution were members of the New Democratic Party. Members of the other two Parties involved found themselves playing a silly game which cost the farmers the passage of the legislation that they so desperately needed.
If the Hon. Member for Haldimand-Norfolk (Mr. Bradley) were here, I think he would be on my side of this particular issue. I can well remember the discussion that he and I had
Farm Products Marketing
and I can well remember the bitter disappointment in his face at the actions of his own colleagues, in addition to the disappointment that he felt at the actions of the Government.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, unaccustomed as I am to being drawn into debate on this issue or on any issue raised by the distinguished House Leader for the New Democratic Party (Mr. Deans)-


Ian Deans: Are you going to talk this out too?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: No. I simply want to reject out of hand the suggestion that the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) has made with respect to what transpired in a period of five minutes at the end of the last Parliament.
We could sit in the House and argue about who is right and who is wrong. However, I think it has been demonstrated by the new Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise)-as his first initiative-that he is bringing forward, in terms of agricultural legislation in this House, a Bill which will do precisely what we suggested to the previous Government. The Bill will assist the tobacco growers of Canada. My hon. colleague should be given kudos and not be subjected to carping and detailed criticism. He should be applauded by members of the New Democratic Party.
In conclusion, I am sure the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain will be leading the cheering on behalf of our great Minister of Agriculture.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The period provided for questions and comments has now expired. The Hon. Member for Bellechasse (Mr. Blais).


Mr. Pierre Blais (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House to speak to this Bill. I must say I am also very pleased to see that my colleague, the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster), and the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) are in the House. We had a little discussion yesterday on absenteeism in another context, and I am very happy to see they are here today.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to remember that the Bill we are considering is not one of the Bills that were tabled in the House before, whether it was a year or six months or three months ago. We are not considering those Bills. We are considering a Bill tabled by the Hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise), and I think the debate should focus on this particular Bill and not on previous Bills. Of course I am not as experienced as the Hon. Members to whom I referred earlier, but nevertheless, I feel that as the Hon. Leader of the Government (Mr. Hnatyshyn) just mentioned, the important thing is that we have a Bill that is, after all, a minor one and concerns a single word, and I think that if we really want to help Canadian farmers, we should expedite this legislation and

November 22, 1984
Farm Products Marketing
refrain from obstruction and from going through the whole history behind this legislation. There may have been previous debate on the question, but now we should adopt this new legislation as quickly as possible.
Mr. Speaker, this week, in the presence of the Hon. Minister, I had an opportunity, to meet producers in this sector from the Province of Quebec. Various groups of tobacco growers may have expressed some concern in the past, but I can assure the House that the legislation proposed by the Hon. Minister of Agriculture has taken into account the comments of Quebec farmers and, if I may say so, the concerns they have raised previously. In fact, they are quite pleased and they agree with the Bill now before the House, and although growers in Quebec and the four Atlantic provinces represent only a small percentage, namely 7 per cent, of Canadian tobacco growers- 93 per cent are from Ontario-it would seem that the fears that such a program would have an adverse impact on the smaller growers across Canada are unfounded. Everyone seems to agree with the legislation.
It is too bad that the criticism we are getting concerns debates in the previous Parliament. I feel that if we agree with the present legislation, we should decide to adopt it as soon as possible. Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, my parliamentary experience is far from extensive, but to me, if a Bill is on the Table of the House and Hon. Members agree with its content, it should be passed as quickly as possible. Mr. Speaker, I am appealing to common sense, not to parliamentary procedure. I support this Bill. It is the first Bill introduced by the Minister of Agriculture, and I think we should proceed quickly with its passage, and then go on to something else, because Canadians, whether they are farmers or active in any other sector, expect a great deal from this Government, and that is why I think it is important that we should proceed quickly with these minor details so that we can deal with the really important problems facing us.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There being no questions or comments, we shall continue. Mr. Wise, seconded by Mme Champagne, moved that Bill C-4, an Act to amend the Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act, be now read a second time and, by unanimous consent, referred to Committee of the Whole. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to. Bill read the second time and, by unanimous consent, the House went into Committee thereon, Mr. Paproski in the chair.
Steve Eugene Paproski: Order. House in Committee of the Whole on Bill C-4, an Act to amend the Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act. Shall Clause 1 carry?
On Clause 1-Limitation


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Chairman, I believe the Minister is going to propose an amendment. After he does, I would like to propose an amendment.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Chairman, I would like to know if the Minister is going to make a statement or whether we are going to proceed with discussion on Clause 1 ?


Steve Eugene Paproski: I believe the Minister is going to make a statement.


John Wise: Mr. Chairman, during my remarks on second reading debate, I indicated that there was a wish expressed primarily by the industry that we amend the Bill in line 10. The Act is amended in line 9 by the insertion of the word "tobacco". Our legal counsel is satisfied that it would be sufficient to include the products of tobacco. Those of us who come from farming areas and speak of leaf, stems, cuttings and things of that nature would prefer to use the word "particles" or "portions" of the tobacco plant. However, in an effort to satisfy the industry, we will move that line 10 be amended to insert the word "tobacco" as it relates to any part of tobacco.
I have the amendment and I have discussed it with my counterparts in the Opposition Parties. It is not possible for me, as Minister, to introduce the amendment. I have discussed it with the Hon. Member for Oxford and he is quite prepared to put the amendment if we can get some indication from you, Mr. Chairman, as to the appropriate time.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Would the Hon. Member for Oxford please put the amendment.


Bruce Halliday: Mr. Chairman, the amendment reads as follows:
That Clause 1 of Bill C-4 be amended by striking out line 10 on page 1 and substituting the following:
"ry or any part of tobacco, eggs or poultry shall not"


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to the amendment. I wish at this moment to provide an amendment as well in line 10, which would be an amendment to the amendment.


Steve Eugene Paproski: I am sorry, we must dispose of this amendment first.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Chairman, we are in Committee of the Whole. Are we going to be permitted time to put questions to the Minister concerning the Bill generally? If I can do that under the amendment which has been proposed by the Minister, I will be happy to do so.


Steve Eugene Paproski: You may ask all the questions you want of the Hon. Minister right now.


Maurice Brydon Foster: On the basis of this amendment or on the basis of the Bill itself?


Steve Eugene Paproski: Of the Bill.
November 22, 1984


Maurice Brydon Foster: In that case, I have a number of questions I would like to put to the Minister concerning the Bill. The Bill does not really deal with a number of concerns which have been expressed by various groups in the country; for example, the idea of strengthening the powers of the National Farm Products Marketing Council, of making that council stronger and more in control of the individual agencies and perhaps having more responsibility right back to the Government itself.
I had the opportunity last year of working on the Crown corporations Bill and its provisions which required greater accountability and reference not only to the Minister and to the Government but to Parliament itself. This was done so that Crown corporations would have a responsibility to put before Parliament on a regular basis their corporate plan. They would have a budget which would have to be approved by the Government. They would have annual reports, and so on, and there would be a continuing flow of information ultimately to Parliament. It has been said that the National Farm Products Marketing Council does not have much control over the agencies nor are they ultimately accountable to the Government itself, which is then politically accountable here on the floor of the House of Commons.
I wonder if the Minister agrees with that view, which has been expressed by many groups in the country and by, I believe, some provincial agencies and legislatures as well, and whether he foresees a need for greater financial accountability as well as just the over-all supervision by the National Farm Products Marketing Council. I ask that question because much of the previous legislation before the House provided for that in the way in which the estimates will be coming before the House in much more detail. Does the Minister feel that those kinds of amendments are ultimately desirable?
I would also like to know why the Bill only covers tobacco rather than other farm commodities. There are other groups in our society, such as consumer groups, which would like to see more accountability to Government so that the Government can respond to criticism of individual agencies. Could the Minister comment on that aspect of the legislation?


John Wise: Mr. Chairman, I certainly welcome the opportunity to comment on the intervention and comments made by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Algoma. Indeed, what the Hon. Member is talking about is the same thing we are now discussing with reference to a Bill to be brought forth in the future regarding financial accountability and more or less authority for the supervisory body, the National Farm Products Marketing Council.
These are things which concerned our Government, as well as myself as Minister of Agriculture, back in 1979. Indeed, some discussions and meetings were held-not many, but a few-on that very subject between myself and the chairperson-who still occupies the chair quite capably-of the National Farm Products Marketing Council. However, of course, political events overtook us during that time. I know that discussions have been held with my predecessors, the council and the three agencies which fall within the authority of the National Farm Products Marketing Council. It was some of
Farm Products Marketing
those problems which the previous government tried to address in the final days of the last Parliament.
I believe there was a message there. One cannot move on legislation of that kind, particularly legislation which removes power which has been in the hands of the three existing national boards, without full consultation and some type of agreement. That is what we do not want to duplicate here today.
I agree with the Hon. Member that these matters must be addressed, and I can assure him that I hold them in high priority; but I have not had ample time in which to look into these matters. I have had one discussion with the chairperson of the National Farm Products Marketing Council. In fact, I am meeting with one of the national agencies this afternoon.
That piece of legislation is an important piece of legislation. The work of the council is indeed also very important because it involves supply management, the producers, the industry, the consumers, the federal Government and the provincial governments. The federal Government, the commodity groups and the provinces are signatories to those national plans. I have met with my provincial counterparts on two occasions and we have discussed some of the possible changes which should take place in that Act. However, I am not going to move unilaterally. I am not going to move prematurely regarding those issues which my colleague, the Hon. Member for Algoma, quite rightly raises. They must be addressed but discussions must be held with those people who are involved.
I can assure the Hon. Member that this will go forward. However, I want time to talk to the council members and to my provincial counterparts, and particularly to those commodity groups which are governed by that board. To this point in time I suppose I could say that we have been going full steam ahead on other things. I am not going to go into a long list of benefits which have been flowing and will continue to flow to the agri-food industry. If I did that I might provoke some partisan discussion and I would prefer to avoid that, recognizing that the clock is moving on.
Am I concerned about them? Yes, I am. Do they have a priority? Yes, they have. Will they be addressed? Yes, they will.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Chairman, Section 18(3) would allow any commodity group, with adequate planning and approval of the Farm Marketing Council and the Government, to establish marketing agencies. Is the Minister opposed to removing that section?
That is one question at one end of the pendulum. The other question at the other end is this. We hear reports from time to time that this Government's philosophy and approach will be to move to deregulation, and that marketing boards and agencies are not favoured by this Government. In view of this legislation which establishes one more agency, is it the philosophy of the Government that ultimately we will move away from marketing agencies where an industry seems to be at a

November 22, 1984
Farm Products Marketing
stage where it no longer requires them? Also, will the Government move to allow any group of producers of unregulated commodities to establish marketing boards?


John Wise: Mr. Chairman, I have no hesitation whatsoever in placing on the record the fact that I have no personal hang-ups or problems in removing that section. I am speaking from a personal point of view, but the fact is that that simply ignores reality. I am not about to say to people in the non-supply management areas, the producers of agricultural commodities in any part of the country, that indeed they need not be afraid of government imposing some type of a marketing system on them. There are producers of various commodities in all regions of the country who are just not satisfied with a government or minister of agriculture making that statement. I have to respect their position. We have to accommodate the people who are anxiously waiting for this type of legislation, the tobacco people, and still satisfy the concerns which are out there. I cannot understand why but those concerns are there. To say they are not is to ignore reality. So we recognize reality, we want to make progress and this is the way we are doing it.
In addition, the Hon. Member for Algoma raises the old problem of marketing boards. He comes from the Province of Ontario and knows that we have 40 or 50 marketing boards, commissions and agencies in one form or another in Ontario. Many of them are celebrating 40, 50 or 60 years of operation. He knows that across the country we have about 130 or 140 marketing boards, commissions and agencies. A lot of people think they are all under our jurisdiction but they are not. Basically there are only three under our jurisdiction and we are making provision for four. It is an old political argument, one that the Opposition Parties have worked very successfully in Ontario and elsewhere over time. If anyone questions that, they should examine the record. Every time the Opposition get into difficulty politically, they haul out the old marketing board question. They go back to the position of the Party during the national agencies' debate in 1970 and 1971, but 1 tell them to look at the position this Party has taken consistently without exception since 1976. We campaigned on that time and time and time again.
We recognize that an agency that works well for one commodity could well spell disaster for another. This Party is not about to impose any marketing system on any commodity whatsoever. However, through legislative changes we will permit commodity groups to take advantage of the Act and to decide for themselves what type of marketing system they want. If there is any doubt about that, and there should not be because hopefully in a few minutes there will be ample proof, I can take you back to 1979. We have three national boards under the jurisdiction of the council. The National Chicken Marketing Agency was first thought about in 1970 or 1971. Discussions and negotiations were held. We had an opportunity during the brief period of time we were in government, when I was the Minister of Agriculture, to proclaim the National Chicken Marketing Agency. Where do we stand on marketing boards? It is there for the world to see.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Chairman, provincial legislation essentially acts as a screening mechanism of those who apply to operate under a national marketing plan. As the Minister knows, producers in each province must first approve the principle and concept within their borders. What real function does this limitation clause perform given that producers must first decide within their province to market their products through a marketing board and then agree a second time to go to a national plan?
Given those two tests of the acceptability of a plan, why do we still have this limitation which permits producers of eggs and poultry, and now tobacco, to actually go all the way with their marketing board, so to speak? Does it not seem an unfair restriction of the rights of those producers who have already gone through the pain and organizational problems to get themselves organized and approved provincially and then federally? Now they will have to go through yet one more set of road blocks. First of all they have to agree and then find time to deal with their particular commodity. Why does he not simply recognize that there are enough ways of making certain that the majority interest is well take care of both at the federal and provincial levels? Why do we require this third step? Is he prepared to open it up further?


John Wise: Mr. Chairman, the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre raises basically the same question which our colleague, the Member for Algoma, does. Personally I have no problem with that. I think there are enough checks, balances and safeguards in the system to prevent any problems. However, it ignores the reality of the situation. In this country we still have producers of agricultural commodities who are not satisfied with that. I say again that I have no problem with that but it ignores the reality.
If we were moving forward today with those other provisions which would open it up, I am sure that the galleries would be filled. I am sure that the producers would be on the front steps or front lawn and perhaps all the way down to Wellington Street. Instead of the number of Members who are in the House now we might even have 211 here. There may perhaps be 50 or 60 Members wanting to participate. I think there is a need here. There is a group of people who want this provision, so let us go forward.
The Hon. Member suggests that we should open it up. To be honest, Mr. Chairman, I am aware of two other groups, the pullet producers for the egg industry and the pullet producers for the chicken marketing agency, that are going forward in the hopes of achieving a national plan. However, the Act provides for that. The only people I know of who are pressing for the change at this moment, and have been for the last 12 months, are the tobacco producers. We are accommodating them. If the Hon. Member is aware of two or three other commodity groups that are demanding a national plan, I want to hear about them because I do not know about them now.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Chairman, I have spoken with a number of farmers over the past 20 years on this subject. I think the
November 22, 1984

Minister has probably been made aware by producers, as I have, that there is virtually no incentive for them to begin the organizational requirements or even to begin discussions on such a board as long as the restrictions remain here at the national level. There is no point organizing themselves if they cannot get control of their product and if they know they are going to have to fight for three, four or more years to get the changes through the House of Commons. They do not see their lives being long enough to bother beginning.
The limitations contained in this Bill are doing a great deal of harm to a lot of producers of commodities who would like to see their commodity under the control of a national marketing plan. However, they realize that the condition of their farms, which may be in some economic trouble at the moment, will get even worse if they spend the time necessary to organize a national farm marketing plan. They know it will be a six, eight or ten-year program and they do not have that amount of time, Mr. Chairman. They cannot afford that kind of time. I believe that if we left the law open we would see a great many commodity groups rushing in to form provincial marketing boards with the idea of going into a national plan immediately to control the amount of imports and production they permit themselves to sell on the domestic market.
I think the circumstances should be changed so that they are treated the same as other producers of products in this country. They should be treated in the same way as people who want to form a labour union or a corporation. As I pointed out in my initial speech, we no longer require them to come to the House of Commons and jump through hoops. It does not take three or four years to set up a corporation, an association or labour union any more. There are laws which permit that to be done and the regulations are quite clear. We are discriminating against the producers of most of the agricultural produce of this country. I believe it is time we opened up the law while it is in front of us here today.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall the amendment carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment (Mr. Halliday) agreed to.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 1, as amended, carry?


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Chairman, I would like to introduce an additional amendment to the amendment that was proposed. I move:
That the Bill be amended by deleting line 10 at page 1 and replacing it with the following: "re, livestock, grains, fruits or vegetables or any part of eggs, poultry, tobacco, livestock, grains, fruits, vegetables shall not".
That would be the new line.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall the amendment carry?


John Wise: Mr. Chairman, I was just considering what would happen in the country if someone did not rise to indicate that it would not be possible to accept the Hon. Member's amendment. We have had a full discussion on this Bill. The Hon. Member has made his point, as has our colleague, the
Farm Products Marketing
Hon. Member for Algoma. I have indicated that I have no personal hang-ups with that because I am an old dairy farmer.
I have lived, prospered, and paid my bills under a supply management system that has worked well for the dairy industry. However, I recognize the difference, and therefore 1 bring you back to the Party policy which has been in place since 1976, which is that a marketing agency that works well for one commodity could spell disaster for another.
I appreciate the Hon. Member's intervention. I appreciate his efforts to bring forth the subamendment. I believe he has done that to emphasize his comments and I appreciate that. However, I regret that I have to reject the amendment on behalf of the Government.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall the amendment carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Steve Eugene Paproski: All those in favour of the amendment please rise.


An Hon. Member:: Which amendment?


Steve Eugene Paproski: The subamendment. There is only one amendment before us now. The first amendment was carried. This is a new amendment by the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre. The amendment is defeated because nobody rose.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Steve Eugene Paproski: I will not see the clock. I have asked Members to rise. All those in favour of the amendment please rise.
Amendment (Mr. Althouse) negatived: Yeas, 8; Nays, 23.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being one o'clock p.m., I do now leave the chair until two o'clock p.m.
At 1.04 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

[Stage Direction]
416 ALL WEATHER FIGHTER SQUADRON-DECOMMISSIONING CEREMONY
Mr. W. R. Bud Jardine (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, in these, my initial and brief remarks to the House, I should like to advise it of the end of an era in my riding of Northumberland-Miramichi. The 416 All Weather Fighter Squadron will be stood down as an operational unit at Canadian Forces Base Chatham at the end of December this year.
This weekend, in a special dedication ceremony, their colours will be encased, a pedestal mounted, and a CF-101 Voodoo aircraft will be dedicated to the base and to the people of Miramichi. The officers and men and women who served in this unit throughout the years have made their contribution to NORAD and to the safety and security of our country. Were it to be permitted by the rules of the House, I would indeed pay recognition to them.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


UNITED STATES-REPORTED THREATS TO CANADIAN EXPORTS
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, recent reports indicate that United States food industry groups are planning to curtail a wide range of Canadian farm products going to that country from Canada, worth some $1.5 billion. These reports also indicate that President Reagan has lent his personal support to the United States pork producers' drive to block Canadian exports to the U.S.A. Also they have petitioned the International Trade Commission to impose countervailing duties. The value of this trade to Canadian farmers is estimated at $500 million this year. The Canadian Government should take action immediately to prevent the imposition of these duties on Canadian exports to the U.S.A. Action at the highest possible level must be taken directly by the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Kelleher) and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise), with the Reagan administration in Washington.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has portrayed his relationship with the President as one of sweetness and light. If this is really true, why has the President cut off sugar exports from Canada to the United States? Why is the U.S. Government in the process of cutting off fruit exports from Canada to that country? Why is the United States conducting investigations to cut off fish exports from Canada to the U.S.? We have to ask ourselves whether the whole love affair between the Prime Minister and the President is a one-sided relationship.
November 22, 1984


WILDLIFE
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, last month Canadians learned with horror about the death of over 10,000 caribou which were swept away while crossing the Caniapiscau and Koksoak rivers on their annual migration. Native peoples of Canada in that region depend upon caribou herds for their nourishment as well as their economic wellbeing. The tragedy is made that much greater by the fact that it could have been averted.
Over 10 years ago biologist Alexander Banfield predicted that the hydroelectric project at James Bay could lead to disastrous consequences, not only for the region's caribou but for other wildlife as well. In addition, native leaders had requested, prior to the disaster, that barriers be erected to protect the herds from high waters.
It is important that the causes of the caribou deaths be clearly established. Many different reasons have been given, but none are conclusive. Therefore we ask the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), as the Member of Parliament from the area affected, and the Minister of the Environment (Mrs. Blais-Grenier) to urge their provincial counterparts in Quebec to launch a public inquiry to establish the exact causes of the disaster in order that this never happens again.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Tom Hockin (London West):: Mr. Speaker, I have seen a communication from Jonathan Mann, the Canadian journalist who was imprisoned briefly in India. It expresses his heartfelt thanks for the work of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) and members of his Department to secure his quick release after he was arrested for illegally entering the Punjab.
He states that during the six days he was in police custody he was in regular contact with the Second Secretary of the Canadian High Commission in New Delhi. Those efforts were discreet and little publicized. Also, careful diplomatic activity by the High Commission during those six days was extremely helpful in setting him free.
Because of the success of the Minister, his Department, and the High Commission in this regard, I hope that similar efforts, if they are appropriate, will be exercised on behalf of a husband of a constituent of mine, Mrs. Alice Kozumplik. Michael Kozumplik was arrested in Czechoslovakia for an offence which may also be relatively minor. He has been under arrest since mid-August.
November 22, 1984


VISIBLE MINORITIES
Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, this Thirty-third Parliament of Canada has been summoned to the work of national reconciliation. It is my duty this aftrenoon to remind Hon. Members of a long-standing injustice that cries out for remedy by the Government of Canada.
The National Association of Japanese Canadians yesterday informed Canadians that their community was attacked during World War II for political reasons, not for reasons of national security. The Liberal Government's dispossession and internment of Canadians of Japanese descent was opposed at the time by military and police authorities who were more concerned about racist attacks on this visible minority than about any subversive activity among them.
Noble principles of democracy were trampled underfoot as thousands of Canadians of Japanese origin were taken from their homes and lost their property to Canadian government authority. This fact was recognized by the former Liberal Government which regretted what had happened. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), then Leader of the Opposition, asked for more last June when he sought a formal apology from the departing Prime Minister. Now that he has the authority to offer redress to Canadians of Japanese origin, it is the solemn duty of the Prime Minister to ensure that a resolution stating a formal apology for the injustices perpetrated, and providing for proper negotiations to establish compensation, be placed before the Parliament of Canada.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Carlo Rossi (Bourassa):: Mr. Speaker, on November 8 of this year, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) raised the tax on gas by 10 cents a gallon or 2 cents a litre.
Surprisingly, this incredible and totally injustified increase in the price of gas is not being shared with the provinces or small retailers. What is even more surprising is the silence of the Member for Duvernay (Mr. Della Noce) who during the last election campaign claimed he was fighting for the rights of small retailers and now is sanctioning by his silence a measure that is a very real threat to retailers and car owners. The Hon. Member's silence, Mr. Speaker, is most eloquent.
Who would have thought that the Hon. Member, who was telling everybody he would make himself heard in Ottawa, would be doing just the opposite? Not one word, Mr. Speaker! He could at least have defended the Government's position, but not a word! He could have stood up for the retailers and car owners, but not one word!
Mr. Speaker, it would seem that the Member for Duvernay has bowed down to the rule of silence, probably imposed by the Deputy Prime Minister.
I suppose the next time we hear from the new Member for Duvernay will be the night he goes down to defeat in the next election.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Reg Stackhouse (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to plead for an invisible minority, the middle-aged, unemployed men of Canada. Over 60,000 Canadians between the ages of 55 and 65 are receiving unemployment benefits. When added to the number of men between ages 45 and 55 in the same need, the total comes to about 200,000. That number can be expanded still more when we add those who have become too discouraged by relentless rejection to continue seeking work. Together they form Canada's largest prison. It has no walls, it has no bars. However, it holds more than a quarter million men fast. It incarcerates them by the despair that they may never work again. Together they form an unrecognized invisible minority.
Like women in the same age group, they need affirmative action to break down the barriers of "agism", that socially effective form of discrimination against which there has been so little protection.
I know many of these men, especially those in the constituency of Scarborough West. They do not look for grants, or subsidies, or incentives, or privileges. All they seek is opportunity.



NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION


Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, very recently it was my honour to lead Canada's fifteen-person delegation to the thirtieth annual session of the North Atlantic Assembly in Brussels. We met with delegations from the other NATO countries to receive a very major report on "Nuclear Weapons in Europe", to debate the new strategy for NATO, and to exchange views on the current state of the alliance.
Most members of this delegation were attending these sessions for the first time. Even so, Canada was represented on all five of the Assembly's working committees. I want to tell the House that Canada can be proud of the contribution made both in committees and in the plenary sessions. In particular, I would like to underline the report on alliance security presented on behalf of the Member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. COMMONS DEBATES
November 22, 1984
Forrestall), rapporteur for the military committee, and the report dealing with science and politics as presented by Senator Tom Lefebvre, rapporteur for the scientific and technical committee.
We were able to reassure our allies of this Government's firm support for NATO and that the objectives of this Government are clear and firm: to defend freedom and preserve the peace, to work with other nations to halt the spread of nuclear weapons, and to prevent their development and use and, lastly, to work with our allies in NATO to build a healthier world economy.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Mr. Speaker, Air Canada has filed a spurrious nitpicking charge before the Canada Labour Relations Board against the Canadian Air Line Employees' Association, accusing them of concerted action to strike while the collective bargaining process is going on; for wearing union pins in the workplace, which is authorized in Air Canada's own bulletins; for refusing temporary appointments to managerial positions, which is voluntary, and for a concerted ban on overtime, which is totally untrue.
I would ask that the Minister of Transport assure that Air Canada conducts meaningful negotiations with its unions, specifically CALEA, so as to ensure that there will be no disruption of service during the Christmas and New Year's period.



THE PRIME MINISTER

Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, the establishment by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney) of 10 provincial PACs, that is PC Provincial Advisory Committees, across Canada to ensure the PC Party members are placed in the thousands of jobs available to the Prime Minister and his Ministers, flies in the face of the Prime Minister's statement on patronage during the election campaign.
In the November edition of Saturday Night magazine, the Prime Minister of Canada, in responding to Ian MacDonald's question about the $300,000 raised in 1972 by the Conservative Party to persuade Claude Wagner to run as a federal PC, said, and I quote the Prime Minister:
I didn't find anything outrageous in the proposition at all.
In the same Saturday Night article Mr. MacDonald points out that during the 1976 leadership campaign the Prime Minister was fond of quoting Senator Allister Grossart on patronage. I quote the Prime Minister from Saturday Night. He said:
What this party wants is its two feet right in the goddamn trough.
The Prime Minister has now created the mechanism, through the establishment of PACs, to fulfil his leadership ambition of 1976 to put his Party's two feet in the public trough, and his thinly disguised attempts at naming a prominent liberal and a prominent New Democrat to diplomatic posts will not convince this House or the Canadian public otherwise. These PACs should be dismantled immediately before the situation gets worse than it already is.



PIPELINES


Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, I call to the attention of this House the spurious nature of Conservative Party election promises in the last election campaign. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) promised a $325 million subsidy to the Vancouver Island gas pipeline. The Hon. Member for Nanaimo-Alberni (Mr. Schel-lenberg) promised more than half a billion dollars to the Vancouver Island gas pipeline. The defeated Conservative candidate in the Comox-Powell River constituency promised an equally generous subsidy. Last week in the House, on a question from the Hon. Member for Nanaimo-Alberni, the Minister of Energy said this project was on hold.
She has put the pipeline on hold, just as she put on hold an investment of $800 million in a fertilizer plant in Powell River. She has in fact put on hold 20,000 person-years of work on such a pipeline, and the opportunity of people on Vancouver Island to have natural gas. In effect the Conservative Minister of Energy has demonstrated how spurious these election promises were, how the people of Canada, British Columbia, and Vancouver Island have been betrayed. She has also driven an $800 million investment in a fertilizer plant offshore to Thailand or Mexico. I urge the Government to reconsider its position and support this worth-while project.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Jean Chretien (Saint-Maurice):: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to offer my condolences to the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs on having been called into the office of the Prime Minister and having been slapped on the wrist for what the Tories think of the press. For the first time in a long time, I am in a position to agree with the Toronto Sun today when it called the Prime Minister "Benito Mussolroney". Will the Secretary of State for External Affairs give to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence a
November 22, 1984

reference to permit the Members of this House to review the question of nuclear disarmament? Within three weeks there will be another vote at the United Nations. Some 81 members of the Minister's Party have expressed the view that there should be a freeze.


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I can quite understand the note of envy in the voice of the Hon. Member for Saint-Maurice in my situation of being able to go into the office of my Leader and have a cordial conversation.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: I, of course, cannot comment on the accuracy of the press reports that might relate to his relationship with his Leader, but I can assure the Hon. Member, knowing the depth and sincerity of his interest, that for the first time in the life of the Southam News organization it printed, this morning, a story that was absolutely 100 per cent false.
In relation to the specific question asked by the Hon. Member, it is my understanding that the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence will hold its organizational meeting today. I would imagine that supplementary estimates will be before that committee. We will be prepared to discuss any questions at that time. The former Minister will also know that, contrary to the practice of his Government and his Party, we have announced a full, public, parliamentary review of all aspects of Canada's international relations. That will include the question which he has addressed here in the House today.


Mr. Speaker:: I will grant a supplementary to the Hon. Member for Saint-Maurice, but I would ask him at this time to relate the preamble to the question.


REQUEST THAT CANADIAN AMBASSADORS APPEAR BEFORE COMMITTEE
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I just want to state, in relation to the House of Commons, that my Leader did not have to put two Members between myself and him, like the Leader of his Party has done.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Perhaps the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs could inform the House whether the Members of this Committee will be able to invite his ambassador to the United Nations and his ambassador for disarmament to appear before the Committee very shortly, since these two gentlemen have made it clear for some time what their views are and have said that a nuclear freeze should be put in place immediately.
Oral Questions


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, one of the problems faced on this side of the House is that we have more Members for which to find seats. One of the realities of the Liberal bench is that everybody sits beside everyone else.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: With regard to the request that Ambassador Lewis and Ambassador Roche come before the standing committee, I am sure that, if there is a request made by that standing committee, they will be pleased to come. They would then speak in their capacity as representatives of the Government, as they are doing with effectiveness and force at the United Nations and elsewhere.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I just want to tell the Hon. Member that Mr. Stanfield had Mr. Diefenbaker closer to him than the Prime Minister has the Right Hon. Member.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: It is an historical fact. There is nothing I can do about that. I am sorry that my memory is so good.


FORTHCOMING MEETING BETWEEN AMERICAN AND RUSSIAN REPRESENTATIVES
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I would like to know from the Right Hon. Member if he has anything to report to the House today about the meeting that is supposed to be held in January between Secretary of State Shultz and Mr. Gromyko. Does he have anything to report to us about the nature of that meeting and the nature of the debate? Are they beginning new negotiations, or will they continue with the old negotiations on disarmament?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition has several people who are closer to him than the Hon. Member for Saint-Maurice.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: I think all of us were very much relieved and encouraged by the fact that the leaders of the U.S.S.R. and the United States have agreed to meet to discuss questions of nuclear disarmament and, more particularly, discuss moving the world away from the perilous situation in which it finds itself. It is my understanding that those discussions should, in fact, be seen as new discussions and not as simply the continuation of discussions that occurred to this point. It is my understanding that it does, in fact, mark a new departure and a new development, and I am sure I speak on behalf of all Members of the House of Commons in welcoming

November 22, 1984
Oral Questions
the initiative that has been shown by the leaders of both the Soviet Union and the United States,


ACCESS TO INFORMATION
Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, a few days ago I questioned the Prime Minister on the Government's obsessive concern for secrecy and he assured the House that, to use his words, the press was indispensable to the proper functioning of our democracy, and that he wants to enhance that relationship.
Less than 48 hours after that assurance we find the Deputy Prime Minister skulking around the corridors of power that he knows so well, taking circuitous routes in order to avoid the press. We find the Minister of Finance lecturing the media about criticizing his mini-budget.
The Prime Minister has undertaken to meet the media with some guidelines tomorrow. I would ask him if he would recognize as well that this is not a matter for the media only, no matter how important its role is in conveying information to Canada, but also for Parliament. Would he table those guidelines in Parliament immediately so that the people's representatives would also have his assurance that Ministers and government officials can talk freely to the media without fear of reprisal?
[ Translation]


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be delighted to table all the documentation relating to the issue raised by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition. It is true I intend to meet the members of the press tomorrow. I expect to announce the parameters of our initiatives at that time, and I shall be tabling them as soon as possible here in the House.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, on the subject of the Canadian people's right to information, I am a little disturbed by reports that there are cut-backs to the CBC affecting remote communities in northern Canada and parts of western Canada in which live farmers and fishermen. I would like the Prime Minister to guarantee, if he would, that the CBC cuts committee, made up of outside experts, will answer to Parliament. Will he also allow the regional directors of the CBC to appear before a parliamentary committee in order to assure us that the distribution of information across the country will not be curtailed as a result of these cuts?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, it is certainly not in character for the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition to distort fundamental information. In point of fact I thought that I had clearly stated that the advisory group-and I assume that that is the group to which he refers-was precisely that, an advisory group, and that all determinations in regard to reductions in expenditures would be undertaken by the CBC. May I say that when Mr. Juneau visited with the Minister, I think I remember him saying in a "scrum" that it would be childish to assume that, with the public finances of the country in difficult shape, the CBC should be excluded from a reasonable application of the same principles. We are trying to be fair in bringing a degree of sanity back to the public finances of our country, finances that have been devastated by 20 years of mismanagement.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


INCOME TAX
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, it was certainly a pleasure for me to hear the Prime Minister speaking of fairness this afternoon. I have a question concerning the minimum tax for upper-income Canadians. I am sure the Prime Minister will vividly recall that during a certain evening this past summer he made an interesting observation about all of those upper-income Canadians who are not paying taxes at all. If I remember correctly, and I think I do, he said that the rich should pay, and should pay handsomely. The Minister of Finance, however, is quoted to today's press as saying that the Government is not necessarily committed to a minimum tax. He said that the Government is pretty committed but it is not definite. Are we going to impose a minimum tax on upper-income Canadians and, if so, when?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that the Hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party would refer to that evening last summer. He was not supposed to mention it in public. It was supposed to be a secret.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: In point of fact, it was a delightful evening. I think the Hon. Leader of the NDP and I enjoyed it a great deal.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: In fact I think that he and I enjoyed it almost as much as did the Hon. Member for Saint-Maurice.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker.
November 22, 1984

The commitment 1 made that evening was to the minimum tax and to that sense of fairness that inspires both of us. We will follow through with regard to a minimum tax.


TIMING OF IMPLEMENTATION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Prime Minister regrets deeply that it was not an affair, if I may use that word, between just the two of us. There were eight or ten million Canadians who heard him and saw him say that he was committed to a minimum tax.
I enjoy the kind of repartee in which he indulges almost as much as he does-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: -but, Mr. Speaker, considering that the Government has already imposed on ordinary Canadians increased taxes amounting to about $500 per family, including increases in indirect tax, federal tax, federal sales tax, income tax, and increases in the tax on gasoline, can the Prime Minister tell us that he will put in place an equivalent tax on upper-income Canadians before Christmas so that they will pay their share?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that the Hon. Member will be disappointed with the provisions that we will bring forward in a budget to deal with the question of fairness in taxation, a question which involves having people pay their fair share of taxes at all times.
My hon. friend refers to tax increases that may have been imposed on Canadians. I hope he would refer to the benefits which were brought forward for widows, and veterans, and the relief for farmers and fishermen, which have already been announced by this Government.


REQUEST FOR IMPLEMENTATION BEFORE CHRISTMAS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, pleasantness, civility, and charm are wonderful political virtues, as they are in terms of personal relations, but considering that we have a task in this House not only to be civil but also to be fair, and considering that the Government is now talking about singling out Canadians over the age of 55 and cracking down on the so-called cheaters in unemployment insurance, and considering that it has imposed a tax of $500 on the average family, will the Prime Minister agree that he already has taxed ordinary Canadians handsomely? Why will he not apply the minimum tax before Christmas to the rest of Canadians, in order that the rich can pay their share of the burden?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, 1 will acknowledge readily that personal income tax, particularly for lower and middle-income Canadians, is too high. They are paying an unfair burden of government spending which has been absolutely out of control for the last 20 years. Those Canadians are paying to service the debt which has been
Oral Questions
imposed on generations of Canadian youth. That is the burden which we are trying to get out from under so that we can bring new prosperity to our country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: My hon. friend quite properly refers to the dimension of fairness. I think the only disagreement may be on timeframes. He requested before Christmas; I give him the assurance that it will be in the budget.


GOVERNMENT OF CANADA
Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, I have read in the media that the Conservative Government is putting on the ritz, and that a committee has been struck-of which the manager of the Ritz-Carlton Hotel in Montreal is a prominent member-to advise the Government on political appointments in the Province of Quebec. That would certainly add some elegance to the pork-barrel. However, the fact is-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. "Wonderful Wednesday" now appears to be happening on Thursday. The first round of questions took approximately four or five minutes longer than it normally should have. Therefore, may 1 ask the Hon. Member to please put his question.


Brian Vincent Tobin: You should treat the Opposition the same way you treat the Prime Minister.


Mr. Speaker:: I am perfectly happy to hold questions and answers to the same length.


Donald James Johnston: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. During the campaign, and on the evening last summer which has been referred to, before eight million or nine million people the Prime Minister told Canadians that political appointments to positions which would have a determining influence on our lives should be subject to the approval of a committee of parliamentarians.
How will the Ritz-Carlton group, for example, relate to a House committee? Or has the Prime Minister scrapped the idea of having such a House committee to approve political appointments?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member referred to the elegance of the Ritz. It is no match for the elegance of the meeting of the two apostles of affection which we witnessed the other night at a party held for the Hon. Member.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: It is our intention to bring forward provisions whereby nominees for government appointments would be subjected to a criticism or an analysis of their records and

November 22, 1984
Oral Questions
proposals by parliamentarians. I have been meeting with the Government House Leader to attempt to find an appropriate manner in which this might be done. Because we have been preoccupied with economic matters we have made few appointments. The appointment of Stephen Lewis as Ambassador to the UN, and the appointment of Bruce Phillips today as Minister Counsellor in Washington are an indication of the high quality-


Mr. Speaker:: With all due respect to the Prime Minister, I must be fair to both sides of the House and ask for brevity.


FORMATION OF PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE
Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I have a short supplementary question. When can we look to the formation of such a House committee, and what will be its composition? As well, in the view of the Prime Minister, what are the agencies, commissions and other appointments which have a determining influence on the lives of all Canadians? We require some criteria against which their performance could be measured.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the House Leader will be meeting with his colleagues to draw up guidelines which are fair and helpful to the process. It will be a new concept, but it will be one which will be beneficial to the House of Commons.


John Edward Broadbent: What about Charlie Lynch?


Martin Brian Mulroney: With regard to Charlie Lynch, we can do nothing as he is protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Meivilie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Hon. Minister of Employment and Immigration.
Yesterday, Statistics Canada announced that 100,000 people were not included in the official unemployment figure of 1.3 million here in Canada. They are not included because they are completely discouraged and have stopped looking for work, but they still want to work.
My question is: what concrete measures does the Minister intend to take to make it clear to these 100,000 unemployed that the Government's number one priority is to create jobs here in Canada?


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, according to that Statistics Canada report, indeed 100,000 Canadian workers had given up looking for work in September. Last March the figure was approximately 300,000. That is a recurring tragedy and one which we know must be addressed. However, it is due in part to the fact that the old remedies have not worked. For that reason we are going through an intensive consultative process to restore confidence in the economy, and to come up with new programs and new approaches which will deal with these very problems.


CANADIAN FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS-LISTING OF JOB OPENINGS
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, the Minister speaks of confidence in business. The other day the Canadian Federation of Independent Business indicated that there were 170,000 jobs which were not filled.
Since the Canadian Federation of Independent Business indicated this morning that they will not release the names of companies looking for workers because "they don't want every Tom, Dick and Harry banging on their doors looking for a job", will the Minister approach the Federation and demand that they make public the list of companies which are looking for workers, so that the unemployed will have an opportunity of finding out where those jobs are? Is that not her responsibility?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell the Hon. Member that we have agreed with the Canadian Federation of Independent Business to establish a system which would assist the unemployed in finding the jobs that were identified by the CFIB report. In other words, there will be one person designated in each of the Canada Employment Centres throughout the country to work with a representative of small business designated by the CFIB. Jointly, they will place unemployed persons into the jobs which are available.


GARRISON DIVERSION
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and it concerns the statements which were made by the U.S. ambassador on the very critical issue of the Garrison Diversion. As the Minister may know, the U.S. ambassador, who may have been expressing a personal opinion, said that as far as he is concerned it is not much of an issue. As the Secretary of State will know, it is very much an issue with Manitobans and, indeed, with all Canadians. Has he had conservations with the U.S. ambassador to bring home to him what a vital issue the Garrison Diversion is for this
November 22, 1984

country? In addition, has he raised this matter with the Secretary of State in the United States to ensure that the Americans fully understand that this is a diversion which must not be allowed to be built because of the serious economic and environmental effect it will have on this country?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to raise with the Secretary of State for the United States earlier in the fall the Garrison question, and to express Canada's very real concern. More recently, indeed yesterday, representatives of the Canadian Government and the Manitoba Government met with United States officials in Washington to present, in a diplomatic note, Canada's concerns about the Garrison plan, and to seek assurances. We received those assurances. There will be no action on any commission hearings which are undertaken in the United States without full prior consultation with Canada.


REQUEST THAT DIPLOMATIC NOTE BE TABLED
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Minister for his reply. However, he still did not indicate whether in fact he has been in direct communication with the U.S. ambassador who, after all, is a major line of communication with Washington, at least from the Ottawa post. In relation to that diplomatic note, which is very vital, would the Minister be prepared to table that note in Parliament so that Manitobans and all Hon. Members of this House will know exactly what is the nature of the Canadian response to the technical report, considering that it has very major implications for the economic and environmental concerns of our province, and for the country?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I would have to consult precedents on the possibility of tabling a note which was jointly prepared by this Government and another Government in another jurisdiction in Canada. If it is possible, and within the practices of this Parliament to table notes of that kind, certainly it will be tabled. I believe it goes without saying that this Government seeks the active co-operation of Hon. Members on all sides of the House and, indeed, Governments in all jurisdictions, in order to ensure that nothing is done with regard to the Garrison which imperils the Canadian interest.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Just a few moments ago she acknowledged to my colleague, the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville, that she agreed with the CFIB, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, that there are 170,000 jobs going begging, even
Oral Questions
though neither the Minister nor the CFIB know where they are. In the government paper, "A New Direction for Canada", the Government notes that the unemployment insurance program, "may create disincentives to job search". That sounds remarkably like the claim made by the CFIB that, "In Canada we have workers who are not willing to make a downward adjustment in their income in order to get a job", and that this is the fault of the unemployment insurance system.
Does the Minister agree with the CFIB that the unemployment insurance system is already far too generous when the average recipient of unemployment insurance benefits last year was living on an income $2,000 below the poverty line? If she does not agree, why has the Minister supported the action of her Government in making the deepest cut of all to the unemployment insurance program?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I stated just a few minutes ago that we would be working with the private sector, notably the CFIB, in order to determine where those 170,000 jobs are and how quickly unemployed people can be put into them so that they can go off the unemployed rolls and back into the work force. I would hope that the Hon. Member would agree that that is the approach we all want to take.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, that simply is no change. That is the present system.


