1985-06-07

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, Canadian women are outraged at the insulting behaviour of the Progressive Conservative Party vis-a-vis the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps). As a Montreal journalist said: "Insults continue to fly fast and furious at the Parliament of Canada."
The Government is being attacked by the Opposition on its budgetary policy and political patronage. At a loss for other ways to defend itself, it tried its rough and ready macho style on the Hon. Member for Hamilton East. In so doing, the Government is insulting all Canadian women, who are nobody's baby, doll or chick.
I would urge the women in the Progressive Conservative caucus to tell their whip his role is not to downgrade women but to keep order in the caucus ranks.
I would also urge all Canadian women to let the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) know what they think of the male chauvinism displayed by the Conservative Party to women, and more specifically, to female Members of the Liberal Party.


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Budget was especially harsh on Atlantic Canada, one of the poorer regions of our country. In response, the Liberal caucus set up a task force to tour the region. However, what the Conservative Government did was following the cuts to that region which were started by previous Liberal regimes.
The Liberals complain about the cuts to VIA Rail. It was the Liberals who cut VIA Rail and freight subsidies to Atlantic Canada.
The Liberals complain about cuts to regional development. It was the Liberals who cut the entire Department of Regional and Economic Expansion. Some 55 per cent of its money was spent in Atlantic Canada.
The Liberals complain about the transfer payment reductions made by the Conservatives which will amount to $2 billion by 1990. Yet the 1982-1987 formula imposed on Atlantic Canada also severely cut the amount of money to that region.
Old age pensioners in Atlantic Canada will suffer because of the Conservative Budget. The Liberals did the same with the six and five program. Cuts to U.I.C. hurt Atlantic Canada. The Conservatives have also abandoned Sydney Steel, just as the Liberals did.
I have a letter which I will be sending to all Atlantic Canadians indicating not only the cuts of the Conservatives but the cuts made by the previous Liberal Government. Let us have honesty in politics.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker:
Senior citizens are often isolated, poor, and in a crippling state of dependence. Recent statistics indicate that more than 60 per cent of women and 40 per cent of men over the age of 65 who live alone have incomes that are below the poverty
tine.
Those were the words of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) on July 26, 1984, at Sherbrooke, Quebec. They are true words. Unfortunately, they are sprinkled with alligator tears.
In full knowledge of the plight of senior citizens, the Prime Minister has taken from the pockets of senior citizens needed pension increases which are required for the necessities of life. The Prime Minister had made the words "honour" and "appropriateness" the buzz-words of his Government. These words, when used by Conservatives, have come to be synonymous with "manipulation" and "deceit".
The Prime Minister and his cabinet colleagues try to tell Canadians that they run a compassionate, open, and caring Government. Their actions bespeak a Government which has introduced a form of economic euthanasia on the backs of elderly Canadians. No equivocation, no rationalization, and no economic doublespeak will make their actions against senior citizens fair. The Conservative Party, from its early days as the Family Compact, has been the Party of privilege in Canada. That has not changed.

June 7, 1985
The Prime Minister promised to introduce a new civility in this place and in Canada. That new civility amounts to knifing elderly Canadians in the back and saying: "Please accept this knife as a token of our compassion". That is a real shame.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, the Tory Government's patronage gravy train rolls on. On March 15, just two weeks after being called to the bar, John McMillan, the brother of the Minister of State for Tourism (Mr. McMillan), was appointed legal agent for the federal Government. Securing an appointment as legal agent was not all that difficult for Mr. McMillan. According to reports, Mr. McMillan secured the appointment by picking up the phone and calling his brother's office in Ottawa. Furthermore, and I quote Mr. McMillan: "The chap who co-ordinates the appointment of legal agents also happened to be an old friend". The article from which I quote goes on to add that Mr. McMillan appreciates what his friends in Ottawa have done for him, as it will stand him in good stead in his law career.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) campaigned on the need to change the old way of doing things. He was going to end costly and irresponsible patronage appointments. Instead, we are witnessing a litany of cabinet Ministers' relatives lined up at the public trough. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the Prime Minister has an option. He has a duty to the people of Canada to change the old Liberal way of doing things by appointing people to government positions on the basis of merit and not blood lines.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Bob Pennock (Etobicoke North):: Mr. Speaker, once again the Liberal and NDP forecasters of economic doom and gloom have been proven wrong. They have learned today that employment increased last month by 70,000. Combined with April's increase of 89,000, this represents the largest absolute increase for a two-month period in 32 years. Over 70 per cent of these new jobs are full-time jobs.
Unemployment is down in seven provinces, with the largest declines occurring in Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, and British Columbia.
Canadians have not been fooled by the gloomy, short-sighted predictions of the Opposition. They remember only too well the disastrous economic record of the Liberals, supported by their NDP bedfellows. They have not forgotten the unnecessary suffering and hardship caused by ill-conceived economic policies. Instead, Canadians have accepted the invitation extended by the Government to join together and set this
country of ours back on the road to economic recovery and witness the dawning of a new age of prosperity.
Canadians, once again, are full of hope, trust, and optimism. The Government is delivering on its commitment to create jobs, jobs, jobs. Together with the people of this nation we will deliver more, more, more.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, when this Government came to power, its platform was economic renewal and national reconciliation, a platform that was announced in the November economic message and confirmed and further developed in the Budget brought down by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) two weeks ago.
Mr. Speaker, our policies were aimed at renewing investor confidence and liberating the private sector. The Opposition has shouted down these proposals and demanded more money for creating temporary jobs, but we did not give in because we believe that the private sector is in the best position to create useful and durable jobs, provided it is given a chance to do so.
Mr. Speaker, we have asked Canadian entrepreneurs to deliver the goods and they have done so a hundred times over.
According to statistics published today, 271,000 jobs have been created in Canada since September. It is the first time we have seen such a high growth rate over a two-month period since Statistics Canada started publishing monthly labour market data.
The unemployment rate in Canada, at 11.6 per cent when the election was held, went down to 10.5 per cent in May. Unemployment among young people dropped from 18.3 to 16.2 per cent. Seventy per cent of these new jobs are full-time
jobs.
Mr. Speaker, this Government is aware of its responsibility to Canadians who are unemployed and who have given up looking for work. The fact that tens of thousands of Canadians have found jobs in an indication that our policies produced-


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the Hon. Member but his time has expired.



Mr. Jean-Luc Joncas (Matapedia-Matane):: This morning, Mr. Speaker, Statistics Canada published the findings of its
June 7, 1985

May 1985 survey on gainfully employed Canadians. It reveals that April and May this year were months during which Canada recorded more than modest gains-above average results are an encouraging trend in our fight against unemployment. Progress over those two months constitutes a historic and perhaps unprecedented achievement since the end of World War II.
The total number of jobs in Canada went up by 159,000 in April and May, and that-in seasonally adjusted figures-is the sharpest increase over two consecutive months ever recorded by Statistics Canada since it first began to collate such monthly figures in 1953. We now have 271,00 more Canadians at work than we had nine months earlier. At this rate, we might exceed 400,000 new jobs over a 12-month period, a mark surpassed only twice since the end of the 1940s.
Mr. Speaker, this upward trend can be seen everywhere, not only among a given segment of the population or in a specific region of the country. Unemployment rates declined among all major age groups, men and women alike, in seven out of ten provinces.
Mr. Speaker, this Government is rightfully proud of its notable progress at every level in our fight against unemployment. That has been the performance of the Government so far, and it is firmly committed to improve on its record.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, once again it is Friday in the nation's capital and we come to the awarding of the "Patronage of the Week Award". This week the process has been difficult because of a number of last minute entries. The nominees?


Mr. Boudria:: John McMillan.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: John McMillan, the brother of the Minister of Tourism (Mr. McMillan), two weeks out of law school, has been named Canada's legal agent in Prince Edward Island. He has complained that he has not gotten much yet.


Don Boudria: Faith Good.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mrs. Faith Good, the mother of the Chief of Staff of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie), has become Vice-Chairman of the Board of the St. John's Port Corporation.


Don Boudria: Jim Wood.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Jim Wood, a former Mountie, is now presiding over veterans' pensions.
In the final analysis-


Don Boudria: The Crosbie brothers.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: -it was no contest. The envelope, please?
The winners are the Crosbie boys. Rat pack T-shirts for the Crosbie boys will be available in the office of the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) during business hours of nine to five.