MINISTER'S POSITION
John R. Rodriguez: Yesterday the Minister informed me that in spite of the study done by her Department on exhaustees as abusers, her concern for Canada's older workers still exists. If this is so, would the Minister tell us why she has already agreed to cuts in the unemployment insurance program with respect to this age group? These cuts will save the Government $30 million but will be done on the backs of workers who will be forced to use up their pension savings before claiming unemployment insurance benefits.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I mentioned to the Hon. Member, and to others the other day, that the intent of the interviews is to help people find jobs.


John R. Rodriguez: There are no jobs.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: The Hon. Member says there are no jobs. At least we can try to help the system move forward by providing the confidence in the economy which is needed, by attracting investment, by creating new jobs, and by putting people into them.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John R. Rodriguez: You are just trying to cut them off.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: 1 know that the approach of the Hon. Member is entirely different.

November 22, 1984
Oral Questions
[ Translation]


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Michel Champagne (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture.
Could the Hon. Minister inform the House what is being done about reimbursement for crop losses suffered by certain regions in Quebec in 1983?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague refers to harvest losses in the Province of Quebec. I want to tell the Hon. Member through you, Mr. Speaker, that during my trip to Quebec City I had the opportunity to discuss the matter with my provincial counterpart, the Minister of Agriculture for the Province of Quebec. I have also had an opportunity to talk to the President of the UPA and I have requested the officials of my Department to study the losses. When that study is completed within a matter of two weeks or three weeks, I will have a look at it, and then I want an opportunity to discuss the matter with my provincial counterpart.


EMPLOYMENT
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Yesterday, in response to a question from the Hon. Member for Mount Royal, the Minister said that the Cabinet would study the Abella recommendations and decide whether legislation will be necessary to bring about employment equity. In the same breath her Leader told the Leader of the Opposition that to bring about "proper and fair representation of women throughout the Government... . That may, and indeed will, require legislative considerations that we will bring forward". Can the Minister tell this House which position stated yesterday was the correct one, her position or the position of the Prime Minister?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the Hon. Member that there is absolutely no difference in the position of the Prime Minister, or of myself, or of any member of this Cabinet, this Government, or this Party-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: -with respect to its total commitment to the economic equality of women, of the disabled, of the minority groups, and of native people. As I said yesterday, we will be studying the recommendations in the Abella report to see which ones can best be utilized to move this commitment to the desired goal.


EMPLOYMENT OF WOMEN
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, the Minister stated yesterday, "I will never be in a position where I am accused of letting women down". The Abella commission clearly called for legislation to replace the voluntary approach which has been an abysmal failure in the Minister's own Department.


Raymond John Skelly: What about the Liberals?


Sheila Maureen Copps: Why will the Minister not live up to the promises made to the women of Canada? Or is it simply a case of a promise a day to keep women at bay?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise the Hon. Member that I am in agreement with her with respect to the way in which affirmative action programs have not been carried out in Departments which were administered by the Party of which she is now a member.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I would tell the Hon. Member that that Party has a record which is indeed shameful. So I would say to the Hon. Member yes, we are going to be looking at affirmative action and, yes, we are going to be doing something about it.


Sheila Maureen Copps: What and when?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I would invite her co-operation.


RESEARCH
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Science and Technology. It relates to the closing of the National Research Council rocket range in Churchill and related facilities in Gimli, Manitoba. Can the Minister confirm to this House that by the closing of that base we will not only lose valuable research into the environment but we will lose the NASA contract which the Americans are in the process of negotiating for increased use of the Churchill rocket range? We are also entering into discussions with respect to the use of that base for the research related to the space shuttle program.


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know why the Hon. Member has jumped to the conclusion he has. Indeed, I met yesterday in Winnipeg with officials of Bristol Aerospace Limited and we discussed the fact that the lion's share of the work which Bristol performs at that base is carried out for universities and for U.S. and other interests. The direct
November 22, 1984

Canadian sponsorship by the Government of Canada was only a small portion of the over-all program. We discussed the prospects that Bristol Aerospace might bring cost recovery into the program and, through Canada's ongoing involvement in the space program, a number of exciting options will be presented which will create more employment rather than less.


GIMLI FACILITIES
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, the Minister seems confused. Once you close the facilities in Gimli, how can research be done by anyone? That is the question. Once the base is closed down, no one, Canadian or American, private or public, is going to use those facilities.


Thomas Edward Siddon: The base being spoken of is a Canadian Forces Base.


Rodney Edward Murphy: No it is not.


Thomas Edward Siddon: The Member is speaking of the launch site at Churchill. The Government has decided to discontinue, over a three-year period of phasing down, the operating expenses that were being absorbed by the National Research Council. This does not constitute a closing of the base. Indeed, we are negotiating with Bristol, as I said a moment ago, to find a number of other attractive uses for this facilitiy.


MINES AND MINING
Mr. Bill Tupper (Nepean-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Mines. In recent months exploration teams working east of Yellowknife have delineated deposits of rare earth metals which have the potential to be the largest in the western world. In view of the importance of these rare earth metals to the high technology industry, can the Minister comment on whether any discussions or studies are in progress leading toward the establishment of a rare earth metallurgical centre in western Canada?


Hon. Bob Layton (Minister of State (Mines)):: Mr. Speaker, at present there is no production of rare earth minerals in Canada. We understand that the world market is limited. However, these new discoveries, along with others in our country, perhaps present a new opportunity. We will be discussing this in the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources and I will be happy to provide a report to the Hon. Member.
Oral Questions


THE DISABLED AND THE HANDICAPPED
Mr. Roland de Corneille (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Secretary of State who was in the House of Commons when the Special Parliamentary Committee on the Handicapped was created in 1980. This committee made a large number of unanimous recommendations, and later made reports showing compliance by the Government with a high percentage of those recommendations. Will the Minister tell this House what specific action he has taken, or is taking, to ensure compliance with the remainder of that committee's recommendations concerning the handicapped?


Hon. Walter McLean (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, 1 thank my colleague for that important question and assure him that consultations have already begun. This past weekend I met with the Ministers responsible for the handicapped in Atlantic Canada to begin the process of discussing implementation of many of the recommendations. As the Hon. Member will know, many of those recommendations require serious funding from a provincial base. There was a recommendation for federal-provincial consultation, and that will take place once we have looked at the agenda and set the framework for that type of consultation.


Roland de Corneille: Mr. Speaker, in view of all these consultations I can now understand why they have to call the report Obstacles.


ABELLA REPORT-LEGISLATION RECOMMENDATION
Roland de Corneille: Mr. Speaker, in view of our concern for the handicapped, and in view of the conclusion of the Abella Commission that the elimination of all forms of discrimination requires more rather than less legislation, is the Minister prepared to support mandatory legislation of the kind recommended by Judge Abella on behalf of the handicapped?


Walter Franklin McLean: Mr. Speaker, in her report Judge Abella quite rightly indicates the difficulty handicapped people have in finding employment opportunities. The question is one of charter application, and the discussions around April and the mechanisms to find appropriate entry into the workplace are, as my colleague, the Minister of Employment, has been outlining to the House, a top priority, not only in relation to women in the workplace but also in relation to the handicapped, natives, and visible minorities.

November 22, 1984
Oral Questions


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Communications intimated the $75 million spending cut at the CBC would chiefly involve overhead, and that programming might in fact be improved. Today the people of Windsor are outraged, as am I, to learn that 30 per cent of the budget of CBET Windsor is to be cut. By order of the CBC bureaucracy, those cuts are to be applied to programming, resulting in the loss of 40 staff members.
In view of yesterday's assertions, will the Minister assure the people of Windsor and Essex County that these drastic cuts at Windsor will take into account the following: that CBET is the only source of local and national Canadian TV in a market with 12 U.S. stations; that CBET is the single most effective defence against the overwhelming cultural dominance of the U.S. media; that CBET is a Canadian window on the U.S.; and that increased, not decreased, national and local programming are necessary to community unity and identity in Windsor?


Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member can inform the people of Windsor that up to now, the entire preamble of his question is just rumours.


NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
Mr. David Berger (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of State for Science and Technology. To date he has given no satisfactory justification for the cut at the National Research Council. He simply refers to the fact that these programs are of lesser priority. How does he square that response with the report of the Wright Commission, to which he has referred approvingly, which states that government sponsored research into acid raid is virtually mandatory, and that government research into air and water pollution, pesticides, and radiation levels, constitutes a large and legitimate market for federal laboratories?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, of course I have never said that the research programs of the National Research Council are not pertinent and necessary. As the Hon. Member confirms, we had to look at all options on a scale of priorities. If he would read further in the Wright report he would find that it suggests the work of the National Research Council could be better managed in terms of the determination of priorities. Therefore, I see nothing inconsistent in anything that I have said to this point.


REQUEST FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
David Berger: Mr. Speaker, the report says that government sponsored research is virtually mandatory. 1 simply ask the Minister, as I did the other day, whether he would not refer these cuts to an appropriate parliamentary committee so we can see if they can be implemented in a more appropriate fashion.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, the decisions the Government has taken, as announced by the President of the Treasury Board, will stand. However, any Member is, of course, welcome to bring matters of concern before the appropriate standing committee at the time the Estimates are tabled.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Last spring the Minister, along with numerous other Members of this House, some now in Cabinet, convinced the former Minister of Transport to change the policy concerning airport vehicle rental concessions. We were all successful in convincing the former Minister to change these policies because in essence they were preventing a Canadian company, Holiday Rent-A-Car, from successfully bidding for space at airports. Why has the Minister changed his mind on this important matter?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, this Minister has not changed his mind. I have taken every step available to work out a negotiated settlement with Holiday Rent-a-Car. As the Hon. Member knows, the Holiday Rent-a-Car organization is in considerable arrears at several airports throughout the country. We have proposed a number of options to Holiday Rent-a-Car to allow them to enter into the bidding process. They have basically taken the position that the arrears should be written off. That is contrary to the provisions of the contracting arrangements under which the agreements were entered into. Mr. Speaker, we have tried and we have negotiated, but we have not been able to arrive at a settlement yet.


Simon Leendert de Jong: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The time for Question Period has expired.


CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORT
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petition presented by the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. November 22, 1984

Heap) on Wednesday, November 21, 1984 meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Speaker:: I must advise the House that I have received three written notices of questions of privilege, one of which I take it has been withdrawn. I have received notices which I must take in order. I believe the Clerk's office telephoned the Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin). The two questions of privilege, one from the Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe and the other from the Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson), turn out to be effectively the same question of privilege. I therefore propose to hear them both, if it is appropriate, at the same time.


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: You cannot raise a point of order during a question of privilege. What is the point of order?

I now recognize the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault).


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, I simply want to ask you ... I can understand that there are questions of privilege, but now that most Members are in the House, would it not be preferable now to ask the House Leader what the House business will be for the coming week?


Mr. Speaker:: 1 presume the Hon. Member is rising to enquire about the business of the House.
That is not possible when the Chair has received notice of a question of privilege one hour earlier. I presume that the Hon. Member knows full well that the Chair must entertain questions of privilege immediately or at the earliest opportunity. He is aware of that, I presume.


SERVICES OF LIBRARY OF PARLIAMENT
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I have given notice of a question of privilege because a matter which I believe directly affects the ability of Members of Parliament to carry out their duties and responsibilities has been brought to my attention. The Speaker will know that the services of the Library of Parliament are historically of crucial importance to Members of Parliament in carrying out research to ensure that they are as fully informed as possible on all matters that are brought before the House.
It has come to my attention, Mr. Speaker, that a very significant part of the services provided by the Library of Parliament to Members of the House in all Parties is at risk of being lost to Members. I understand that the Minister of
Privilege-Mr. Tobin
Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Cote) has requested that the third floor reading room of the Library of Parliament in the Confederation Building be closed and that its services no longer be available to Members to allow for additional office space in what are already palatial surroundings of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame, shame.


Mr. Speaker:: Could I ask the Member to inform the Chair whether in fact the space has been reallocated? If the space has not been reallocated, how could there possibly be a question of privilege about a matter which has not yet happened?


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, you have asked a very good question and I propose now to give you the answser. I understand that without consultation with any of the three Parties in the House a request has been made-


Mr. Speaker:: A question of privilege is a very special parliamentary situation, as the Member knows. I have asked the Member a very simple question which he should answer, please. Has the fact happened? If it has not happened, how could there possibly be a question of privilege? I give him about 30 seconds to find some way to turn this into a question of privilege, if he has one.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, if you will give me 30 seconds I will come right to the point. The problem is that a request has been made to your office, without consultation with any of the Parties. That request may put the Speaker in a position where he will appear, or at least his appearance-


Mr. Speaker:: No, with due respect. The Speaker receives hundreds and thousands of requests from Members. To argue that somehow a request made to the Speaker puts the Speaker in a position other than that for which he is paid is hardly a question of privilege.
I have to recognize the Member for Burnaby. Does he wish to rise on the same Question of Privilege? Does the Member have an angle he wishes to present to me before I rule?


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the Speaker appears to be rejecting the unbridled arrogance of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Cote) in his totally unreasonable request to expand his already palatial space.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the Member for Burnaby for recognizing the difficulty the Speaker is put in on this question. I must find, for the record, that there is no question of privilege.


Jacques Guilbault: Just refuse the question. Just say no.


Mr. Speaker:: In all seriousness and dignity, I accept the representations that are being made by various Members of the House, which I have also received in writing, that I deal

November 22, 1984
Business of the House
with this matter seriously, and I shall, recognizing the use that Members wish to make of library material.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Jacques Guilbault: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will now ask the Government House Leader to tell us his plans respecting the business of the House for the coming week.


An Hon. Member:: In French!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I speak French very well, but very slowly.

Therefore I will make my remarks in my native language of English.
Mr. Speaker, we have again had the benefit of additional, productive and constructive House Leaders' meetings in which 1 have been able to advise the House Leaders of each of the Parties with respect to the business of the House. I will now indicate to you and to Members that we intend to carry on today with Government legislation as indicated to the House. We will proceed after Routine Proceedings with the order of reference with respect to the creation of a parliamentary task force for the reform of the House of Commons. After that it is my intention to call Bill C-6 which is the Bill dealing with the Saltfish Corporation.
Tomorrow is an allotted day. Next Monday I intend to deal with Government business. It is my intention to call the Bill relating to the Income Tax Act which was the subject of a Ways and Means motion this morning. When we have finished with that Bill it will be followed by the Customs Act and Customs Tariff legislation.
1 am informed, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall) will be introducing a borrowing Bill tomorrow.


Ian Deans: Shame, shame!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The cupboard is bare, Mr. Speaker, I therefore anticipate that there will be a borrowing Bill brought forward.


Ian Deans: More borrowing on top of what you have already borrowed?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, if I could conclude this dissertation, I know that the Hon. House Leader has heard this all before so his surprise is not exactly real.


Ian Deans: No, but I am no less surprised.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: It is my intention to designate Tuesday next as the third allotted day in this Supply period. On Wednesday next I intend to return to Government legislation to carry on with those financial Bills which I indicated we will begin on Monday. We will see if we make progress. We will try to carry on in that sequence.
1 of course reiterate the caveat that there may be a possibility of changing priorities. Depending on the progress, I may in fact change the order of business and the designation of days indicated. However, that is my present intention. I hope that we can hold to it and make substantial progress in the business of our country through the legislative program being put forward by the Government.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege to present a petition to the House of Commons on behalf of the undersigned residents of many parts of Canada who urge that Canada be declared a nuclear-weapons-free zone, in accord with similar initiatives by other nations, and to become actively involved in working for multilateral de-escalation of the arms race.


Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition.
To the Honourable the House of Commons of Canada, in Parliament assembled.
The petition of the undersigned "Femmes autochtones Abenaquises d'Odanak et de Sorel", who now exercise their ancient and unchallenged rights to present a grievance, with the assurance that your Honourable House will provide a remedy.
Humbly sheweth that:
An amendment be made to Clause 11(2) of Bill C-47-


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member, but it seems to me that he is reading the introduction to the petition, and that is not allowed. I realize that he is a new Member and, for that reason, I think it is my duty to point out that he may explain very briefly the nature of the petition, nothing more.


Louis Plamondon: If you will allow me, Mr. Speaker, I will do so in two paragraphs, or I will simply give it to you.
November 22, 1984


Mr. Speaker:: That is not for me to decide. Our Standing Orders allow a summary of the contents of the petition, but the Hon. Member is not allowed to read the entire petition.


Louis Plamondon: Mr. Speaker, I have read one paragraph, as allowed under the Standing Orders of the House. When you interrupted me, 1 was about to read one of the two introductory paragraphs of my petition. I was following the formula recommended in the Standing Orders.
That an amendment be made to Clause 11 (4) of the same Bill.
Wherefore the undersigned humbly call upon the federal government to amend Bill C-47 which denies reregistration rights to all the generations concerned.
And, as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
That is the accepted formula.


Mr. Speaker:: I fully appreciate the difficulties, and perhaps I should explain for the benefit of the other new Members that, in my opinion, the Hon. Member used Beauchesne's formula to read the introduction to the petition. I can understand that. For the future, however, I would point out that Hon. Members are not allowed to read the petition or the introduction in the House. I presume the Hon. Member used the formula for the preparation and the official presentation. But 1 point out that, henceforth, the only thing allowed is a summary.


Mr. J. R. Ellis (Prince Edward-Hastings) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-210, an Act to stabilize the representation in the House of Commons.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the Hon. Member have leave to introduce the said Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Raymond Ellis: Mr. Speaker, briefly, I have put this Bill before the House on two previous occasions. It concerns not wanting to expand the number of members in the House of Commons. The reasons are self-evident. While I have great trust in this brand-new Government, I am still putting in my Private Members' Bill just in case.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Order Paper Questions HOUSE OF COMMONS MOTION TO ESTABLISH TASK FORCE ON REFORM On the Order; Government Notices of Motions:
November 20, 1984-The Minister of State (Government House Leader):
That a Special Committee of the House of Commons to be composed of Mrs. Bourgault and Messrs. Blaikie, Cooper, Ellis, Friesen, McGrath and Ouellet, be appointed to act as a Parliamentary Task Force on the Reform of the House of Commons to examine the powers, procedures, practices, organization and facilities of the House of Commons, bearing in mind the balance between the respective constitutional responsibilities and roles of the House of Commons and the Government, such an examination to include, but not be limited to, the following matters:
(а)	the Permanent and Provisional Standing Orders;
(б)	the role of the private Member in the House of Commons;
(c)	the accountability of Ministers to the House of Commons;
(d)	the legislative process;
(e)	the funding, facilities and staff support services made available to Members of the House of Commons;
(/) the administration and management of the House of Commons; and (g) the procedures and powers of Committees of the House of Commons and the role and the use of parliamentary task forces;
That the Committee have all the powers provided to standing Committees pursuant to Standing Order 69(8);
That the Committee have the power to retain expert, professional, technical and clerical staff;
That the Committee and members of the Committee have the power, when the Committee deems it necessary, to adjourn or travel from place to place inside and outside Canada and that, when deemed necessary, the required staff accompany the Committee or members of the Committee, as the case may be;
That all the evidence adduced by the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure and the reports of that Committee as tabled in the House of Commons during the 32nd Parliament be referred to the Committee;
That notwithstanding the usual practices of this House, if the House is not sitting when an interim or final report of the Committee is completed, that the Committee shall report its findings by depositing its report with the Clerk of the House and that it shall thereupon be deemed to have been laid upon the Table;
That the Committee be authorized to include in its interim and/or final reports drafts of proposed permanent or temporary Standing Orders drawn to give effect, if concurred in by the House, to any permanent or temporary change or changes proposed by the Committee;
That the Committee be authorized to include in its interim and/or final reports recommendations as to the implementation of any reforms proposed in the reports of the Committee;
That Messrs. Penner, Binns, Comeau, Duguay, Jardine, Ravis and Young be appointed as alternate members of the Committee;
That changes in the membership of the Committee be made only pursuant to Standing Order 69(4)(6); and
That the Committee shall report to the House finally no later than June 28, 1985.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 25(2), the notice of motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of the Hon. Minister of State (Government House Leader) (Mr. Hnatyshyn) is transferred to and ordered for consideration under Government Orders later this day or at the next sitting of the House.


[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
[Stage Direction]
November 22, 1984
Parliamentary Reform
Mr. Paul Dick (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Government House Leader)):: Mr. Speaker, the following question will be answered today: No. 12.


Mr. Howie: How many lawyers are employed by the Department of National Health and Welfare? '


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: The Department of National Health and Welfare employs one (1) lawyer. As well, there are five (5) lawyers assigned to the Department from Justice.


Paul Wyatt Dick: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: The question as enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary has been answered. Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: That a Special Committee of the House of Commons to be composed of Mrs. Bourgault and Messrs. Blaikie, Cooper, Ellis, Friesen, McGrath and Ouellet, be appointed to act as a Parliamentary Task Force on the Reform of the House of Commons to examine the powers, procedures, practices, organization and facilities of the House of Commons, bearing in mind the balance between the respective constitutional responsibilities and roles of the House of Commons and the Government, such an examination to include, but not be limited to, the following matters:
(a)	the permanent and Provisional Standing Orders;
(b)	the role of the private Member in the House of Commons;
(c)	the accountability of Ministers to the House of Commons;
(d)	the legislative process;
(e)	the funding, facilities and staff support services made available to Members of the House of Commons;
(/) the administration and management of the House of Commons; and
(g) the procedures and powers of Committees of the House of Commons and
the role and the use of parliamentary task forces;
That the Committee have all the powers provided to standing Committees pursuant to Standing Order 69(8);
That the Committee have the power to retain expert, professional, technical and clerical staff;
That the Committee and members of the Committee have the power, when the Committee deems it necessary, to adjourn or travel from place to place inside
and outside Canada and that, when deemed necessary, the required stafff accompany the Committee or members of the Committee, as the case may be;
That all the evidence adduced by the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure and the reports of that Committee as tabled in the House of Commons during the 32nd Parliament be referred to the Committee;
That notwithstanding the usual practices of this House, if the House is not sitting when an interim or final report of the Committee is completed, that the Committee shall report its findings by depositing its report with the Clerk of the House and that it shall thereupon be deemed to have been laid upon the Table;
That the Committee be authorized to include in its interim and/or final reports drafts of proposed permanent or temporary Standing Orders drawn to give effect, if concurred in by the House, to any permanent or temporary change or changes proposed by the Committee;
That the Committee be authorized to include in its interim and/or final reports recommendations as to the implementation of any reforms proposed in the reports of the Committee;
That Messrs. Penner, Binns, Comeau, Duguay, Jardine, Ravis and Young be appointed as alternate members of the Committee;
That changes in the membership of the Committee be made only pursuant to Standing Order 69(4)(6); and
That the Committee shall report to the House finally no later than June 28, 1985.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I regard it as a great privilege to be able to move this motion. As Members of Parliament, we share the honour and duty of serving an institution which helps to bind this nation together and which helps to define and defend the rights and interests of the Canadian people.
Edward Blake, one of our predecessors in this place, described his understanding of the importance of this institution in the following terms:
The privileges of Parliament are the privileges of the people, and the rights of Parliament are the rights of the people.
It is for that reason that reform of the House of Commons is not undertaken lightly by this Government. As 1 have expressed on other occasions, the results of the September 4 election indicate that there is a public will for a change in the operations of the central institutions of government. That desire for change expressed itself in the mandate received by our Government.
However, no matter how strong the mandate, change in a democratic society must be the result of consultation and consensus. Let there be no doubt that the Government has its views with respect to the aspects of this institution that are in greatest need of reform. Indeed, there are reforms that we could undertake on a unilateral basis. But reform without consultation is no reform at all.
Thus, the action that we take today reflects the Government's belief that real progress is achieved when, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has said, "First you listen, and then you act". The motion we are currently debating provides the proposed task force with the widest of possible mandates. The committee will have the authority not only to consider the rules of the House of Commons but will have the power to examine the role of the Private Member in the House of Commons and the funding, facilities and support services made available to Members.
The Government believes that it is important to ensure that the duly elected respresentatives of the people have a say in the
November 22, 1984

legislative process and that the views of all Canadians are represented in decisions which will shape the nation's future.
To ensure, therefore, that the process of reform is carried to both sides of the House and impacts upon all aspects of our deliberations, the Government is of the view that it is important that proposals for reform be the product of an all-Party review and that the opportunity is given for the widest possible consultation in the course of that review.
We have proposed the establishment of a task force because we believe that parliamentary task forces have proven to be of the proper size and flexibility to bring focused attention to the major issues on the public agenda. We are not insensitive to the fact that by creating a seven-member committee the Opposition Parties are limited to one member apiece on the task force. We have therefore taken the rather unusual step of providing for alternate members. It is our hope that the alternate members will take the opportunity to participate in the deliberations of the task force and that the task force will benefit from their input.
There may be some who feel that this task force will merely repeat the work done by the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure during the Thirty-second Parliament.
It is true that the task force will have the authority to review the reports of the special committee and the operation of the provisional Standing Orders which were adopted on the recommendation of that committee. It is not surprising that almost two years to the day from the time the experimental rules were adopted such a review would be undertaken. However, this task force is expected to go much further. I was a member of the special committee, and it was a disappointment to me that that committee dealt with a fairly narrow range of matters. Its mandate was to review the Standing Orders and make recommendations for change. Unfortunately there were any number of Standing Orders that we did not have the opportunity to consider and which, because they relate to archaic procedures, are badly in need of review.
As well, the special committee was constrained to considering merely procedural issues. If our concern is to ensure that Members of Parliament and the House of Commons as a body perform a valuable function in the legislative process and in scrutinizing the affairs of government, then procedural change is but one means of achieving our objective. Equally important is ensuring that the institution runs on an efficient basis, has all powers necessary to do its job and that individual Members have the tools they require in order to make a genuine contribution.
These are the objectives of the Government, and that is why the task force will be empowered among other things to:
-examine the powers, procedures, practices, organization and facilities of the House of Commons, bearing in mind the balance between the respective constitutional responsibilities and roles of the House of Commons and the Government, such an examination to include, but not be limited to, the following matters:
(a)	the Permanent and Provisional Standing Orders;
(b)	the role of the private Member in the House of Commons;
Parliamentary Reform
(c)	the accountability of Ministers to the House of Commons;
(d)	the legislative process;
(e)	the funding, facilities and staff support services made available to Members of the House of Commons;
(0 the administration and management of the House of Commons; and
(g) the procedures and powers of Committees of the House of Commons and
the role and use of parliamentary task forces.
This is a very broad mandate and the task force will have a relatively short period of time in which to conduct its study. I am confident, however, that the members of the task force will bring their full effort to bear on this important study and that their deliberations will prove fruitful. Mr. Speaker, you will see by the names listed for that committee that we have asked among our number competent and dedicated Members of Parliament to serve, not only in terms of permanent members but, with respect to all Parties and all members, to serve as alternates to this important committee.
It is almost a truism to suggest that unless reform is undertaken early on in the mandate of a new government it will not be undertaken at all. Frankly, it is human nature that once patterns of behaviour are established they become rather hard to set aside. It is significant, therefore, that the pledge of reform took priority in the Speech from the Throne and that the establishment of this task force is one of the first initiatives undertaken by our Government in this Parliament.
Reform is not a new issue, nor is it the result of a sudden public dissatisfaction with the operations of Parliament. It is the nature of democratic institutions to be subject to public criticism, scrutiny and debate. The roles of Parliament and of parliamentarians have been the target of criticism for as long as Canada has been a nation. A couple of quotations from the last century serve to illustrate this point.
In Canada: A Guidebook in 1894, Karl Baedeker had the following to say about Members of Parliament and the institution they served:
Few of the speeches delivered in the House of Commons can be called inspiring. In fact, when not personal, they are prosaic. This can hardly be helped, for a Canadian Parliament, like Congress in the United States, deals, as a rule, with matters from which only genius could draw inspiration.
A more pointed criticism of the inhabitants of this place is to be found in an advertisement which was run by an Ottawa furrier during the 1870s. I present this for the edification of current members of the House of Commons. It reads:
Re the new government (having carefully perused the press)-it consists of: Anarchists, 17; Horse Thieves, 22; Burglars, 10; Would-be Burglars if they had the pluck, 31; Judas Iscariots, 19; Counterfeiters, 27; Forgers, 19; Highwaymen, 46; Murderers, 29; Arch-Fiends, 1.
Under the circumstances it is needless for me to say that I decline to sell my new Spring Hats (by the way, they are just opened) to any Member of the new House of Commons.
It was signed by R. J. Devlin. How little times have changed! Even in the 1870s the press had full access to the secrets of government, as it does today.
We will never be able to please all the people all the time, but we have the responsibility to try to inspire Canadians through our actions here. Also we have the responsibility to ensure that Canadians can reasonably believe that their elect-

November 22, 1984
Parliamentary Reform
ed representatives are conscientiously working to advance the public interest.
If speeches in this place sometimes appear to lack inspiration, it may not be that the matters being considered are mundane or trivial but that Members of Parliament lack the tools or the motivation to get at the substance of the issues which are before the Elouse. There are remedies for these conditions, and it is the mandate of the task force to outline those remedies.
If I might be permitted a personal observation, it often seems that everywhere but on Parliament Hill Private Members are important participants in Canadian public life. I believe that ways must be found to enhance and expand their role and importance in this place. The relevance of this institution and its continuing ability to provide the means for ordered and peaceful social and institutional change rest in no small measure on its ability to provide an important part in its functions and the exercise of its powers to as many representatives of the people as possible. I cannot overstate the importance of this aspect of the task force's mandate.
The emphasis on the role of the Private Member is also of interest when considering other aspects of the committee's mandate. For example, a review of the procedures and powers of the committees of the House of Commons is a specific part of the broad mandate of the task force. The increasing importance of the standing committees since their creation in the late sixties has been one of the most significant developments in the changing face of this institution. In considering the committees and the use of parliamentary task forces, of course the task force will be aware of the important part which Private Members have to play in these fora and will want to consider the mechanisms which can be used to enhance their role in committees.
The importance of the work done by committees in considering legislation should not be underestimated. However, the work of all committees has increased and the task force may want to consider the means by which this work can continue without conflicting with the other competing and legitimate demands placed upon a committee's time.
Respect for the institution of the House of Commons is independent not only upon the work of individual Members but also upon its organization, administration and structure. In recent years changes in the management of the House and the services it provides to its members have been undertaken. Many of these changes were the result of the excellent report of the Auditor General on the operations and management of the House. I am certain that these changes have resulted in certain cost savings and have caused the services of the House to be placed on a more regular and professional basis, which is more in keeping with practices in other public sector institutions. However, the task force may want to review these services and the changes made to ensure that they are meeting the needs of Hon. Members while at the same time ensuring that they are being delivered in the most effective and efficient manner possible.
The task force will realize that Parliament is unlike any other institution of government and must obtain and demand the highest standards of professional and discrete services to ensure its effective functioning. It is not always enough that the services available to the House and its Members meet or exceed the standards which exist in Canada's public sector because the demands which are placed on the servants of the House are often quite distinct from the demands placed on public servants.
I am sure the task force will be cognizant of these factors in its review of the services now being provided and in considering the changes which have been made to those services in recent years. May I say in passing that in my view those services are of the highest standard and are provided by a dedicated and thoroughly professional body of employees. This is a fact of which you, Mr. Speaker, can be justly proud.
In the event that the task force recommends changing or altering the services provided by the House or the organizational structure of the House, the members of the task force might also want to concern themselves with discovering the most cost effective way of delivering those services or instituting those changes. In this manner they will be able to ensure that the budget of Parliament is subject to the same restraints to which the rest of the public sector is now subject. By doing so, the task force will have done a great service, not only for the House and its Members, but for the taxpayers of Canada.
In that light, it is my hope that the task force will take the opportunity to spell out in one of its early reports to the House its anticipated budgetary requirements and its tentative agenda. I am sure that all Members of the House will be watching the activities of the task force with interest and would be grateful to be informed of the studies that the committee proposes to launch and the schedule that it intends to keep.
It will be of particular interest to the House if the task force determines that it will make use of its power to travel in Canada or abroad. As well, I am sure that Members will want to be kept informed if the task force decides to invite representations from the public or from past or current parliamentarians.
As I mentioned earlier, we have chosen the vehicle of a parliamentary task force to undertake this review because we believe that the small size of a task force lends itself both to the tackling of difficult problems and to the opening up of dialogue between Parliament and the public which it serves. In turn, the very use of task forces is a matter to which the committee will be asked to address its attention.
As the role of the standing committees changes, there may as a consequence be a changed mandate for task forces. For the time being, however, we believe that the smaller size of a task force encourages a greater spirit of co-operation among the members of such a committee. That fact is of considerable importance given the Government's objective of ensuring that whatever reforms emerge from the work of this task force they
November 22, 1984

do so on the basis of consensus among the members of ali three Parties.
I would like at this point to address an aspect of the terms of reference of the task force which I have not previously touched upon. That aspect is the balance of the constitutional responsibilities between the House of Commons and the Government. There can be no doubt that the growth of government in Canada has placed considerable strains on the traditional relationship between the roles of the Ministry and of Parliament. As Arthur Beauchesne noted in the preface to the fourth edition of his Parliamentary Rules and Forms:
Definite rules are necessary if Parliament wants to solve its two main problems: first, how to find time for disposing of the growing mass of Government business, and secondly, how to reconcile the Government's demands with the rights of the minority. The House cannot now carry on with wholly customary law-
It was 1958 when Arthur Beauchesne wrote those words, but that sentiment is, if anything, more valid and telling today.
The task force is not being asked to rewrite the Constitution. Quite the contrary. The task force is being reminded that the constitutional balance between the institutions of government exists for good reason and that reforms that affect the balance on one side of the equation require some form of compensation on the other side.
It is my view, and I hope that of the members of the task force, that the need of governments to gain passage of their legislative programs and the duty of Members of the House of Commons to hold the Government to account for its actions are not mutually contradictory. When the balance of responsibilities is working well, the result should be that legislation is improved rather than impeded by the House and that governments seek the advice and consent of Parliament when initiating new policies.
Within the context which I have just outlined, the task force is being asked to consider not only the legislative process and the role of the private Member but also the accountability of Ministers to the House of Commons. Needless to say, as a Government, we will commit ourselves to being as forthcoming and responsive in the House as possible. Nonetheless, Canadians have the right to expect that the proper functioning of their institutions of government rests on more than simple assurances of good faith.
The task force is being asked to bring forth recommendations in this regard and the House will have the opportunity to debate those recommendations. Even at this early stage, the Government is attempting to demonstrate that it is prepared not only to say the right words but to take the right steps.
My party, the Progressive Conservative Party, has long been the Party which has stood for reform of the institutions of government. For example, it was this Party which was instrumental in pushing for access to information legislation. It was this Party in 1979 that established parliamentary reform as one of the early priorities of our administration.
Nonetheless, constructive ideas which lead to real reform are not the sole preserve of any Party or any small group of Members of this House. It is with that fact in mind that the
Parliamentary Reform
Government has chosen to place the question of reform before a committee of Members and has given that task force a broad far reaching mandate to examine all areas of the powers, practices and organization of this place. It is my hope that working together, Members from all Parties will be able to propose workable solutions to the challenges facing this institution.
As Arthur Beauchesne noted, changes in the demands placed upon the institutions of government have required that we step beyond the mere evolution of customary laws and practices. Novel problems require novel solutions, and that is why we have decided not to restrict the task force to a simple review of the Standing Orders. I look forward with great anticipation to receiving the recommendations of the task force, as do all Members of the Government. As recent members of the Opposition, we are well aware of some of the systemic obstacles to the full participation of private Members.
It is my hope that as a result of the work of this task force we will be able to banish from our vocabulary once and for all the term "back-bencher". It is our objective to ensure that in this Parliament there are no back-benchers. All Members must feel that they have a full voice in the proceedings and decisions of the House. I admit that our motive is not entirely selfless in this regard. We believe that a better, more effective House of Commons will lead to a better, more responsive style of government than Canadians have become accustomed to over the years.
For all of the reasons which have been outlined in my remarks, I would simply like to close by wishing the task force the best of success in its deliberations and by inviting all Members to give their input and support to this very important committee of our House.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques.


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, are we allowed to ask questions at this stage?


Mr. Speaker:: Yes, there is a 10-minute period for questions and comments.
The Hon. Member for Sudbury (Mr. Frith).


Mr. Frith:: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Government House Leader, perhaps in a very circumvented way, hinges upon the desire of his Government and of all Members of the House to undergo parliamentary reform. Whose advice was it to each of the committee chairmen this morning and yesterday afternoon in the area of reduced quorums to allow the requirement that only government members need be in their place in order to hear evidence? There has been a long tradition in this House, going back some two decades, I believe.
In 1980, with a Liberal majority government, when these motions were established in committee, they were worded in such a way as to recognize the right of the Official Opposition to be present when evidence was heard. I cannot speak for

November 22, 1984
Parliamentary Reform
other committees. I can only explain what happened in the health and welfare committee. A motion was presented by the Government side which stated that for a reduced quorum for the purpose of hearing evidence, only four members of the committee need be present. I put forward a motion to amend that motion to read that a member of the Opposition as well as the Government side be present before any evidence could be heard.
1 recognize that nowhere in the Standing Orders, which are the rules and procedure which we use in the standing committees, is there anything to the effect that a member of the Opposition need be present in order to hear evidence. However, there has been a long-standing practice in this House that was broken this morning by members of the Government. I would like to know if it was the Government House Leader's instruction to those committee chairmen to follow through with that abuse of my privileges in committee or if it was done by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen).


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, let me try to put this in some perspective. I think the Hon. Member for Sudbury (Mr. Frith), who has worked on many committees during the time he has been a Member of Parliament, will know that the premise upon which he bases his proposition is simply not correct. Each committee determines its own rules of procedure subject to Standing Orders which indicate the rules respecting a quorum. Once the quorum is met, each committee can consider, for the purpose of hearing witnesses, who often come long distances at some considerable personal expense, the circumstances under which evidence may be received.
As the Hon. Member knows, there is a system of transcription of all the evidence that is received. This involves the receiving of documents in support of the work of the committee. I fully acknowledge that in some instances arrangements have been made whereby a quorum will be reduced for the purposes of receiving evidence.
I have been here for 10 years and most of that time, unfortunately, has been spent in the Opposition so I know of what I speak. In some instances, there has been some provision that a member of the Opposition will be present in a reduced quorum for the sole purpose of receiving evidence and hearing witnesses. In other instances, that has not been the case at all. The arrangements made within the committee have been silent with respect to any lesser quorum, and in some instances, I am informed, there have been provisions whereby a reduced quorum has been available without any specification as to the political affiliation of any of the members on that reduced quorum.
I have heard what the Hon. Member has said. I think we will have to carry on with the committees on the basis of a mutual respect between Parties. It is a matter of concern to me that if there were to be such a provision, it is conceivable that an opposition Party could hold up the process by simply not appearing on a parliamentary committee. I would not suggest that that would be the case.
The matter has been raised. I am going to look into the situation to see what has been transpiring there. I am glad to take the matter under advisement for the Hon. Member.
I believe that under the provisions of our rules, Hon. Members receive sufficient notice of meetings. In some cases, that notice is 24 hours by agreement within individual committees. After this matter was brought to my attention, I understand that in one committee at least, there was an arrangement made at the suggestion of a member of the New Democratic Party that there be a 24-hour notice given for committee meetings.
Why do we not look at what is happening and see whether or not we can work something out? That is the spirit which I would like to bring to the House and one which I think has been manifested by my responsibilities as Government House Leader up to this point.


Douglas Cockburn Frith: Mr. Speaker, I realize that I will have an opportunity to speak on this entire matter some time later this afternoon. However, I would like to point out to the Hon. Government House Leader (Mr. Hnatyshyn) that the abuse that occurred this morning in the health and welfare standing committee has also been perpetrated in every other committee. Those committees use the same formula that was put forward by the government side. I do not understand for the life of me the paranoia of the Government in this matter.
In 1980, when there was a Liberal majority Government, a majority that was far smaller than the majority of the present Government, we allowed for reduced quorum purposes in committees the wording that a member of the Official Opposition had to be present in order to hear evidence. I did not even go that far this morning. I did not even ask that the Official Opposition be present to hear the evidence; I only suggested that at least a member of an opposition Party need be present in committee to hear the evidence. The Government used the tyranny of its majority to gun down that motion by a vote of 11 to 4. I am told that that occurred not only in my own committee but in other committees as well.
What is the Government's obsession or its paranoia? Is it fearful that the 70 Members of Parliament who sit in opposition will suddenly tie up the business of Government?


Mr. Hnathyshyn:: Mr. Speaker, I am not suggesting that paranoia is the private preserve of any Member on any side of this House. It would be quite a different thing if we were suggesting that henceforth, the membership of only one Party would be allowed to participate in hearing the deliberations. I did say that I would be glad to take the matter under consideration. We are now suggesting that we define some reasonable rules under which evidence may be received by the committees.
Because the resources of the opposition Parties are somewhat limited in terms of numbers, I have taken a number of initiatives to try to make sure that the membership of these committees will be expanded. I worked toward making a concession of which I am proud. We were able to see that the Opposition was over-represented and the Government under-
November 22, 1984

represented on committees. We made sure the opposition Parties will have more members on each committee than should technically be available to them. We have tried to do everything we can to make sure that we will not be stretching the resources of the Opposition.
We have gone along with every suggestion with respect to the composition of these committees. However, I think the Hon. Member will have to admit that there are instances in which a reduced quorum may be advisable in order to get information before a committee. If we can resolve this matter through some form of mutually satisfactory arrangement, that is well and good. I believe it is a matter of balance and I am glad to discuss it further.
I am glad that the Hon. Member raised this issue with me because he is a Member for whom I have a great deal of respect. I know that he would not be spurious in his observations and that he would not try to make a mountain out of a molehill. I am sure he is not trying to do that in this instance.
I am sure that we can arrange our affairs to make sure that the committees co-operate in a reasonably effective manner, that all Members have reasonable notice of the meetings, and that full opportunities are made available to all Members to participate in votes. We would like to make sure that people who come before the parliamentary committees of Canada are not being unduly inconvenienced in terms of time and money. We would like to try to find some reasonable consensus in terms of this small problem.
I appreciate being afforded the opportunity of speaking to this problem, and I appreciate the fact that the Hon. Member for Sudbury raised the matter. I see that he wishes to say something further.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The period for questions and comments is now over. We will resume debate.