THE FORMER ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Ted Schellenberg (Nanaimo-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I was somewhat distressed earlier today because I thought we were not going to have the Patronage Award of the Week awarded as there was not one awarded last Friday. I thought that this might be the last SOW Award. I am encouraged, however, to see that once again the awarders of the Patronage Award of the Week have found some names, and have given a double award at that. Perhaps we can meet fire with fire, and give a double award as well.
Choosing the first name from our SOW barrel, the first SOW of the Week is Denis Ethier, the former Liberal Member of Parliament for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, who was appointed Chairman of the Livestock Feed Board by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner), back when he had no option. I suggest that the Livestock Feed Board is a great place for a "SOW".
Now the tension mounts as we get to our second award winner of the day. I draw another name from our piggy barrel. My goodness, the second winner is a rat. The other "SOW" is the present Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria), the author of the black book on Tory patronage, the man who makes so much of his humble beginnings as a House of Commons busboy. He is also the man who got that job on the recommendation of his number one sponsor, the former Liberal MP for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Denis Ethier. Obviously, when it comes to patronage, the rat pack knows that of which it squeaks.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. William G. Lesick (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, here is more good news. This morning's employment statistics provide compelling proof that the pro-employment policies of the Government are working. In the month of May employment surged forward by another 70,000 jobs. When combined with the April increase of 89,000 jobs, that means that in the last two months the economy has created 159,000 jobs. This is the largest absolute increase in employment in any consecutive

June 7, 1985
Oral Questions
two-month period since Statistics Canada began collecting employment data in 1953.
In practically every sector of the Canadian economy there are now thousands more people working than there were last September. There are 32,000 more jobs in agriculture, 22,000 more jobs in manufacturing, 74,000 more jobs in trade, and
135,000	more jobs in the service sector. Over three-quarters of these new jobs are full-time.
The new Government has created a total of a quarter of a million jobs since its election last September. That is 66,000 jobs more than the former Government created in its entire final 12 months in office.
[DOT] (MI5)
The Opposition laughed when the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said that the election of a Progressive Conservative Government would create thousands of jobs. Let's see if they are still laughing today.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of National Health and Welfare I will direct my question to the Prime Minister. The chorus is growing. Manitoba Tories, Premier Frank Miller and, in fact, most members of the Tory caucus, now recognize that the deindexation of old age pensions was an incredible blunder.
I am glad that the Minister of National Health and Welfare has arrived in the House. The Minister has stood in the House in defence of that move. He has spouted Hansard, and has read quotes from other sources. However, his job is to defend his constituents. I am hearing a lot of constituents asking why he is not doing that job. They are asking why he is sounding like the Minister of Finance. Why does the Minister not go to the Prime Minister and tell him what he really believes, so that he can stop spouting nonsense in the House of Commons?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I think there would be general agreement in the House, following the creation of 89,000 jobs in April and 79,000 new jobs in May, that this is a great day for Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: It represents a combined increase for April and May of 159,000 new jobs. That represents the largest
back-to-back increase in job creation since Statistics Canada began compiling the data in 1953.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: I know that good news for Canada seems to be met with a glum disposition on the other side. It is good news. It is putting people back to work. It is the way to strengthen the social system. It is the way to bring strength back to the financial management of Canada. The way in which new and more valuable protection can be given to the elderly in Canada is by a sound economy which will be achieved through job creation.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is obviously very nervous when he resorts to a discussion of job creation when he is faced with the situation of the elderly. I am sure that the elderly people who will lose up to $60 a month because of the Budget, by the year 1990, will be happy to hear that. I would invite the Prime Minister to inform himself. In the first eight months of the last Liberal administration, 272,000 jobs were created.
As we know, the Deputy Minister of Finance, Marshall "Mickey" Cohen, resigned yesterday. We know Mr. Cohen, and we know that he is too good and too knowledgeable to be associated with this incoherent, unfair, and piecemeal Budget. I would like the Prime Minister to give us the commitment, as he sinks further and further into the fiscal swamp, that he will not try to put the blame for the Budget on the back of Mickey Cohen, because it was designed and drafted in the Prime Minister's office. Will he give us that commitment?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. friend should read The Toronto Star of today. He is quoted as saying that the Progressive Conservative Government has been extremely supportive of and loyal to Mr. Cohen. That is completely counter to the implication of his question. If it is in The Toronto Star, it has to be true!
Mr. Cohen is an outstanding public servant. I accepted his resignation with genuine regret. He has brought honour to the Public Service, and he has served the Department of Finance with great distinction and accomplishment. Any suggestion to the contrary is, as my hon. friend knows, malicious and absolutely false.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to hear that because, as I said, Mr. Cohen is much too good and much too knowledgeable to be associated with this travesty.
June 7, 1985