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, aside from the, in my view, rather unorthodox and unfair manner in which our Members have been treated in the committees, hardly the way to treat an Opposition that has been reduced to almost symbolic numbers in this country's Parliament-and I shall get back to this-but in case the Government House Leader should leave during my comments, not that I expect to be particularly boring, but he may have other work to do in his office, I would like to point out to the Hon. Member that although he said earlier it was up to each committee to establish its own rules and procedures, although he repeated one of those adages so often used in Parliament, he will have to admit it is a strange coincidence that in every single committee, there was this same uniform resistance on the part of Government Members. In one of the other committees where I was sitting this morning, we had to argue for forty-five minutes and we had to retreat before a vote. I must say all this is very odd, and I think it is more than a coincidence.
Parliamentary Reform
As your backbencher mentioned earlier, this also happened on the Committee on Communications and Culture. Another coincidence, of course. If the Government House Leader intends to look into this matter, as he said, I wish he would examine the coincidence factor as well.
Mr. Speaker, I would say that aside from this unfortunate incident on which I intend to elaborate later on, in principle we have no objection to the creation of a special committee or task force on the reform of the House. We believe it is essential, and in fact it has been done at regular intervals. Your humble servant who has been sitting in the House since 1968 has seen a succession of such committees, which have examined the Standing Orders of the House and parliamentary procedure with a great deal of competence and made many recommendations, all of which has helped to make this institution what it is today.
We cannot but wholeheartedly agree with this Government's decision to take the same route as its Liberal predecessor and in turn establish a task force to examine the Standing Orders and procedures of the House.
Hon. Members will recall that in the previous Parliament, a very active committee chaired by the Member for Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle, Mr. Tom Lefebvre, who can now be referred to by name since he is sitting in the other place, sent several reports in succession to this House reflecting the work done by his committee.
We owe them our congratulations and we can only hope that the new committee will show as much zeal in dealing with the various problems that await it and that it will be able to submit to the House a series of recommendations that are as sound as the work done by the committee I just mentioned.
However, Mr. Speaker, I may say that much has already been done, especially during the last two or three years, and I hope that the new committee will not try to re-invent the wheel. It would, on the other hand, do well to take a closer look at some of the Standing Orders that require clarification.
I have had the pleasure of sitting in the same chair as you, Mr. Speaker, and trying to interpret the Standing Orders in the course of the debate, as situations arose. I must admit that over the years, the Standing Orders have been clarified and are becoming easier to understand and generally speaking, easy to interpret, but. . . and I am afraid that is the extent of my euphoria with respect to the Standing Orders. There is often a regrettable lack of precision, and I imagine committee members will do well to consult the Clerks at the Table, who are well versed in the intricacies of the Standing Orders and could certainly point out to the Committee some of the points that have created problems for your predecessors in the Chair, Mr. Speaker. I think you yourself as well as the new Speaker should be asked to appear before the Committee. The only problem is, of course, that you, Mr. Speaker and your col-

November 22, 1984
Parliamentary Reform
leagues may have to spend some time reading up on past procedure and precedents to be able to understand what was wrong with the Standing Orders.
In any case, the Clerks, whose position in Parliament is less precarious than that of an elected Member, would certainly be able to make a contribution if asked to take part in the Committee's proceedings.
I hope the Committee will be an active one that will make specific recommendations, and without wishing to be nasty, Mr. Speaker, I hope the Committee will not spend its time studying and meditating, because I would not want it to follow the Government's example, which since the beginning of this session has had only one answer to the problems that have been put before it: We will study the matter.
In any case, I hope that after the short time the Committee will be allowed to study the various issues, it will be able to report to the House next June with some specific recommendations.
Personally, I have a few suggestions to make concerning the Committee's mandate. I noticed that one of the first points the Task Force will be expected to deal with is an examination of the Permanent and Provisional Standing Orders. I would recommend that the Task Force do everything in its power to maintain the new parliamentary calendar, which is established on an annual basis so that all Members know where they are with respect to leave periods and when they can be in their ridings.
Hon. Members who have been sitting in the House for a number of years will remember that it took many Members years of crusading to get this permanent parliamentary calendar. If I had only one recommendation to make to the Committee, it would be to maintain this practice, which is a great convenience to all Members.
Another point which I feel should be brought to the attention of Task Force members is the body of measures concerning the consideration of the Estimates, both in committee and in the House of Commons. Hon. Members who are now on the government benches will recall-and I heard them when I was on the other side of the House-that they were forever complaining about the way the estimates were considered in committee and in the House of Commons. For instance, they had a lot to say against the fact that the committee was forced to refer the estimates back to the House by a given date, whether its study was completed or not, so Members of the then Opposition, now sitting across the floor, can still remember that they were left fuming.
I also recall that, on the last supply day when the House is called upon to vote huge amounts in a hurry, the Hon. Member for Edmonton West, Mr. Marcel Lambert, would invariably rise on a point of order to tell the House how ridiculous he thought that practice was and how he would have liked to change it. Now that all those who used to criticize that
practice for the consideration of supply are on the other side with a majority, perhaps we can expect that changes will indeed be made to the manner in which the estimates are examined, and that is something we will be watching closely in committee.
Mr. Speaker, I notice as well that one of the points which will come under the scrutiny of the committee is the role of private Members, those whom we commonly call backbenchers. For years now, both here and outside on city streets, everybody has been saying that we must upgrade the role of Member. Those of my colleagues who have been here for a few years and were never appointed to Cabinet readily understand that the role of a Member has to be something more than being only a messenger between the electorate and the government. Unfortunately, often as a result of the limited resources at the disposal of Members, quite a few of them did very little besides acting as messengers. Now that we have many new Members sitting on the other side of the House, hopefully the committee will make sure that backbenchers on the government side will be given adequate means to be more than rubber stamps called upon to support government policies. To do that, we will have to enhance the role of Member and make it more challenging, keeping in mind the fact that this year there are ... I am told that nearly 134 new Members sit in the House for the first time in this Parliament.
I would also suggest that the committee consider the fact that a long time ago-my God, more than 20 years, we have to go back to 1958 when the parliamentary Opposition was practically reduced to a rump, as it is now. It seems essential to me that the Members who will examine the Standing Orders realize that the Opposition will find it more difficult to discharge its responsibilities, and that the committee Members do everything in their power to give the Opposition adequate means to defend the views of those who do not necessarily endorse every government initiative. We believe that the government Members will do their best to introduce good legislation over the years. That is exactly what we in the Liberal Party did when we were on the opposite side of the House. Still, time will undoubtedly come when the Opposition will have to stand up and oppose. As I recall, it was Mr. Winston Churchill who said that the role of the Opposition is to oppose. We have no intention of acting inconsiderately, but should we ever have to show our opposition, we would like to have the proper tools at our disposal.
I am thinking of adequate research budgets as one example. Another example would be a guaranteed quorum for the Opposition on standing committees of the House, which would solve the problem we had this morning and yesterday when the committees were struck. It seems to me that the Task Force should be able to provide a satisfactory solution to all these problems.
I would now like to discuss another aspect of the mandate given this special committee, and it concerns the accountabili-
November 22, 1984

ty of Ministers. I feel that even in this pristine Parliament, it may be one of the areas where there is the most room for improvement. Our brand new Cabinet already seems to have trouble answering questions. This Government is certainly not at its most accountable during question period. I remember that when our Conservative friends were on this side of the House, they often accused the Liberal Ministers of not answering the questions and of being evasive. However, if I compare the situation then with what it is today, I think the previous Government certainly has a better record. Ministers will have to start answering questions and providing the information the public is demanding, instead of hiding behind a veil of secrecy. This is also something the Committee could examine. Ministers will also have to stop gagging civil servants. They will have to lift this veil of secrecy.
With only a few minutes left, I would like to get back to the point that concerns us most, namely part (g) of the Committee's mandate which says that the Committee will be asked to review the procedures and powers of Committees of the House of Commons. Well, a lot of changes will have to be made, considering the mood in the Official Opposition yesterday and today. 1 can also inform my hon. friend the Government House Leader that the New Democratic Party Members are not very happy either. We are very concerned about the government's attitude to committee membership. Refusing to guarantee the Opposition membership on a minimum quorum smacks of dictatorship on the part of a Government with this kind of massive majority. We think it should be a matter of principle, and I think Hon. Members will have to admit that this is one of those unwritten rules. We feel perfectly entitled to demand that the Government guarantee the Opposition a place on minimum quorums in committees, because when we were on the other side of the House, the Official Opposition had that privilege, and moreover, Mr. Speaker, in committee it was always customary to recognize as the lead-off speaker a Member of the Official Opposition. It was said:
We said that lead-off speaker will always be from the Official Opposition. That is the way the Liberals used to treat the Official Opposition and the New Democratic Party when we formed the government. At no time were we heavy-handed in striking committees.
The most ludicrous arguments were used this morning, for example, by a large majority in the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture. One Hon. Member-and I will excuse him because he is a new Member of Parliament-said, "We do not want to grant you this post because we do not want to run the risk that the Opposition would boycott a meeting". Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, that he was afraid we would boycott? Certainly, the Hon. Member shows an ignorance of what has been happening here. I have never known the Official Opposition to boycott a committee meeting in which it would hear witnesses. Who would gain when
Parliamentary Reform
witnesses come from both ends of this country, spending taxpayers' dollars to do so, if we, as the Official Opposition, boycotted the meeting? We would look silly. We could not win in the eyes of the public. No Official Opposition, not even the Tories, would dare do that. Why would these motives be imputed to us? Why should we do such a silly thing?
We thought it strange that government members of that particular committee this morning had that sort of inferiority complex, being such a giant majority with 211 Members of Parliament. It is amazing that they would be afraid of being defeated by one or two opposition Members.

Mr. Speaker, we even felt that Government Members on several committees were showing a kind of siege mentality, as though they were afraid the tiny number of Opposition Members on committee might gang up on them!
I was astonished to hear one excuse proferred by Members who voted down guarantees that have always existed for the Opposition-it was for the sake of efficiency. The thought behind this was, of course, that the Opposition might stay away from a number of committee meetings, which would delay the proceedings, I imagine, and for the sake of efficiency, they had to make sure the Government could proceed.
I still think this shows a certain contempt for the democratic process. Let Parliament be efficient, but let us not expect the Government to be as efficient as the private sector. God forbid!


An Hon. Member:: Why not?


Jacques Guilbault: The newly elected Member says: Why not? When he has been in the House for a while, the Hon. Member will realize that this is not the place to engage in bulldozing. The House is an exponent of democracy. And maybe he will understand some day when he is on this side of the House, that what is left to the Opposition is the right to speak and the right to be heard.
We can assume that the Official Opposition will not win many votes in this Parliament. In think that is pretty obvious. However, the Opposition must have the assurance that it can express here in the House the views of those who do not agree with certain Government policies.
I think that this desire to take away the Opposition's traditional rights and guarantees for the so-called sake of efficiency shows contempt for the democratic process.
They said: Well, it is about time changes were made. Traditional rights or not, out they go. They said: In the last election, Canadians voted for change, and the Opposition does not seem to understand that. Well, I disagree!
The kind of change Canadians wanted was certainly not a change from the generosity we showed the Opposition when we were in power. I am sure that is not the kind of change Canadians wanted. They may have wanted change in other areas, and we shall see whether the Government can deliver,

November 22, 1984
Parliamentary Reform
it, but they certainly did not want any changes in the democratic guarantees that were always maintained by the Liberal Party of Canada when we formed the majority in the House.
1 also found appalling the refusal in many committees to let the lead-off speaker be a Member of the Official Opposition. [English]
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, may I say that in no way are we going to accept this situation. We are happy that the Government House Leader has indicated he is going to look into it. We hope he comes up with a more reasonable proposal. In order to show our deep dissatisfaction with what has happened over the past few days, on behalf of my Party I would like to move an amendment to the motion which was put forward by the Hon. House Leader. The amendment is as follows:
That the motion be amended by adding the following words:
"And that it be an instruction to the committee that it shall include in each
report its assessment of the effects of its recommendations on the role and the
rights of the Opposition".


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions or comments?


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to comment on the Hon. Member's speech because he has sat in the chair of this House and I think it is very appropriate that he has put forward this amendment. When the Conservative Party was the Official Opposition, they always demanded that there be at least one member of their Party present in committee even for the taking of testimony. Yesterday, they smothered both opposition Parties and rejected the requirement that there must be an opposition member present for the taking of testimony. I assume from what the Hon. Member has said, that the same thing happened in many other committees.
Obviously we do not have too many Members on this side of the House. If it is not possible for us to be in a committee meeting, if meetings are called on short notice, then you end up with only Conservative Members in the committee. People are making a formal presentation to a formal committee of the House of Commons and there may be no representation from the Opposition there. The brief is presented to the committee as if it were an all-Party situation, when in fact it is not. When we put forward a motion to have representation from the Opposition at those times, we ended up with its being voted down.
I was glad to see that the Government House Leader suggested that this was not an organized matter, and the Parliamentary Secretary indicated as much in committee today, and that it was being done in every committee. In fact, in every committee of which I have heard they actually did that. So it seems to me that the instruction was either sent out by the Government House Leader or by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen), who is supposed to be the enforcer of this Government. I really wonder what is taking place over there.
Even more disconcerting is the question of a quorum. Whenever a vote is being taken or whenever a Bill is being studied
clause by clause, a quorum is required, which in our committee would be eight members, but not necessarily including an opposition member. I have been around here for 16 years and I have never seen a vote taken in committee when there was no representative from the Official Opposition. Yet when the motion was put in our committee that there be present at least one opposition member from either Party, it was voted down. The Government House Leader says, "Well, just don't show up and the committee will not go on". That will not happen in the Standing Committee on Agriculture because they already voted it down, saying there did not have to be an opposition member present. I think this matter really has to be dealt with by the House Leader, otherwise the whole committee procedure just becomes a committee of the Tory caucus.


Douglas Cockburn Frith: Dictatorship.


Maurice Brydon Foster: I know that the Hon. Member who is going to chair this committee, had he been on this side of the House when we were in government and had we tried to muzzle the Opposition like this, would never have accepted it. He would have been a very strong opponent. That is why I think the amendment of the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault) is a good one. It defends the rights of the Opposition.
I hope the Government House Leader will review this situation and send instructions to parliamentary secretaries and various Ministers who enforce the Government's position on these committees not to proceed in these areas without a member of the opposition being present. The bells rang night and day for two weeks in this House because the Speaker would not take a vote without opposition members being present. If that is not the most glaring example of the need for opposition members to be present for a vote, I do not know what is. The Government has to back down on the procedure it has adopted and be more concerned about the rights of the Opposition as they were when in Opposition. We cannot move ahead with legislation in committee without adequate representation from the opposition Parties.
The Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques has had broad experience in this place; he has been a Member since 1968. Has he in that time ever seen the kind of procedure I have described carried out here?


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, it is very evident that at no time over the 16 years 1 have been here have 1 ever seen anything like this. The Government House Leader was right when he said it is up to each committee to set up certain rules. The rules governing each committee are not all the same. They vary slightly one from to the other. But one thing is certain: we have never seen a move like this to keep the Opposition from having any power in committee.
This morning in the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture we went into the background of the motion to set up the minimum quorum in the last Parliament. We found it was a very simple motion which said that the committee is authorized to hear witnesses when there is no quorum.
November 22, 1984


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: That is exactly what this is.


Jacques Guilbault: No, 1 remember having chaired this committee years back and there was a requirement for a minimum quorum of five members including one from the Opposition. There was even a rule that the Opposition was always the lead-off speaker. So it varies from committee to committee. However, one thing that has not varied in the past two days, is the voting down of every attempt by every Member who has tried to put forward something in each of those committees. That has not been varied, it has been constant from one committee to the other. It is a very funny coincidence, a very heavy coincidence. If there had been some variance from one to the other, I could live with that because it has been the practice. But we have seen uniformity in looking down at the Opposition. That is what I do not like.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 45, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn)-Financial Institutions-Existence of committee study; the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. All-mand)-Employment-Youth Training Option Program, (b) Government's position; the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillin-gate (Mr. Baker)-Unemployment Insurance-Newfoundland fishermen-Request for Assistance.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Hnatyshyn:
That a Special Committee of the House of Commons to be composed of Mrs. Bourgault and Messrs. Blaikie, Cooper, Ellis, Friesen, McGrath and Ouellet, be appointed to act as a Parliamentary Task Force on the Reform of the House of Commons to examine the powers, procedures, practices, organization and facilities of the House of Commons, bearing in mind the balance between the respective constitutional responsiblities and roles of the House of Commons and the Government, such an examination to include, but not be limited to, the following matters:
(a)	the Permanent and Provisional Standing Orders;
(b)	the role of the private Member in the House of Commons;
Parliamentary Reform
(c)	the accountability of Ministers to the House of Commons;
(d)	the legislative process;
(e)	the funding, facilities and staff support services made available to Members of the House of Commons;
if) the administration and management of the House of Commons; and
(g) the procedures and powers of Committees of the House of Commons and
the role and the use of parliamentary task forces;
That the Committee have the power to retain expert, professional, technical and clerical staff;
That the Committee and members of the Committee have the power, when the committee deems it necessary, to adjourn or travel from place to place inside and outside Canada and that, when deemed necessary, the required staff accompany the Committee or members of the Committee, as the case may be;
That all the evidence adduced by the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure and the reports of that Committee as tabled in the House of Commons during the 32nd Parliament be referred to the Committee;
That notwithstanding the usual practices of this House, if the House is not sitting when an interim or final report of the Committee is completed, that the Committee shall report its findings by depositing its report with the Clerk of the House and that it shall thereupon be deemed to have been laid upon the Table;
That the Committee be authorized to include in its interim and/or final reports drafts of proposed permanent or temporary Standing Orders drawn to give effect, if concurred in by the House, to any permanent or temporary change or changes proposed by the Committee;
That the Committee be authorized to include in its interim and/or final reports recommendations as to the implementation of any reforms proposed in the reports of the Committee;
That Messrs. Penner, Binns, Comeau, Duguay, Jardine, Ravis and Young be appointed as alternate members of the Committee;
That changes in the membership of the Committee be made only pursuant to Standing Order 69(4)(6); and
That the Committee shall report to the House finally no later than June 28, 1985.
And the amendment thereto of Mr. Guilbault (Saint-Jacques) (p. 508).
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I want to deal with three matters, two of them quite briefly, and the other I think is really the question before us.
Let me begin by saying that this morning at eleven o'clock I raised the problem which has taken up much of the attention of the House this afternoon. I did so because I feared it would cause Members to develop a sense that would result in less co-operation. When we started this session, the Government said it wanted co-operation, and I can well understand why. I think it is fair to say that the public of Canada was sickened during the last Parliament by the actions of the Conservative Party. I can well understand that the Conservatives, now in Government, do not want to have happen to them what they inflicted upon the Parliament of Canada during the previous Parliament. I must say that I cannot recall in all of my parliamentary experience, which goes back a long way, an example which comes close to the night that the Tories charged the Speaker's chair.
_


An Hon. Member:: Awful.


Ms. Mitchell:: Shameful.


Mr. Riis:: A black day.
510

November 22, 1984
Parliamentary Reform


Ian Deans: I say that in sorrow because I felt at the time that it set a mood in the House of Commons that resulted in rancor and bitterness which lasted through much of that Parliament. I said so at the time and I say it again. I did not support it and I will never support such a thing. We in this Party will deal with the Government in the appropriate ways with an eye to improving the conditions for people in Canada, but never in such a way as to create a scene that will result in Parliament suffering in the eyes of the public. I can appreciate that the Government wants now to set that behind us and go on from here. The Government House Leader said that he does not look back. He is looking forward to better things, and so am I.
Having said that, I was therefore disappointed this morning when I was informed of the mood that had developed in the committees. I want to make it quite clear that it is not my view that what went on in the committees is a direct breach of the rules of Parliament, because the rules of Parliament are set up in such a way that there is latitude and leeway afforded to committees, as is afforded to the House of Commons. That is necessary in order that changing times and conditions can be accommodated. However, what happened in the committees, as I understand it, was more a breach of the confidence of the committees. It was a misunderstanding, I hope, on both sides. It was not intended to be the heavy hand of the Government coming down on the Opposition, although I can well appreciate that those who were there could have interpreted it that way given that, as my colleague, the Hon. Member for Hum-boldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse), has just indicated, it was a consistent act through every committee. One could not help but come to the conclusion that somewhere in the background someone had orchestrated, or at least advised the Government membership on the committees that that would be an appropriate way to act.
I do want to see the kind of co-operation that others want to see. We will get that kind of co-operation if we are assured that the way in which committees will conduct themselves will be consistent with the way that committees have conducted and deported themselves in the past. My colleague, speaking on behalf of the Official Opposition, has quite clearly set out what some of the problems were. I felt anxious when I was told of those problems and I raised them, both in the House and subsequently with the House Leader privately, in an effort to try to come to grips with them. I am confident that, if the House Leader has any sway over the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen), and I am sure he does, he will be able-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: What does the Deputy Prime Minister have to do with this?


Ian Deans: That is what I am worried about. I am not sure what he has to do with it.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Don't presume the worst. You are too good natured for that.


Ian Deans: I will presume the best, that by tomorrow this matter will have been resolved and that the membership of the
committees will be prepared to deal, as we have always dealt, in a spirit of co-operation and good humour. I will assume that the committees will work effectively together and that the Official Opposition, followed by members of this Party, will be able to participate as we have participated in the past. I will assume that there will be a recognition that, notwithstanding the numbers required for a quorum, the committees ought not to sit on matters of extreme importance without both sides of the House being represented.
I can assure the Government House Leader, and I say this on behalf of my colleagues, that we will not abuse that. We have not abused it in the past and we will certainly not abuse it in the future. We will be there to do our job as we always have been. I would like to say in addition that it is not always the Opposition that is to be blamed when things do not work well. There are times when the government is to be blamed. In the last Parliament, for example, on one occasion in the Agriculture Committee, it was the government members who decided not to show up, therefore thwarting the committee's attempts to hear evidence from the Canadian Dairy Commission on a matter of urgent importance. It was a matter the government did not really want to have heard or to discuss. I think these things must be viewed in perspective. I am confident that by tomorrow morning this matter will be resolved. If it is resolved, as I think it will be, we will go on to develop a better relationship.
With regard to the amendment to the motion, I have sympathy with the intent. However, to be honest, I am hesitant to support it. I am not suggesting that I will not, because I will think about it over the course of the afternoon. I am hesitant to advise support on this matter. It sets out the committee in a "them and us" type of atmosphere. I do not really want to see that happen. I would like to see this committee operating as the last committee operated. We should all work together for the same general good of the institution and the public. If we structure the terms of reference in such a way as to require the committee to take into account in a particular way the effect on the Opposition, rather than the effect on the Members, then I think we may, in one way or another, undermine the ongoing good work of the committee. I suggest that the Official Opposition should consider that.
I think this committee will operate on behalf of all Members. 1 have the utmost confidence in the chairman to be named. I think the chairman of the committee will prove to be a man of considerable insight, as he has always proven to be. I anticipate that he will make sure that he gives the kind of leadership which will pull the committee together to ensure that the committee will deal fairly, openly and reasonably with the problems of Members, not only in the operation of the House itself, but also in terms of how they can best serve the public they are here to represent. Therefore, I am opposed to any inhibition being added to the terms of reference.
As to the task force itself, there is no perfect system. When I spoke the last time we set a committee such as this, I said quite frankly that the parliamentary reform that was most needed at that time was a reform between the ears of the Members. It
November 22, 1984

was not necessarily structural change that was going to alter the way Parliament worked but attitudinal change. To a large degree, that is part of what I said just a moment ago about the committee structure and the way committees can be set up. If we are going to require that this committee study matters as wide-ranging as the terms of reference will permit, we need an understanding from the Government, which we did not get from the last government, that if the committee sees fit to recommend unanimously that certain things should occur, the Government must undertake the obligation to implement those things.
There is no point in our going through the exercise over and over again in an attempt to find that Utopian situation that will make everything work. It will never be that way. However, if those Members appointed to this committee do their job well and offer unanimous or near unanimous recommendations to the House which represent the views of both Government and Opposition, then there must be a clear understanding that the Government will not place those recommendations on a shelf to gather dust and become fodder for yet another study after the next election. I say that on my behalf and I hope that of the chairman and members of the committee, because I am sure that that is what they want.
Let me also say a few words about the 11 reports that came from the previous committee. That committee worked extremely hard. At one time I was the vice-chairman and we worked very hard in trying to find a compromise that would satisfactorily recognize the different roles between Government and Opposition while also guaranteeing equal access to all Members of Parliament to the institution itself. I believe that we did a very good job on that committee. Quite frankly, those 11 reports represent many hours of work and input from all sectors of the economy and the public of Canada as well as from the Members themselves.
Perhaps it will be necessary for the task force to review those recommendations in light of the new parliamentary experience. However, I hope it will not be necessary, nor can I imagine its being of any use for the task force to go back over all the old ground again. It has been gone over a number of times, the last time being only a couple of years ago.
Perhaps after a relatively speedy review of those recommendations has been made-even if that is necessary-the task force can indicate whether implementation, appropriate or otherwise, can be made. It could then tackle the new areas that need to be considered.
I suggest that there are two matters that must be dealt with if we are going to improve the operations of Parliament. First, we must ensure that Members of Parliament do in fact have access to all of the structure of Parliament and that they are able to assure themselves and their constituents that they are functioning on the most up to date and best possible information base. It may be necessary to review that sometimes attempted but seldom successful process of requiring the Crown to place more of the documentation and background
Parliamentary Reform
material respecting the decision-making process before Parliament. I know that the Government House Leader probably shares with me the view that it is important, for the purpose of having the public understand what we do, that that access be readily available. It should not be necessary for there to be a requirement to use the freedom of information process to get information that should be made available to us in any event. I hope the task force will consider that as it conducts its deliberations.
I also believe that it should bear in mind that in order to ensure an orderly process in the affairs of the country, that the system of Parliament must be protected.
In spite of what the public may think as a result of viewing us from time to time, Parliament works quite well and does provide the checks and balances. While it does not always provide all the information, it does afford an opportunity for checks and balances to exist.
Recently I spoke at a conference at which I was describing the role of the Opposition. For many people, the role of the Opposition is somewhat of an enigma. It is a role that is not easily understood. I was attempting to explain that the role of the Opposition is in fact to oppose, albeit constructively wherever possible, but by whatever means available.
Although the Opposition may be seen to be obstructionist from time to time, it is absolutely necessary to ensure that a government, particularly one with a large majority, does not proceed at a rate faster than the public is able to absorb. Its role is to ensure that as change is proposed, there is ample opportunity for input not only from Members of Parliament or through Members of Parliament but from the various groups and individuals who have a concern for what is happening. Therefore, it is the Opposition's role from time to time to stall the government in order to make sure that the information that is necessary for those who are not in Parliament to reach learned decisions is able to reach them. Once the Opposition is able and has the time to review that information, it can place those concerns back into the process or state caveats that it feels are necessary from time to time.
I know it frustrates the Government when its measures are held up for reasons that are not immediately evident. But that right and obligation to be able to slow the process down is a vital part of the parliamentary system.
I have said to some people that there is no doubt that they may get angry when we delay legislation which they want passed, but they should remember that as they want that legislation passed, there are others in society who want it held up at least temporarily because it may be of some detriment to them. Frequently the shoe fits on the other foot. People must recognize that. I hope that the task force, through its chairman, will take this into account as it contemplates changes either to the Standing Orders or to the procedures of Parliament.
It should remember that there are times when it appears that the Opposition is delaying a measure that is of very little consequence. While the explanation for that delay may not be

November 22, 1984
Parliamentary Reform
readily understood, there is a reason. A reason for this delay in the past has been that the next piece of legislation or one further down the list is particularly contentious in nature. Therefore, it is an attempt to allow time for more input into the contentious legislation.
This is all part of the planning in the day-to-day operations of the House of Commons. It is an example of the collective planning we do in this caucus and what was done collectively in the Conservative caucus when they were in Opposition. No doubt, it is an example of what is done in the Liberal caucus. This process must be understood by Members on both sides so that we do not undermine Parliament by leaving the impression that such a delay tactic is destroying the parliamentary process, when in fact it strengthens it.
The problem as I have seen it in my time here is that parliamentarians-next to certain jaundiced journalists perhaps-are our own worst enemy. We do not defend the system. We do not defend Parliament from the criticism that is unjustified and unwarranted. While we can be justifiably criticized for a number of things that we do, I do not think it serves us well as Members of Parliament to become part of the uneducated, carping criticism that is unfounded.
I say to new Members in particular, but also to some Members who have been here before, that it is you and I who are the custodians of the process. We must understand and learn the process. We must understand how it works and why certain things are done so that when we are challenged with questions about why there are delays or problems within the process, we can at least understand how the process works and why it may be necessary for Members to use that process on various occasions to make sure that everyone in Canada can have proper access to Parliament and to the Government.
I have sat here on many occasions when members of the last government-and I have sat in Queen's Park under Conservative governments-wanted to ram things through. I can remember saying on numbers of occasions that it would be wrong, that a gestation period was required, that there were people who had not yet become aware of the importance of the legislative change, and that as they become aware of it they would want to have input into it, and that time must be taken in reviewing and considering it. Yet government members went ahead and pushed it through anyway because they had a narrow view. I am not necessarily suggesting that they were wrong, but they had a somewhat narrow view and could not see the broader implications of what they were doing. And it was not six months before they were back changing it. I urge upon Hon. Members, particularly those who sit on the committee, to keep this in mind as they go through the processes of deciding what ought to be and what ought not to be allowed within the parliamentary process here.
I see Mr. Speaker indicating that I do not have much more time remaining. I happen to know that the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre will ask me a question, which will permit me to complete my remarks.


Mrs. Finestone:: Mr. Speaker, I was listening to what the Hon. Member said about how the process works. His concern reflects very much the concerns which I felt as I went as a first-time participant to a meeting of the organizing committee for the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs. I should like the House to understand what a sense of sadness I felt as a first-time participant when I realized I was both a participant and a witness to an absolute mockery of the democratic process.
There is a statement indicating that a democracy is measured by the way it treats its minorities. I sincerely hope that the Government will take into consideration the question of whether in this instance the minorities are the judge of how the Government will handle its legislation.
Here in what I have been calling, as I watch it unfold, the theatre of the absurd, I thought that was one thing and that it was a good public show. However, I was really anxious to participate in what I consider to be real democracy at work and the real role and responsibility of government. I was looking forward to meeting my colleagues in a spirit of collegi-ality and to addressing pressing issues in today's society with a sense of fairness and equity, with the knowledge that justice would be heard and that we would be together acting in the best interests of all Canadians. It is a sad day when I stand here to say that I was dreadfully disappointed. I sincerely hope the matter will see some redress from the Leader across the way. I believe it was Talleyrand who said that it is not a crime, it is just a mistake. I sincerely hope he looks at this as a genuine mistake, because I did not find it a farce and I would like very much to see the whole situation rectified.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) has said very elegantly and eloquently what I frankly felt about it. I think it posed a problem. There is no doubt about that. I said that at the beginning of my comments. However, I would suggest to her, through the Chair, that not all the real work of Parliament is done in committees. I want to make that point, which I hope is important. Some of the real work of Parliament is done in committees, but not all of it. It is in this Chamber that Members have an opportunity to discuss en masse their concerns. I do not want ever to shift the focus of responsibility so totally from the Chamber of the House of Commons to the committee system. The committee system is good, and if allowed to work well-and I hope it will be after this misunderstanding is corrected-it will serve the public in the way it was intended. I believe the Chamber itself is an important part of the democratic political process and must be maintained with opportunity.
I should like to add one comment, which I know the Hon. Member is interested in hearing although she did not raise it directly. I am concerned about another aspect of Members' work, that is, operations within the constituencies. It has been clear to me over the course of what is nearly the last five years that the work-load of Members in their constituencies has risen dramatically. The requirements of Members to find ways to solve sometimes difficult and sometimes not so difficult
November 22, 1984

problems have grown by leaps and bounds. As the committee deliberates I would ask it to look at the problems now confronting those who work on our behalf in our constituencies. I know the committee intends to look at the problems of those working on our behalf on Parliament Hill, but I beg it to spend some time looking seriously at the problems in constituencies to know how we can better serve our constituents and ease the work-load of constituency assistants.
I never cease to be amazed that my constituency assistant stays in that job. It has to be the most onerous of tasks. It is heart-rending. It requires tremendous physical, mental and emotional capacity. It is paid pitifully. As well, that single individual, particularly in urban areas, is required to work countless extra hours without any additional help. The chairman of the committee in his early deliberations should ask it to look at this situation which has been allowed to arise to see if there is a way to give assistance to the assistants so that we do not overburden very dedicated individuals who are underpaid and overworked and who are the front-line troops in the ongoing service of constituencies. They are the ones who five, six and seven days a week, ten twelve and fourteen hours per day, are meeting and dealing with the problems face to face. While we may have some oversight responsibility in many of them, we do not have to see the agony as much as constituency assistants do. I ask the chairman to consider that too.


Mr. McGrath:: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans). He was a very distinguished member of the last special committee. Indeed, he was vice-chairman of that committee. He will be aware of the matter I am about to raise, although he omitted to include it in his remarks. The special committee in the last House was always very careful or very diligent to resist any suggestion that it set itself up as a judge of how its own recommendations were working. It felt that that was the role of the House or of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization. The Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault) who moved the amendment did not have the advantage of being a member of the committee. If he had been, he would have known that the committee, quite rightly and quite wisely, resisted any attempt-and there were suggestions that it do so officially and unofficially-to judge how its own recommendations were working over that two-year period. 1 would suggest with great respect that the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques who moved the amendment should take that into account.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. I agree with the Member for Saint-Jacques, (Mr. Guilbault). If I understood it correctly, the amendment was drafted more in frustration over the events of yesterday and today than with the intention of being an inhibitant. I feel confident that if the Government said that it will make things work as they always have, this would not be necessary. The Member is absolutely right in saying that the committee was not, nor should it be, the judge of whether its recommendations are right. That is up to the House. That is up to us once they are in place. That is
Parliamentary Reform
why there was an opportunity provided in the report for a debate on the recommendations, a debate which will not now take place, but which nevertheless has been pre-empted by the debate we are having today.


Mr. Kaplan:: Mr. Speaker, I can certainly agree with the concerns expressed by the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) about the importance of taking proper interest in the work of assistants in our constituencies. I wonder if he is aware, on the subject of the amendments put forward by members of my Party, of the erosion of the rights of the Opposition that has already begun in the short life of this Parliament with the policy of government members to change the longstanding traditional rules for quorums in committees on hearing witnesses. It has been the practice in all the Parliaments that I can remember, at least the last six, that when a full quorum is not present, the committee can sit with fewer members provided that opposition Parties are represented.
I have just come from a meeting of the Justice Committee in which that traditional and longstanding right of the Opposition has been removed. The Committee can now meet without a quorum in the absence of members of opposition Parties. I do not know if the Hon. Member was aware of that because it just happened while he was on his feet. I would like to ask him how he feels about that.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member should not mention what goes on in a committee unless it is at the report stage.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I am not calling on the House to act on what happened in the Committee. I recognize that the Chair would not presume to do that. I am talking now about a practice of a Government with so large a majority that it should comfortably be prepared to recognize the traditional rights of the Opposition in the same way that they have been in the past. It is in fact taking steps at each committee to exclude the Opposition and to upset traditional rights. Does the Hon. Member know that?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Could I ask the Hon. Member to be brief in his answer, please?


Ian Deans: As you know, Mr. Speaker, I am always brief. 1 was aware of that in other committees, although I was not aware of it happening in the Justice Committee. I just know that the Government House Leader is going to rise and say that it has stopped.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The time for questions and comments is now over. We shall now resume debate on the amendments.


Douglas Cockburn Frith: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to see that the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) has taken the opportunity to remain here this afternoon to listen to the viewpoints put forward by members of the Opposition. I know he has just briefly gone out for refreshments. As chairman of the committee that is being struck here today, he will have to defend not only the rights of

November 22, 1984
Parliamentary Reform
Members on the government side, but, more important, we will have to take into consideration the rights of members of the Opposition.
There was a time when Members of Parliament could arrive on the Hill with special interests, which in some cases did not lie within parliamentary procedure. I must confess that I was one of those individuals. During my years as a Member on the government side, my interests were taken up largely with my duties as a parliamentary secretary in addition to my role as chairman of a parliamentary task force on pension reform. As a result, in my confession here today, I have to admit that I did not take much time to learn the rules that are outlined in this little book called Standing Orders.
I was fortunate because I was part of a political Party that respected the rights of every individual Member of Parliament.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Douglas Cockburn Frith: Over those four to five years in committee-


Paul Wyatt Dick: Even you are laughing.


Douglas Cockburn Frith: I might be laughing right now, but I can assure Members opposite that what happened to me this morning in the Standing Committee on Health and Welfare was no laughing matter. As a matter of fact, it struck at me. Most Members of this House realize that I rarely lose my temper. If I am not mistaken, this was the first time in my five years in Parliament that I have ever lost my temper in committee. I felt that my rights had been abused so badly by the majority presence of the Conservative Members of Parliament on that committee that I had no recourse but to stomp out of the committee.
I mentioned before that there was a time when you did not have to become a procedural expert. After the happenings of yesterday and today in various committees other than the Health and Welfare Committee, everybody on the Opposition side will have to become well versed in the rules and procedures of this House. This is mainly because there seems to be a concerted attempt being made by the Conservative Government.
I respect the attitude that the Government House Leader has always taken toward this House. I am not sure that it was a directive issued by him. Certainly I suspect that the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen), as in fact is evident, issued directives to each of the committee chairmen to remove one of the essential rights that we have always had in committee, that when evidence was heard there had to be a member of the opposition. Parties present to preserve the right of democracy.
I want to read something because since this morning I understand that, from a procedural standpoint I have been on very weak ground. The Standing Orders do not indicate that there is any rule that would require the presence of an opposition member when evidence is to be heard. I want to have placed on the record the fact that at this morning's committee meeting, I read into the record the same motion that was presented to that committee in 1980 when it was
being formed. In that motion the then government recognized the requirement that a person form the Official Opposition needs to be present in order to hear evidence. This morning I did not even ask for the right that the Official Opposition be present. I just asked for the right that a member of the Opposition be present for the hearing of evidence. The majority Conservative Government, for whatever reasons or whatever paranoia, decided on a unanimous vote of the committee to reverse that long-standing tradition in this House.
I want to read something into the record that was aid by a former Member of this House, Mr. Stanley Knowles, who now sits at the Table. Here is what he said about the role of an Opposition:
It is the opposition's right to insist at all times on the full protection of the rules of debate. The government is entitled to that same protection, but in addition it has its majority with which to establish its will.
A majority of 211 seats is a pretty powerful weapon. It is powerful enough in its own merit not to go the added step of removing the rights of a minority, namely, those of the Official Opposition. He went on:
The opposition has only the rules for its protection, hence the authorities on parliamentary procedure emphasize the great importance to the opposition of the only protection it has, the protection of the rules.
I want to talk a bit about those rules. I have learned a lot in the last three and a half hours. I went to the Library and picked up a book by Erskine May. This should be informative to the newer Members of Parliament, and it was an interesting exercise for me today. I wanted to find out exactly how these rules and regulations come about that dictate the manner in which we operate this Parliament. Here is what Erskine May had to say about the parliamentary rules. A lot of it is written and even more is what is called unwritten procedure. I quote from page 209:
On its smaller scale, the study of English parliamentary procedure presents the same difficulty as the study of English law in that its rules are not covered by any comprehensive and authoritative code. It is true that in both Houses one portion of procedure-private business, which is concerned with local and personal legislation-
On the whole, a great many of the procedures which dictate the conduct of Members of Parliament, whether here in the House of Commons or in committee, are based on what is called unwritten procedure. Let me read into the record a passage from page 215 of that same book. This passage deals with the historical relation between practice and the Standing Orders. It reads as follows:
It cannot be denied that there is a marked contrast in spirit between the historical practice of the House of Commons and its modern standing orders. That practice dates from a time when the Commons regarded themselves as in opposition to the Crown and the executive, and their forms and rules were largely devised to delay and temporise.
It goes on to indicate that over the years, the executive has tended to enhance its role in the parliamentary process and therefore it became even more important that the rules and procedures be adapted so that we as Members of Parliament could ensure that the rights and the voices of minority groups could be heard in Parliament.
November 22, 1984

I would like to recount to Hon. Members opposite something that was said by a man for whom I had a great deal of respect in the last Parliament, a man who passed away. He was the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton, the Hon. Walter Baker. When he was the President of the Privy Council and Leader of the Government in the House, he put forward in November 1979 a position paper entitled The Reform of Parliament. About the committee structure, he said that the following proposals were intended to give committees some investigative initiative, provide more staff resources and stabilize memberships by reducing them. A mild restraint was placed on the process of initiating investigations to prevent a multiplicity of studies at any one time.
He went on to say that it should be noted that the committees' role is expanded to improve the accountability of Government-that was one concept that he had in mind-and not to give committees executive functions. He went on to indicate that committees may hold serious investigations that are against the will of the Government. This is not at present possible.
How can a Party, which, some five short years ago, had in its midst a man with that kind of vision of what parliamentary procedures should be all about, reverse itself completely in the last two days and, through its parliamentary majority, impose its will upon the Opposition in Parliament? I might want to remind Hon. Members that the Opposition numbers only 70 Members versus 211 government members. If we are looking at parliamentary reform, surely some of the first things that should be looked at are changes to the Standing Orders that would prevent the abuse of my rights as a parliamentarian, such as the abuse which occurred to me in committee today.
The Government House Leader indicated earlier today in response to a question that I asked of him that he would be willing to investigate this matter. I do not think an investigation will be enough. What will be required is a complete reversal of the passage of those motions which were passed not only in the standing committee which I represent this morning but in all standing committees, with one exception. I understand that one committee bucked the trend today at 3.30 p.m., probably as a result of the pressures put on its committee chairman and the cries of outrage that have been heard since the meetings at 9.30 this morning. I understand that this afternoon, the Employment and Immigration Committee refused to pass a motion which would have allowed the committee to sit without representation from opposition Parties. I think the Member of Parliament from Calgary deserves credit for having bucked the directive of the Hon. Member for Yukon by allowing Members of the Opposition at least the privilege of being heard.
I would like to return to the government position paper written in 1979 by the then President of the Privy Council. He said therein that a mild restraint would be placed on these reforms by putting a caveat limiting the number of committees that could be struck at any one time. That the motion was put that committees could hear evidence without the presence of an opposition member means in essence that every one of those
Parliamentary Reform
committees can now strike up a committee of four members of the Conservative Party to travel across the country.
In essence, we have created a system in which abuse is now possible. There could be a whole series of Conservative task forces travelling across the country hearing evidence without any representation by a member of an opposition Party. I am not suggesting that the Government would be crazy enough to try that. The point is that we should never allow motions to be placed on the minutes of committees that would allow that to happen.
Surely, one of the primary functions that will be required of you, Mr. Speaker, and of others in the chair, will be to protect the minority rights in this Parliament. The Chair surely understands that when there is a massive majority of 211 government Members of Parliament facing a puny Opposition of only 70 Members, it will be required that the 70 of us spend most of our time in this House, or at best 200 yards from this House, working and doing the job that an Official Opposition member should be doing in committee. If this motion is allowed to stand, I think we will see an abuse of the system by the majority Government. There will be very little opportunity, I can assure you, for members of the Liberal Party to travel outside of Ottawa to hear evidence.
I would also suggest, Mr. Speaker, that I know that no one Government has a monopoly on its members. The Hon. Member from British Columbia had the pleasure of being the vice-chairman of one of our task forces. When we were a majority Government, there were times when we invited members of the Opposition not only to be there to hear evidence but to be vice-chairmen of some of these committees. During this morning's procedure, I entertained no thought of suggesting that one of us might want to be a vice-chairman of a standing committee. I knew, simply by seeing the gleam in the eyes of government members caused by what they were about to do to me, that there was no sense in even advocating the elevation of an opposition member to the position of vice-chairman of a committee.
The Hon. Member for St. John's East has the respect of Members of Parliament on all sides of the House. I would hope that one of the things he would do as Chairman of this committee is to ensure in even more detail the right of the minority in Parliament to establish itself. I expect the Hon. Member to do that.
As I mentioned earlier, I have no intention of taking up the full 20 minutes. However, I hope that the Government House Leader, and if not the Government House Leader then the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), will issue a directive to each one of those committee chairmen to reverse the decisions that were made today and return to the opposition Parties the right to be present when evidence is heard.
In an esoteric sense, this is not a prime concern of only the Official Opposition. I am not concerned only because 1 am worried about what that decision means to the Liberal Party or to the New Democratic Party. My concern is for the groups that will appear before our committees.