PENSIONS
Donald James Johnston: I go
back to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, Mr. Speaker. He knows that, every day, fear and anxiety are mounting amongst the elderly. I am getting calls; we are all getting calls. An Hon. Member behind me, I think, said he is getting calls. Everyone is getting calls. We are all concerned. Everyone is asking me: "What are you going to do about it?" Now I am asking the Minister what he is going to do about it. What is he going to do about correcting this cruel and brutal measure in the Budget?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the first point I make to the Hon. Member is that he, I am sure, does not want to spread fear by using figures which are wrong, and he again used a wrong figure this morning. I think that is the first point we should agree on.
The Hon. Member fobs off the creation of jobs as being meaningless to the elderly. But let's keep in mind that the creation of those jobs, and the reduction of the 29 basis points in the bank rate yesterday, are both examples that the Government's economic plan, along with the co-operation of the private sector, is working.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I agree with the Hon. Member-I have said many times in the House that I am defending the senior citizens, and this is what I am defending. I do believe that as that new wealth is created and that new room is opened up, those who should first get that benefit are those who are our senior citizens. And that is what this Government has always said.


THE BUDGET
Mr. Raymond Garneau (Laval-des-Rapides):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance.
I am a little surprised to hear the Government benches congratulating themselves on increased employment and a reduction in unemployment. Any first-year university student knows that it takes at least a year or a year and a half for a Budget to have any effect, and today's figures are the result of the Lalonde Budget.


Mr. Masse:: Why not the Mackenzie King Budget?


Raymond Garneau: Despite repeated requests by the Opposition, the Government has refused to disclose the impact this shower of taxes on the Canadian middle class will have on the Canadian economy.
Oral Questions
My question to the Minister of Finance is as follows: At a time when in the United States, there is a proposal for fiscal reform which would increase corporate taxes and reduce taxes for the middle class, why has the Progressive Conservative Government taken an entirely different route by increasing taxes and income tax for the middle class and reducing corporate taxes, especially for the oil multinationals?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member is just rehashing old questions which his colleagues in the New Democratic Party have asked, and they have been getting the straight answers. I am not going to bother boring the House with those answers again. However, I do caution the Hon. Member, when he makes these comments about job creation, that since January 75,000 more younger people got jobs, 112,000 women have found jobs since September 4, and 271,000 Canadians in total have found jobs.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The difference, Mr. Speaker, is that we are not saying that we created those jobs. We know that Canadians created those jobs, and that is the nature of the Budget. That is the nature of the economic policy of the Government. It is to give that confidence and encouragement to Canadians so that we can have this clear record of success, about which all Canadians should be rejoicing today. They are not walking around with that little cloud above their heads like the Hon. Member. They are saying that this Government is on the right track. It is reinforcing that clear record of success with the Budget.


RECONCILIATION OF PURCHASING POWER LOSS AND JOB CREATION
Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance refuses to understand the question. Since July last year, there has been a constant upward trend in employment. We are afraid that the Budget the Minister has just brought down will stop this trend, and I would ask the Minister of Finance why he is asking the Canadian private sector to create jobs, when he has just cut the purchasing power of the people who are supposed to be the customers of these Canadian businesses, a cut that will total S37 billion by the end of 1990. I have been asking this question for months, and I have never had a reply. I will try again this morning and ask the Minister where the private sector jobs are going to come from, when he is cutting our purchasing power by $37 billion.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, let me ask the Hon. Member to cast his mind back to what his Leader and others in his Party said, that the measures in the

June 7, 1985
Oral Questions
November 8 statement were going to cost the country between
50,000	and 100,000 jobs and we would see just a wipe-out of the private sector because of those dastardly changes brought in on November 8. But what have we seen since then?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Tell him.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: A continuation-