November 22, 1984
Parliamentary Reform
Let me use a very absurd example. I notice that the Hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) has left the House. However, let us assume that the Government is following some of the directions that were outlined in the economic statement made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson). Let us assume that the Government desired to make cut-backs to the social service programs of the country. As a result of that, let us say that a committee was empowered to hear evidence. It is quite possible that some poor person who would be adversely affected by those kinds of cuts would come before the committee, and because the rule states that no member of the Opposition need be present to hear the evidence, find himself being questioned by only four Conservative Members of Parliament, none of whom would solicit viewpoints from him that would tend to embarrass the government position. That is the abuse that becomes possible when motions are passed like the one that was passed in the committees this morning.
This is not going to go away, Mr. Speaker. I do not know how long it will take, but that motion must be rescinded and reversed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Government House Leader on a question or comment?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the speech of the Hon. Member. In the course of his speech, he pointed out that even as we sit here, one committee on which the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) participated has now put forward a motion which calls for a reduced quorum with a member of the Opposition represented. Even as we speak now, committees are passing resolutions like those to which the Hon. Member for Sudbury (Mr. Frith) has referred.
The Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques pointed out that he was a member of the Communications and Culture Committee and that before the last election, that Committee did not have a requirement for opposition members to be present when evidence was being given. Therefore, the Hon. Member complains that the tradition in the committee continues. I understand that opposition members are concerned that evidence can be taken even if they are not present. I am not concerned about the proposition which has been put forward. It is one which we could easily live with. If that is a matter of such concern to opposition members, I would once again demonstrate that we in this Party are receptive and understand the position which is put forward by an opposition Party or Parties, regardless of the numbers in the House.
I have given chapter and verse of the times when I have attempted to accommodate the opposition Parties. I indicated to them, in terms of the numbers on the committee, that they were asking for trouble. With the 120 positions which they have asked for in the committee system, the 40 members of the Official Opposition will have a hard time fulfilling their obligations.
The committees do not want to shut out anyone, including opposition members. Indeed, that is not the purpose of the rules which committees establish at the beginning of their mandates. Committees are only saying that they have a responsibility to carry out committee business. They try to allocate the membership in accordance with the numbers in the House. In addition, the committees are saying that, if people are attending to give evidence, then they want to try having reduced quorums for the purpose of hearing the evidence. It is not a matter of excluding anyone.
I would put this proposition to the Hon. Member. The Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration, of which the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East is a representative, would have the proposition that we in the Government would have no rights, because there would have to be at least one opposition member of a reduced quorum of four members. There could be four members of the Opposition in attendance and the Government would be without any recourse. There would only be opposition members sitting in the committee taking evidence. The argument could be taken from one extreme to the other. I am quite concerned about that. There was no instruction about that. There has been an unfortunate suggestion that the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen) somehow-and it makes for interesting rhetoric and is a lot of fun-


Ian Deans: It makes a lot of sense.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: No, it is absolutely not true. The Deputy Prime Minister is an honourable servant of the people. This is an allegation made against an honourable person, one which is without any foundation whatsoever. It is the kind of suggestion which I know Members would want to withdraw. I know they would want to say that they were wrong and had made a false accusation and that, having respect for this institution, they would not indulge in flights of accusation which are simply non-existent.
I hope this will set aside any apprehension which opposition members may have, that we will have committees with reduced quorums for the purpose of hearing evidence, i will have an opportunity to speak with members of the committees with respect to their organization. I take the words which were articulated by the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain and with which the Opposition agreed, that there will be good faith shown on the part of the Opposition that members will be in attendance at all meetings and that the Opposition will not prevent the committees from hearing evidence by not being present at meetings when they are called. I expect to see the committee work carried on with camaraderie. The committee system will only operate if there is a spirit of co-operation. When that spirit is not present, the whole institution suffers. I hope I have specifically stated the position. The committees are in charge of their own destiny.
I hope that we can get on with the business of dealing with this very important resolution. I understand the concerns of opposition members, but I would like them to address the content of the terms of reference of this important task force.
November 22, 1984

It is a task force which will operate on the basis of consensus and co-operation. It is a task force which has an opportunity to address all matters, not only the matters which were raised by the Opposition today. I look forward to this legislation being passed to enable the task force to address the wide-ranging examination of this institution.
With regard to the composition of the task force, I am sure that it will be made up of people of honour, competence and ability who will bring forward a report of which we can be justly proud.


Mr. Allmand:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. 1 did not want to raise this matter while the Hon. Member was speaking, but it is one which I raised the other day, and I believe that the Chair must give direction to the House on it.
The provisional Standing Order which deals with the 10 minute period following the 20 minute speeches, clearly indicates that there can be questions or brief comments and that the Speaker must attempt to distribute the comments and questions among Members of the House. That provisional rule was never intended to allow long speeches. It indicates very clearly "brief comments".
When I raised this matter the other day, the Speaker indicated that he had not seen another Member rising to ask questions or make comments, and therefore he allowed the Hon. Member who was speaking-I believe it was one of the Ministers-to continue. I do not expect a direction on this immediately, but I think it is important and should be addressed. In the 10 minute period the comments and questions should be brief. Members on any side of the House should not be allowed long speeches.
I admit that the Hon. Government House Leader was making some points in his rebuttal, but the 10 minute period is not meant for rebuttal. That period is meant for brief comments and questions. I think the House must have some direction on that particular point.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I only tried to respond to your concerns.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair recognizes the concern of the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) on this matter and will shortly report to the House with a directive.
The Hon. Member for Sudbury (Mr. Frith).


Douglas Cockburn Frith: Mr. Speaker, I understand the difficulty that the Hon. Government House Leader has in this matter as he has no direct control over committee chairmen. It takes no stretch of the imagination to maintain that the direction-because it should never have happened that the 27 committees of the House of Commons all had the same motion on the Order Paper-


Paul Wyatt Dick: Twenty-three committees.


Douglas Cockburn Frith: It was done by design. Whoever is responsible for the design of that motion-whether it was the Government House Leader or the Deputy Prime Minister or whoever-
Parliamentary Reform
should go to those committee chairmen and outline the concern that the Privy Council has with respect to the abuse by the majority in those committees, and indicate that they would have same preference for the reversal of the motions which were placed before the committees yesterday and today. I would welcome that. In addition-and 1 can only speak for the committee which I represent-as a member of the steering committee, I hope we can have a steering committee meeting shortly at which I could outline my concern about the passage of that motion. I also hope that the chairman of my committee will reverse his position.
I think the Government would be foolhardy to continue using its majority in this manner. It will only upset opposition members and delay the implementation of new legislation.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The period for questions and comments is now over.
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, I attended the organization meeting this morning of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I must say that after attending that meeting I was infuriated. It was my intention to come here this afternoon and let this House know how I felt about what took place there. I calmed down this afternoon after attending the meeting of the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration because in that committee, after some discussion, the Conservative members were willing to put forward a motion that, for purposes of hearing evidence, there need only be three members of the committee present, two from the government side and one from the opposition side. The fear of the Hon. House Leader, therefore, that three or four members of the Opposition could meet without the Government was not well-founded. The proposal which was accepted was one, by the way, which we tried to make in the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development this morning. We tried to amend the motion which was put forward by the Parliamentary Secretary. We felt that out of four members of the committee, at least one member should be from the Opposition. That was voted down and the motion was rammed through to the effect that only the chairman or vice-chairman, with four members, need be present on the committee, and no opposition member had to be present.
With the exception of what happened in the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration, all the motions in all the committees yesterday and today were handled in the same way. In every case amendments allowing opposition members to play some role in the quorum were refused. I was particularly upset with the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development because that is a committee which, over the last five or six years, has operated in a very non-partisan way. As a matter of fact, it has been an innovative committee, one which has served as a model for parliamentary reform in this House. It was the first committee to invite ex officio members to work with it in the Indian

November 22, 1984
Parliamentary Reform
self-government study. It was a committee in the last Parliament where we used to work together.
In answer to some of the points which were raised by Hon. Members opposite, in the last Parliament, when the Liberals had the majority and were asked to give place to the Opposition in the quorum, we did so. We could have rammed through motions as the Government did this morning and yesterday, but we did not do so. We respected the rights of the Opposition. As a matter of fact, in the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development in the last Parliament, the Official Opposition had to be represented. That was accepted by the Liberal majority of that committee. The Official Opposition had to be represented, not just the New Democratic Party or any other opposition Party. In the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development in the last Parliament we met together and drafted a report condemning the then Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs on his handling of the James Bay situation. Committee members both from the Government and the Opposition, after listening to evidence and discussing it among themselves, drafted a report taking to task a Minister of the Crown, even though he was a member of the Government. The same thing was done with respect to the Conne River incident, the fact that the Conne River Indians had not been granted status after years of lobbying to that effect.
What has taken place in most of the committees up to this time, with the exception of the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration, is unacceptable. It is unaccetable that the Government with its great majority would crush the rights of the Opposition.
I would like to point out to the Hon. House Leader that there is another situation where this is happening as well. Perhaps, the Hon. House Leader is not aware of it. I do not know if anyone has raised the matter thus far in the debate. In the motion to set up this task force on parliamentary reform, there is no provision for minority reports. I can recall very well when we set up the task forces in the last Parliament-and I was Chairman of the Task Force On Employment Opportunities for the 80s-the Opposition insisted that written into the reference should be the right to have minority reports included in the majority report, printed, and given as much space as was necessary to express its views. That right is not included in this motion today, and I do not know why it is not included.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I do not know either, because I gave a copy to your House Leader some months ago.


William Warren Allmand: It could be an oversight and I would hope, because of this debate, that provision will be made, as was made on several occasions on task forces in the last Parliament, for minority reports to be printed in the volume setting forth the full report. With respect to the Task Force on Employment Opportunities for the 80s, two Conservative opposition members filed minority reports on three or four recommendations and the New Democratic Party Filed them on other recommendations. They were allowed to write those reports themselves. The same thing was done on several other
task forces, and I cannot see why anyone would be opposed to that being done now.
I know that with respect to standing committees, minority reports are not allowed. However, in task forces during the last Parliament this had been allowed, and I would hope that some change could be made to permit minority reports, because we are dealing with a wide range of matters.
With respect to reform of the House, the Speech from the Throne said that Members of the House of Commons will be asked to approve the appointment of a parliamentary task force on reform of the House. The central focus of this task force would be the enhancement of the role of the private Member. From that perspective, the task force will examine and make recommendations concerning the powers, practices, organization and resources of the House of Commons. I listened to the speech of the Hon. House Leader and his intentions are fine, but Government Members are doing exactly the opposite in committees. They are reducing the rights of private Members. They are doing the very opposite to what was stated would be done in the Speech from the Throne and in the resolution which was put before us today.
The Hon. House Leader, for whom I have a great deal of respect, said that no order came down from him or elsewhere. However, it is very odd that in every committee, the Parliamentary Secretary put forward motions which deliberately excluded opposition members in the formation of a quorum. As my colleague, the Hon. Member for Sudbury (Mr. Frith), pointed out, this would allow these task forces to go on the road without any opposition members. It is going to be difficult for Hon. Members on this side if government members decide, because of their majority, to travel throughout the country, or throughout the world, as this motion would allow them to do. We have no way of preventing that because Hon. Members opposite have the majority. What we, in fact, will see are Conservative task forces travelling throughout the country and throughout the world-probably throughout the country because that is better politics-but not at their own expense. The Conservatives had some very good task forces during the last Parliament, for instance, the task force on national revenue which examined tax problems. There was as well an earlier task force on some other matters. That is fine. It was financed by that Party. However, to manipulate the orders of the House and the rules of the committees so that that can be done flies completely in the face of what is stated here today and what was stated in the Speech from the Throne.
I was with the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) on a committee on reform. We worked very intensely. We heard a lot of witnesses and put out ten reports. Seven of those were substantive reports and dealt with every item which is in this motion from (a) to (g) except for item (e). Item (e) states that the task force should study:
the funding, facilities and staff support services made available to Members of the House of Commons;
We did not study that. But we did study item (a), namely, the permanent and provisional Standing Orders. Of course, we
November 22, 1984

studied them intensely. Item (b), the role of the private Member in the House of Commons, was dealt with in reports Nos. 3 and 10. Item (c) concerning the accountability of Ministers to the House of Commons was dealt with at great length in report No. 7. Item (d) regarding the legislative process was dealt with in report No. 3. Item (0 on the administration and management of the House of Commons was dealt with in report No. 9. Item (g) reads:
the procedures and powers of Committees of the House of Commons and the role and the use of parliamentary task forces;
That item was dealt with in reports Nos. 3, 5 and 6 of the last special committee. Therefore, there is a lot which has already been dealt with. Ten members of the present Conservative caucus worked with that special committee at one time or another, and those Hon. Members are still sitting in this House. Three members of that special committee are now Ministers: the Government House Leader, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp), and I believe the Minister of State responsible for the Wheat Board (Mr. Mayer). The Hon. Member for St. John's East was on the committee, and most of our reports were unanimous.


Paul Wyatt Dick: 


William Warren Allmand: They were all unanimous. I did not want to say "all" because it sounded so absolute, but they were all unanimous.


James Aloysius McGrath: All on consensus, no minority reports.


William Warren Allmand: Right. We all agree that that committee worked very well. We went at the work of that committee from our base of experience in the House of Commons, and I think not in any partisan way because the reports we ended up with provided a balance between the rights and the powers of the Opposition and the right of the Government to get its business through. Even at that time the members of the Conservative Party anticipated they might be the government shortly and they did not want to overload the report too much in favour of the Opposition.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I had no idea.


William Warren Allmand: But it was a good balance.
Members of this House and the public will know that most of the things in the third report, which was the first substantive report, are now part of the provisional standing orders, and we are dealing with them right now. It dealt with such things as the parliamentary timetable, the length of speeches, the fact we now have a 20-minute speech with a 10-minute period for questions and comments. It dealt with the committee system, the fact that reports tabled under Acts of Parliament are automatically referred to committee, not by special order. It referred to Private Members' Business and so on. All this was done by agreement among the Parties at that time, and today those recommendations are in effect, but on a provisional basis.
Parliamentary Reform
Of the other reports that we agreed on unanimously, the fourth report dealt with the election of the Speaker, but it was not followed. I do not say that in any way to criticize any of the Speakers of this House, but the fact was that we agreed unanimously on a new way of electing the Speaker, but it was not carried through.
The fifth and sixth reports deal with committees and their power. Nothing in those reports has been implemented.
The seventh report deals with the financial control of the Government by Members of Parliament. A lot of time was spent on that report and a lot of credit is due to two former Members of this House, Ron Huntington from Capilano and Claude Andre Lachance from Montreal. Both of them did a lot of very good work which led to that report.
The ninth report dealt with the Commissioners for Internal Economy and it attempted to give more power to Members of Parliament, including the Opposition, in controlling matters which affect all Members of this House, such as offices, secretaries and support services. Again that report was ignored by the Government when it appointed the Commissioners for Internal Economy in the same way as has always been done. I realize that the law says that the Commissioners for Internal Economy must be Privy Counsellors, but it does not say that all those Privy Counsellors have to be on the government side of the House.
The tenth report dealt with statements by Ministers, questions of confidence in the Government, how to deal with Ways and Means motions, what happens when we have votes on Friday, the recognition of Members in the House, Private Members' Business, and a new and more effective way of voting.
In a period of time of over one year that committee dealt with nearly every item which is going to be dealt with here.
It seems to me that the Government could show its good faith with respect to reform of Parliament if the Government House Leader were to meet with the House Leaders of the other Parties and discuss with them how to implement immediately some of those recommendations that had been unanimously agreed to. If the Government did that and did not carry on the kind of skulduggery we saw in the committees this morning, then we in the Opposition and maybe other private Members would be able to say that the Government is serious, that it is acting in good faith and wants to do something about the reform of Parliament. But we become a bit dubious when there is no attempt to implement the recommendations made unanimously in the last Parliament by that special committee. Then we have the sort of thing that went on today. I also point to the fact that in the resolution before us there is no provision for minority reports.
It is my firm belief, Mr. Speaker, that we will not see drastic reform in this House until we do something about the question of confidence. We discussed this at great length in the last Parliament. The fact that any vote can be considered a vote of confidence inhibits private Members in committee and in the House from putting forward amendments to criticize, even in a

November 22, 1984
Parliamentary Reform
constructive way, because they feel that to vote against their own Party when in government, or to be in opposition with their own Party, might lead to a question of confidence which would defeat the Government and cause an election. That is hard to imagine in the present circumstances, but that parliamentary tradition affects the House in that way. In the tenth report, I believe, we made a recommendation that on Opposition Days, when a vote is attached to an opposition motion, it should not be considered a confidence vote unless it is expressly set out in the motion. If the motion drafted by the Opposition said that the House expresses a lack of confidence in the Government because of whatever, then it would be considered a want of confidence motion. But if it does not do that, then every motion put forward for a vote on an Opposition Day should simply be dealt with on its own merits.
Last year we had a motion put forward by the New Democratic Party to reject testing of Cruise missiles. There was nothing in its motion that expressed lack of confidence in the Government, but the NDP wanted the House to express itself on that very important point. At that time, six Members on the Government side abstained altogether because they were against the testing of Cruise missiles, but they said they did not want to vote with the opposition motion because they did not want to precipitate an election. They were caught in the dilemma of being in agreement with the opposition motion but they did not want to precipitate an election. I personally voted with the Opposition because I thought the question was serious, and in any case I did not think the Government would call an election on that.
I think the new Members of the House, especially those on the government side, will find as they work in these committees that there will be times when, after listening to the evidence, they will want to amend the Bill. They will feel deep inside that that is what should be done. But unless we can change the rules that will allow them to do that without expressing a lack of confidence in their own government, they will not do it. I can understand that this large number of Conservative members would prefer their own Government to any other government, but they may differ with the Government on certain points from time to time. They should have the right to vote against those Bills or amend them without expressing lack of confidence in the Government. Until we do something about that, Mr. Speaker, I think we will not change radically what happens in this House.
If committees are going to be meaningful, we have to give them more support services. If you are going to be a counterbalance to the great power the Government has with large Departments, advisers and counsellors and so on, if you are going to take issue with some of the proposals put to you, you need at least some expertise on economic and social matters, statistics and so on, to help you question and put forward alternatives. I think that is extremely important and goes to the very base of parliamentary reform.
I came to this House today originally to oppose this motion with all the force I had. I am a bit encouraged by the statement made just a few moments ago by the House Leader
that he is willing to reconsider what was done in some of the committees today and correct it. If that is the case, I think he shows good faith. We will be waiting for him to act on that. I would also ask if he would try to make provision for minority reports in this task force and other task forces that will be set up. That is what was done in the last Parliament and it was done at the request of members of his Party. They insisted on it and the Government agreed to it. It was agreed upon through consultations.
Let us have reform of Parliament. It is essential. Let us have it in a way in which all Members of the House participate, even those of us in the Opposition. Give us a chance to participate too. Many of us have something to put forward.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to ask the Hon. Government House Leader to clarify a statement he made a few minutes ago in the House. I was not here for the full statement. I just returned from the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry where a motion was passed by the Government majority giving the committee the right to hear evidence and to-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the Hon. Member but I do not believe that is a point of order.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, may I suggest to you that I think it would be in the interest of both the Government and members of both Opposition Parties if the point that I wish to raise with the House Leader were clarified. It would perhaps put an end to some of the acrimony-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair rules that that is not a point of order. Are there questions or comments on the Hon. Member's speech?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Hon. Member who just spoke whether he understood the Government House Leader to have suggested, while he was speaking, that members of the government Party would be prepared to reconsider the rule, passed in so many of the committees that have had their organizational meetings already, reducing the rights of the minority. I ask the Hon. Member that question because of the emphasis that he placed on the rights of private Members and the importance, as the Government launches a task force into parliamentary reform, that is not be a task force that will lead to measures to reduce the rights of private Members contrary to what was said in the Speech from the Throne, but that in fact the spirit of the enterprise will be as as stated in the Speech from the Throne. Is that the understanding that the Hon. Member has?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, in listening to the Hon. House Leader when he was making comments after the last speech, I found that he gave hints to the effect that he was willing to reconsider. However, as my hon. friend from Newfoundland has pointed out, it is not absolutely clear. It would be helpful to this debate if he would be very clear as to whether they are
November 22, 1984

willing to put forward the kind of resolution that was passed in the Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration and was attempted to be passed in all the other committees, including the standing committees on Fisheries, on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, and on Justice and Legal Affairs, but was voted down. If that could be reconsidered I think it would show a certain amount of good faith. It is not clear in my mind whether that is what he intended, but I thought he was hinting at changes in that direction.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a comment. The Hon. Member expressed concern that the reference contained no provision for a minority report. The Hon. Member knows full well that if this task force is to succeed, it must have a unanimous report. Otherwise, if there is a minority report, it has failed to bring in any meaningful recommendations for any meaningful parliamentary reform. That is precisely why no provision was made for a minority report in the last reference setting up the special committee. There is nothing to stop Hon. Members from bringing in a minority report if there is a very serious difference of opinion on any single aspect of any single report of the committee.
Second, the Hon. Member knows full well that when the special committee, in its second report, which is now a part of the provisional Standing Orders, addressed itself to committees, it referred specifically to parliamentary task forces. It made no reference whatsoever to parliamentary task forces being empowered to bring in minority reports. I refer the Hon. Member to that recommendation. It refers to membership and the usefulness of the task forces. It recommends that they be an ongoing part of Parliament. However, it makes no reference whatsoever to minority reports.
I agree with the Hon. Member on the outstanding reports of the special committee. There are six of those and one which merely deals with unsubstantive changes in one of the previous reports. I agree that it is a pity that these reports did not go on. But I would remind the Hon. Member that there is a special reference in the order referring the outstanding reports of the last committee to this committee. In other words, the Government is serious about getting on with the recommendations of the last committee and has in fact used this committee as a vehicle to get them back before Parliament again, if the committee so decides. I am surprised that that fact escaped the Hon. Member's attention. I would refer him to the order of reference where it states that all the evidence adduced by the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure and the reports of that committee as tabled in the House of Commons during the Thirty-second Parliament be referred to the committee. The committee has to deal with the work of the last committee, including the outstanding recommendations of the last committee. It would seem to me that that would be the first priority of the committee.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. With respect to the Member's last point, of course, I was aware of the fact that the motion would refer the reports of the special committee in the last Parliament to this task force. I was
Parliamentary Reform
critical of that. I do not think that is enough, although it is better than nothing at all. I still believe that it would be better if those reports were the subject of immediate negotiation between House Leaders to see if some of the points could be implemented. In my opinion, they were studied long enough. We took twice the time that is set aside for the task force which is now being set up. We agreed unanimously on certain things. Why must they be referred back to this committee? I am aware that they are referred to this committee. That is a good thing, but it would not be my first priority.
On the other point with respect to minority reports, I still believe that all task forces set up should have the rights to put out minority reports. One would hope they would not take place, but it was the Hon. Member's Party in the last Parliament, when we were setting up the task forces in 1980 immediately after the last election, that insisted on the right to minority reports. That was granted.
The Hon. Member is correct that if you have too many minority reports, the report of the majority loses its effect. You could have a situation, Mr. Speaker, where they may make 50 or 60 recommendations. There may be unanimity on 90 per cent of those recommendations.


James Aloysius McGrath: There were 107 in the last one.


William Warren Allmand: That is good, but I still think there could be a situation where, on certain recommendations, there may not be unanimity. I think then the public has a right to know in the body of the report that there are dissenting opinions. I would hope that that would not be the case, but I would refer the Hon. Member to the debates in the House when we discussed the task forces at the beginning of the last Parliament. Today I would make all of the arguments that were used on that occasion for including minority reports. I hope it would not be necessary, but the right should be there for opposition members, if necessary, to make minority reports. I use the same arguments which were made by the Conservative Party members at that time.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a brief question. In the course of presenting this order of reference, I consulted with representatives of each of the Parties. We looked over the terms of reference and I asked them for their suggestions and input. I consulted fully with respect to the form of this order of reference and received the approval of the respective House Leaders. I understand that the House Leader may not act on behalf of the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand). Maybe he does not feel constrained by that arrangement. I can say that I did everything within my ability to make sure that there was the fullest consultation with the Parties before we brought this resolution down.
First, that is not satisfactory to the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East. Second, there is now an amendment before the House which strikes me as being incon-

November 22, 1984
Parliamentary Reform
sistent with the fact that I had fully discussed this matter. It has been in their hands now, not for days but for weeks.
All that I can say is that this is not an attempt to introduce something that was not first fully canvassed. I tried my level best to be open and above board with the opposition Parties. I appreciate the information and suggestions the Hon. Member makes, but he should consider that. I go back to the statements made by my colleague, the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) and the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans), who said that this whole process will work if there is consensus. I addressed that in the introduction of this motion.
I ask the Hon. Member if he will not now allow this matter, which has received the fullest consultation, to pass so that we can get on with the task and address it? The Member is an alternate on this committee and will be fully involved in terms of the whole process. I am sorry, he is not now an alternate, but he will have an opportunity to make representations to this committee. We have first-rate people on the committee. Will he not now let us get this matter to a vote so that we can get on with the job and make sure that we can make progress on this very important topic?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) on a short answer.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I will be as brief as I can. I do not accuse the Hon. House Leader of lack of good faith in consulting. I understand that he consulted with the House Leaders on this issue. However, this is what Parliament is all about. No matter how wise our House Leaders are, the fact is that we have 282 Members of Parliament, and the reason that we have Parliament is that government, the Cabinet, must submit its proposals to Parliament. If Parliament works properly, there should be discussion within Parliament about how to improve what has been put forward by the wise people in Cabinet and, in this case, the wise House Leaders.
Let me explain what probably happened. We have a number of Members, including our House Leader, who were Cabinet Ministers for a long time. The Hon. Member will find out that when you are a Cabinet member for a long time, you lose touch with the ordinary day-to-day happenings in parliamentary committees and in the House. You do not have to deal with them in the same way as a back-bencher or opposition member. Ministers are used to approaching the House in a different way than the rest of us. I have had experience on both sides-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: May I ask the Hon. Member to conclude?


William Warren Allmand: Despite the fact that he consulted and did a good job, improvements can be made, and that is the reason for debate in the House. It is so that improvements can be made.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, I rise to discuss the motion to set up a special committee on
House of Commons reform. It is a committee that our caucus and our House Leader have discussed and approved. We gave that approval on the basis of consensus and in a spirit of co-operation. I believe those were the guidelines set out at the opening of Parliament. They are very important principles to keep in mind in order for the House to function in its traditional way.
I believe that this motion would have passed in a matter of minutes had we not had the unfortunate experience in the committees yesterday and today. That spirit of consensus and co-operation was dashed when the Government used its very large majority in an attempt to change a parliamentary tradition around the world that recognizes minority rights whether they be those of the Opposition in Parliament or of groups outside of Parliament. That right has been a longstanding tradition of parliamentary practice.
That tradition was ignored and trampled on in the various committees in the past two days and has sent a very important signal to members of the opposition Parties. I believe it has set the tone, a very unfortunate tone, for future practice in the House.
Yesterday, when I left the committee which I attended, I discovered there was a breach of tradition. I thought it was an isolated case and recognized that, it being an agricultural committee, perhaps it had been overlooked somewhat. The government members of that committee had not attended committees in previous Parliaments and perhaps could be forgiven for not understanding the necessity of following the unwritten rules, procedures and traditions of parliamentary practice. That was my feeling when I left that committee. I was giving it the benefit of the doubt.
I was trying to maintain that sense of spirit and co-operation that is so necessary to the functioning of this place. However, after consulting with my colleagues from other committees I found that the practice in those committees was precisely the same. There was no recognition of the need for both sides of the House to be represented in minimum quorums for hearing of evidence. There was no agreement or recognition by the government side that both sides should be represented when major decisions are to be made with a quorum. There was no recognition of continuing that longstanding practice in the steering committees.
In our committee, the Chairman or the government members did not even concede that there was a recognized need for a notice to be given before a meeting is held. The Chairman informed us that all meetings would be at the call of the Chair, with no time set for an advanced notice of meetings.
There is really no guarantee of the rights of the minorities in the House, even to know when a meeting would be held. It leaves no chance for parliamentary traditions and practices to be recognized.
I think that is the reason for the Government's problem. We are having second thoughts about renewing a committee that will study parliamentary practice. A previous committee did a very good job in studying this issue, and some of its recommen-

November 22, 1984
dations have been acted upon. In fact, this particular debate is being conducted as a result of the implementation of some of those recommendations. We cannot feel comfortable about approving the establishment of such a committee when there has been such a recent and unfortunate indication from the Government about its thoughts on minorities and opposition Parties. It leaves us suspicious about hidden agendas. It leaves us insecure about what the Government's intentions are.
Until such time as the Government gives a clear indication that it has made a mistake with respect to these committees, I do no think it would be appropriate for us, in the interest of parliamentary tradition and practice, to proceed with a review of parliamentary practice. Until the Government rethinks its attitude with regard the parliamentary process, I think we would be loath to go into any further negotiations at this point in time.
May I call it six o'clock?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I just want to make it quite clear that the opposition Parties, notwithstanding the fact that they had agreed to this matter going ahead, are not prepared to have this motion come to a vote today and have called it six o'clock. Am I clear in that regard?


Some Hon. Members:: Six o'clock.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I thought I had made myself quite clear with respect to the questions raised. I do not want to waste the time of the House now, but the matter was discussed very briefly by the House Leaders, if they speak for their Parties at House Leader's meetings. I said that I would be glad to look into the whole question and make sure that we bring about some resolution of this matter. I repeated that on the floor of the House. If it is a question of passing this resolution-and that would be helpful-we could deal with the matter now and with the whole question of a quorum for the hearing of evidence in committees. I just want to know whether or not the Hon. Member is prepared to let the matter go to a vote at the present time.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, I consider the practice of the last two days in committee a breach of faith and would suggest that until it is rectified we have some difficulty proceeding, even though we had an agreement. We consider some of the practices in committee to be inconsistent with the normal practices of the House. Until we have those rectified and returned to normal, I think co-operation will take some time to follow.
Adjournment Debate



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, the issue I raised with the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall) on November 19 dealt with the appointment or alleged appointment-in fact there really was no committee- by the former Minister of State for Finance of a committee which was to deal with problems besetting the entire financial intermediary community.
Briefly it can be said that there are four pillars of financial intermediaries, or however one may want to describe them- banks, trust companies, security dealers and insurance companies. I think we should include the credit unions. That would be at least five pillars. Some people have suggested that perhaps lawyers, notaries and others dealing with assisting people in financing might also be included.
The problem has been that these various companies and organizations involved in the financial community are attempting and have been attempting over a period of time to take over the business of each other. For example-and I only use this as an example-the Royal Bank of Canada was heavily involved in automobile leasing. The Bank Act was altered and automobile leasing was specifically excluded from banks. Now the Royal Bank of Canada is involved in a program where it buys back automobiles. It leads a person money and at the end of the term the car can be sold to the Royal Bank to satisfy the loan balance. It is a form of leasing by the back door.
Apparently it was also involved, according to the latest release, in organizing equity financing in Canada for those who might want to invest in Canada. It is in the financial security business. It operates out of the Cayman Islands. That is another activity. We have the banks and security dealers taking money on deposit and selling treasury bills and securities of all kinds. We have insurance companies selling annuities for one year. Imagine a one year annuity. It is really a rolling over of a one year promissory note or guaranteed investment certificate.
We have a problem where the whole discipline in the financial market has gone. Organizations under one ruse or another are able to go beyond what was originally deemed the scope of their powers. We have developing the concept of a financial supermarket. This whole matter must be addressed by Parliament and must be addressed as soon as possible.
The former government knew this. Rather than have Parliament address the matter, the former minister appointed a little select committee. That select committee was supposed to be a task force. He went around the country telling people that he

November 22, 1984
524_______________________________________
Adjournment Debate
had a task force deliberately looking at and studying the matter, and that it would make sure it made a report of some kind.
It turns out from the answer given by the Minister of State for Finance that there was no task force at all. A group of people were appointed from across the country. They were given free airline tickets. They came to Ottawa to discuss things with the officials of the Minister of Finance, had a "din-din" and a lovey in the hotels in Ottawa and then went back home. Rather than have Parliament and the people involved, we had people who were responsible perhaps, and perhaps not, to the insurance companies, banks, trust companies and credit unions discussing among themselves how they would divide up the laws and regulations that affect financial intermediaries.
I and other members of our party called on the then Minister of State for Finance and Minister of Finance to set up a parliamentary committee to inquire, study the matter and report to Parliament so that laws and statutes could be passed to amend the current law with respect to financial intermediaries.
1 say again today to the current Minister that this group, which is now winding up its activities, should be dismissed. It was an interesting group, but it did not accomplish anything. It cannot accomplish anything. The matter should be immediately referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs or a task force set up, if that is the pleasure of the Government, to study this issue so that we can come to grips with it.
Financial intermediaries are very important in the development of Canada. Our laws with respect to them have to be amended. They must be brought up to date. If not, our country will suffer. It will be more difficult to move money from one investment activity to another. It must be dealt with as soon as possible. I hope this Parliament will come to grips with that issue.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House to answer this question. I also wish to thank the men and women of the riding of St. Paul's and the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney) for having given me this honour.

No one is more aware of the confusion in the financial intermediary system than I am. I have spent 20 years of my life working the financial sector. In fact, I worked for three of the four or five pillars, depending on how one defines them. I am also, as all of us are, a consumer of financial services.
In response to my colleague's question, there is indeed a private sector Advisory Committee on Financial Institutions. It is probably not constitued as he would have constituted it, and probably not as I would have either, but let me just give some history of this committee.
It is chaired by William Dimma, the President of A. E. LePage, and is known as the Dimma committee. Its composition is mainly of senior executives from major private financial corporations with some consumer and academic representations. It was formed in January 1984 by the previous government. Its purpose was to provide the then Minister with a private-sector perspective on the structural changes in the industry, many of which were outlined by my colleague in his question. The Dimma Committee was also to comment on the Finance Department's working papers on the modernization of the legislation for financial institutions.
On behalf of the Government, I decided to allow the committee to convene for one more meeting. I believe it is important to allow the committee to continue to study the working papers of the Department of Finance and, more importantly, I believe it is important to proceed with legislation in this important area as rapidly as possible, and in that process to present papers to the House.
I will be furthering the consultation process in this important area in a very specific way to ensure that the harmonization of financial institutions legislation is complete. This consultation will be carried out in a very specific and limited time frame.
As the House knows, our Party had launched the most comprehensive consultative process of any Government in our history. With no disrespect to members of the Dimma Committee who are persons of distinction, I agree with my hon. colleague that this committee is a good example of the consultation process gone wrong. The financial institutions in our country have been in need of revised legislation for many years. Indeed, the Trust Companies Act and the Loan Companies Act have not been substantially revised since the early part of the century.
Instead of action, the industry leaders were given, as my colleague has suggested, a series of dinners and asked to comment on papers produced by the Department. I intend to speed up the process that my hon. colleague has outlined by way of better consultation and by proceeding to legislation.


EMPLOYMENT-YOUTH TRAINING OPTION PROGRAM. (B) GOVERNMENT'S POSITION
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, November 7, I asked the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) how she justified the cancellation of the First Chance Program which was implemented to train and employ young people by replacing it with the Youth Training Option Program. First Chance was ready to begin on October 1. It would have provided $100 million in its first year to help young people train on the job, and it would have provided $1 billion per year over a five-year period. In 1985, it would have provided for 100,000 trainees.
November 22, 1984
[Stage Direction]
I was extremely supportive of that program since it fell in line with certain recommendations made in the report of the Task Force on Employment Opportunities for the 80s, a report made by a task force of which I was chairman in 1980 and 1981. By the way, those recommendations were given unanimous support by all members of the task force.
The Minister cancelled First Chance and replaced it with the Youth Training Option Program, a similar but more limited program. Instead of providing $100 million in its First year, the Minister received only $27 million to carry out that program. Instead of it being a permanent program, it was to be a pilot project. This has happened despite all the rhetoric and promises made during the election campaign with respect to training and employment.
The Minister explained to me that she had an obligation to consult with provinces, business and labour. My answer to that is twofold, Mr. Speaker. First, the fact that the Minister had to withdraw the First Chance Program and put in place a pilot project and consult further was an admission that she and the Government had no plans or blueprints for training when they made these promises during the election campaign. They were going to start from scratch and develop a program through consultation.
Second, why was it necessary to consult all over again as if nothing had been done before? I would like to point out that since 1980 there have been approximately 10 task forces and commissions dealing with this very subject, eight of which have reported. I can refer to some of them.
There was the Task Force on Employment Opportunities for the 80s, the Dodge Commission Report, a Report called In the Chips which dealt with employment in the micro-electronics industry, two reports by the Economic Council of Canada on this subject, the Commission for Part-time Work, the Commission for Paid Educational Leave, the Major Projects Task Force, the Task Force on Employment Outreach Programs and the Michelle Jean Report from Quebec. Those reports were presented in the last five years and were all on the same subject. They involved much consultation with all the groups the Minister indicates she will consult.
In addition, the Conservative Party had its own task force in 1983-84 under the chairmanship of the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes). That task force consulted broadly and published a report which included recommendations with respect to training on the job.
Now is the time for action with respect to training on the job and employment programs for young people. It is not a time for further study. I strongly urge the Government to move ahead and provide hope to young people who are unemployed and need training. It should be done now, and we should not have to wait for further studies and consultation.
[ Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Hudon (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf
Adjournment Debate
of the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald), I am pleased to explain to the Hon. Member why this government has introduced the $27 million Youth Training Option Program. This government has said on many occasions that it was committed to do something about the tragic lot of unemployed youths. The Youth Training Option is a new approach to the problem. The Hon. Member claims that this approach has been examined and tried many times. That is not true. A similar program is in force in the United Kingdom and has proved to be a resounding success. The Youth Training Option is similar to the British program, but the fact is that the idea has never been implemented in Canada.
When the Minister announced the program, she said that it was a pilot project. We would rather not spend too much of the taxpayers' money on a program which has yet to be tested. I might remind the Hon. Member that, last May, the previous government had announced a $30 million experimental program called Youth Training Option. In any case, during the election campaign that experimental program was suddenly replaced by another $1 billion program called First Chance, despite the fact that the original Youth Training Option never did get off the ground and that there were no consultations with the provinces.
As the previous government knew very well, the $1 billion was never made available. No one knew how that $1 billion would be financed in 1985-86. Our government would rather not follow that example. The Minister will meet with her provincial colleagues and consult them to make sure that any federal program aimed at reducing youth unemployment meshes with any proposed or existing provincial initiative. Businesses and unions will also be consulted so as to ensure their support and cooperation. The only way to find effective solutions to fight against youth unemployment is to work with all sectors of the Canadian economy.
The Youth Training Option will be launched immediately to provide training and practical work experience for 3,000 or 4,000 young Canadians. With the cooperation of the provinces, businesses and unions, we will be able to help more young men and women. We do not want to act irresponsibly nor promise something we as a government cannot deliver. Should we find out that the program does work, and once we know the provinces, businesses and unions agree, we will make a huge joint effort which will undoubtedly meet the requirements of the Canadian labour market and those of young Canadians.
Now, in answer to the Hon. Member who asked: Why consult? If we are to set up a joint and coherent program with the provinces, other federal agencies, municipalities, unions and what have you, consultation has to be the order of the day. In that respect, I must say that the previous government was not much in favour of consultation.

November 22, 1984
Adjournment Debate


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE-NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERMEN- REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE
Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am so pleased to keep hearing from government Members that the Government will have consultations. It has bothered me sometimes in listening to recent answers given by Cabinet Ministers in the House to learn that exactly the opposite is true. Exactly the opposite is true in the worst way imaginable.
I realize it is difficult for Ministers to know what the facts are, because they have a lot of work to do and they have to prepare for Question Period. However, we have reached the point in the House where we are dealing with primary producers who are forced to turn to welfare to live and who cannot feed their families, yet the Minister stands in this House, as she did on November 13, and says the following:
It is my understanding that in the last few weeks there have been sufficient fishing opportunities so as to permit fisher people to qualify for the ten weeks that would allow them to collect unemployment insurance benefits.
While the Minister was saying that, Mr. Speaker, she had on her desk a recommendation from the Federal Department of Fisheries with respect to instituting a special program so that fishermen could qualify for unemployment insurance benefits. In that report from the federal Department of Fisheries and in the report from the union in Newfoundland, it was said that there were 1,600 families affected by a poor fishing season in that province alone. I am not talking now about the other provinces in Atlantic Canada. Therefore, the Minister had that information on her desk the day before she stood up in the House and gave the answer she did to the question which was put to her.
In answer to my question in which I pointed out that the snow was falling and there were no longer boats out in the water she said she was waiting until the season was completed. She said:
We have made a commitment that we are prepared to go to the limit of $3 million for all constituencies so affected.
Here are the facts, Mr. Speaker. It was a poor fishing season. It was a poor fishing season last year as well, and the Liberal Government approved-throwing money at problems, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) keeps reminding us-a special program whereby fishermen and fish plant workers could receive enough work to qualify for unemployment insurance. In that way they would not have to go on welfare, because they consider drawing welfare is really not right but that unemployment insurance benefits are a legitimate source of income. The Liberal Government approved that special program and the fishermen and the fish plant workers, as they received enough to qualify for unemployment insurance benefits, were laid off.
This year we have the situation where the fishing season was even worse. The Canadian Salt Fish Corporation-there is a measure presently before the House-states that its product is down 15 per cent to 20 per cent because it was a poor fishing
season. The Minister, in responding to that question said that she will increase the allocations for Canada Works up $3 million without knowing that the very constituencies affected were already up to $3 million. She repeated in this House that she would not increase the Canada Works allocations any further and she would bring in a special program.
I would like to remind this Minister, Mr. Speaker, after deriding the former Government for doing what was legitimate, that even if she increased the Canada Works allocation to S3 million, there are rules and regulations in that program which prohibits fishermen from being hired.
I have listened to a lot of debate in this House recently. There was a report concerning women, handicapped people, young people and old people who could not get jobs. Yet a week ago in this House this very Minister tabled qualifications for getting hired on federal works programs which eliminated everyone who had not worked before it eliminated anyone who has been out of the work force for two years; and it eliminated anyone who had had enough gumption to go out and work for a week in the previous two months. That is outrageous, Mr. Speaker.
It is odd that the person writing the report did not discover, or perhaps just did not know, that the Minister would table the guidelines as she did. However, these very guidelines would discriminate against the very fishermen or fish plant workers for whom the Minister says she is going to increase the assistance allocation. To put it very briefly, Mr. Speaker, this Government has refused to bring in a special program in order to assist these poor, unfortunate people who could not afford to buy school books for their children in September of this year; those 1,600 families. That is amazing, Mr. Speaker, because most of them are in Tory ridings. Surely, there must be enough pressure on the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) to get her to change her mind.
The Minister has said she is going to increase to $3 million the allocation to take care of those people, at the same time realizing that the worst hit constituencies were already up to $3 million. The Minister said in this House that some of the fishermen have now received their unemployment insurance benefits. They received ten weeks, and I will tell you how, Mr. Speaker. They went out day after day in rough weather to get an $80 stamp. That is what they had to do because they knew no program was coming. They will live throughout the winter, those few fishermen, having their income supplemented by welfare. What a way to treat the primary producers of this nation. It is despicable, Mr. Speaker.


Jean-Guy Hudon: Mr. Speaker, as indicated by the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald), and I will repeat her words, we have been monitoring very closely the Newfoundland Fishermen issue. The most recent figures provided by the Department of Fisher-
November 22, 1984

ies and Oceans have been confirmed by the United Fishery and Food Workers' Union. They indicate that 1,100 fishermen might not-might not, I repeat-be eligible for unemployment insurance this winter. We will have more information in November when fishermen's unemployment applications are processed.
As the Hon. Member knows, funds have been allocated under the Canada Works Program. Electoral ridings are eligible for the $3 million in case of need and if the maximum amount has not yet been paid out. If the Hon. Member knows of any specific cases where fishermen continue to be ineligible for unemployment insurance, even after the Canada Works projects are set up, I would ask him to bring them to the attention of the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
Canada Works funds were also allocated last fall, to help fishermen become eligible for unemployment insurance benefits during the winter. However, the program to which the
Adjournment Debate
Hon. Member is referring was probably the special allowance provided in the spring for fishermen who were prevented from fishing during the normal fishing season because of ice conditions. Allowances were paid through the Canada Employment and Immigration Center but did not come out of the Unemployment Insurance Fund.
We feel that increasing Canada Works funds for Newfoundland will help many fishermen become eligible for unemployment insurance benefits this winter. If upon termination of the projects the number of insurable weeks is still insufficient, the Minister is prepared to review the situation.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at eleven o'clock a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 6.28 p.m. the House adjourned.

Friday, November 23, 1984