Raymond Garneau: Wait another 12 months.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The Member says wait. We wait, we wait, and we wait, and we will probably see hundreds of thousands more jobs created-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: -because of the positive response by the private sector to the Budget.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Is he aware of the fact that 34 groups representing pensioners and elderly people throughout Canada have come out against his Government's deindexation of old age security pensions? They include the Conservative Government of Ontario, the Conservative Party and the New Democrats of the Manitoba Legislative Assembly and, in Quebec, the Federation quebecoise des clubs de l'Age d'or, the Forum des citoyens ages, the Association feminine d'education et d'action sociale and the Association pour la defense des droits des retraites et des preretraites du Quebec, and not a single organization is in favour of it.
In view of such widespread and negative reaction, Mr. Speaker, why did the Prime Minister welsh on his election promise to maintain full old age pension indexation to offset inflation?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I and others in the House have said, time and time again, that the first obligation of the Government is to create a climate whereby jobs and wealth would be created. As the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister have said today, and as objective Canadians are saying, at least the right course has been struck and it is starting to have positive results.
We are also saying that, as the wealth is created, not only do we want to protect the social programs he speaks of, we have to reduce the cost that Canadian taxpayers are paying to service the debt, money which is then not available for social programs, health care, pensions, or anything else the Hon.
Member wants to ask me about. That is the reality, and while he might disagree with our economic philosophy, as we do with his, I would hope at least he would see the results for what they are.
[ Translation]


PROMISES MADE TO RETIRED PERSONS DURING ELECTION CAMPAIGN-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Michael Morris Cassidy: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Again it is directed to the Prime Minister since he is the one who, on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party during the election campaign, made the unconditional promise to maintain old age security pensions for retired Canadians.
Through you, Mr. Speaker, I am asking the Prime Minister whether or not he will live up to his election campaign promise to retired people? On behalf of elderly Canadians, can we take the Prime Minister at his word?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, we have been left in such a precarious situation that, this year, we will have to spend $25 billion to service the national debt we inherited from the Liberal Government.
Here is the tragic picture to put the problem in its proper perspective: social programs as a whole cost the federal treasury about $19 billion, so we are actually spending a lot more on the national debt than we do on social programs, and that is a tragedy for Canada. We simply have to balance the books, and that is what we are doing. The only effective option acceptable to all Canadians and all Quebecers is the creation of permanent jobs in the private sector. Since the Progressive Conservative Government has been elected, we have created
271,000	new jobs in Canada, an achievement which bodes well for all Canadians.


FINANCE
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker,
I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Consultants who addressed the Ottawa-Carleton Economic Development Corporation membership gathered to study the Budget came to the conclusion that, save for accountants and tax lawyers whom small and medium-sized business will have to hire to unravel the many intricacies of the new Budget, precious few Canadians will benefit from the so-called job creation measures.
In the opinion of the Minister of Finance, would it be more productive to make the capital gains tax exemption available to those who invest in small and medium-size businesses,
June 7, 1985

thereby creating jobs, rather than to offer a $125,000 cash reward to people who have already made investments or will make some in foreign countries?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, Members opposite, including those in the New Democratic Party, said that the job loss resulting from the November statement would be between 50,000 and 100,000. That was generally accepted by the Members opposite. If the Member is at all objective he will understand that the approach we took in November, which we have continued in the Budget, has been truly successful in creating job opportunities for Canadians right across the country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: In response to the specific question, we decided not to have a specific valuation date. We were going to spread the effects of the change in the capital gains exemption over a period of five years in order that there would not be the windfall impact about which the Hon. Member speaks.


INVESTMENT OF SAVINGS PLANS IN SMALL BUSINESSES
Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of Finance believes that his Budget will create so many jobs, why did he reduce the potential for job creation by small business by preventing owners and their families from investing their retirement savings plans in their own small businesses?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, we did consider the option proposed by the Hon. Member. We did not do it because we felt that the advantage which some people might have taken of that provision would have resulted in a great deal of complexity in the Act. That complexity in the Act may have made it more difficult to get RRSP funds and pension funds into small businesses. In that way, without spending a nickel of taxpayers' funds, we will create a number of jobs by removing that obstacle and getting the equity capital into small businesses so that they can expand.


PENSIONS IMPACT OF BUDGET
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. As of this morning 32 national seniors' organizations and two provincial Governments have said that they do not agree with the deindexation of pensions by the Government. Today will be the fifth day that my Party is tabling petitions from seniors across the country saying that they do not agree with what the Government is doing. Yesterday I met with several hundred seniors in Toronto who said
Oral Questions
that they did not agree with what the Government is doing. They asked me to ask the Prime Minister why he is doing this to them.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend asks a very good question. I would very much like to be able to stand before the House of Commons and announce that it is within the power of the Government to reduce taxes and increase benefits for all Canadians, including the elderly.
We found a financial situation that was infinitely more difficult than anyone could have reasonably foreseen. We found that, in the absence of action, the entire social welfare structure could be jeopardized. If interest payments kept demanding more, and more, and more of government income, there would be less, and less, and less left in the future to sustain and render viable social programs for the elderly and others in Canada.
We had to make some hard decisions. I wish that the news could be better for all Canadians. I hope that in the near future it will be better. However, I think my hon. friend would agree with me, as I know all senior citizens will, that the way to renewal is through job creation. The 271,000 jobs created so far represent a major step toward rendering our social programs more viable.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REASONS FOR GOVERNMENT ACTION
Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is also directed to the Prime Minister. That does not answer the question the seniors are asking. It is not only the seniors who are asking that question. Later on today I will be tabling in the House a petition from 400 students of Malvern Collegiate in my constituency, who are grandchildren of those seniors. These students are asking the Prime Minister the same question. Why are you doing this to our grandparents?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think that that too is a worthy question. I wish that we could be as generous as we would all like to be, with regard to all requests for more help for Canadians. My hon. friend mentions the students who will be filling the petition, as they ought to. He may want to remind them that Statistics Canada figures revealed this morning that there were 51,000 more students working this May than at the same time last year. I think that is progress as well.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, this supplementary question is again directed to the Prime Minister. If the economy is on a recovery, we are all happy to see it. No one would disagree with that. If the economy is on the recovery which the Government claims it is, and if the Government is

June 7, 1985
Oral Questions
providing jobs for students and others, that is an even better reason why the Government should not be doing this to senior citizens.
In light of all those facts, would the Prime Minister not reconsider deindexing pensions for the people who need the money the most? Will he not come clean and say to the seniors in the country that he is going to abide by the clear commitment he made to them during the election campaign, and since, and will not touch their pensions?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, this is both a sensitive and important question, very properly framed by my hon. friend. We have fully indexed the GIS. We have fully indexed payments to veterans. We have extended payments to widows and widowers between 60 and 64 years of age. We have extended the provisions of disability to include some 120,000 more Canadians. We have done all of these things because we are trying to make the social programs economically sustainable and durable in Canada. They are gravely jeopardized by the burgeoning mountain of debt which now calls upon Canada to pay more in interest than to our entire social welfare infrastructure.


Jacques Guilbault: Why make the poor pay?


Martin Brian Mulroney: I hear criticism from the Liberals, the same people, with their six and five program, who deindexed pensions of the elderly by 6 per cent and 5 per cent. That's what is wrong.

[ Translation]


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I hope the Right Hon. Prime Minister will show a little more dignity and respect in answering questions about the elderly than he did just now.
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister acknowledged that when he tabled this document in January, he was aware of the financial situation of this country, and he made a commitment to the Canadian people and to Parliament that changes in social programs would not be used to reduce the deficit. The Prime Minister has deceived Canadians once again.
To make up for this, is the Prime Minister at least prepared to meet another commitment he made on July 26 in Sherbrooke, his eighth commitment, and I quote:
To consult directly with senior citizens' groups on legislation that concerns them.
Is the Prime Minister prepared to meet with all senior citizens' groups next week or the week after?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Budget papers make it quite clear that the Government is going to monitor very closely the views of the public and how the situation develops, and when appropriate and if necessary and when we are in a position to do so, we will take the appropriate measures. I think that is in the Budget in black and white. It is a public secret.
I said yesterday that the position taken by the Hon. Member and the Official Opposition was a surprise to me, because they were saying the exact opposite three years ago. For instance, this morning I read in an editorial: "Crocodile tears shed by the Liberal Party." The article said: "Their 6 & 5 policy introduced at a time of spiralling inflation had cut deeply into benefits for the elderly." That is what you did with your hypocritical and dishonest policies, and we are now trying to correct the situation.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, how does the Prime Minister expect the Canadian people to believe his second paper when he has failed to keep his word and his commitments in connection with that paper?


THE ELDERLY-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Jean-Claude Malépart: My
supplementary to the Prime Minister is as follows: Will the Prime Minister have the intellectual honesty to do what the MacEachen Budget did, since they are saying that a Liberal Budget had deprived those most in need, which is just not true ... 1 will read what it says here:
Pensioners most in need must also be fully protected from the limitation on the indexing factor. The Guaranteed Income Supplement for senior citizens ...


An Hon. Member:: Ask your supplementary!


Jean-Claude Malépart: That is my question to the Prime Minister, Sir.
.. .with lower incomes will continue to be fully indexed. In addition, everyone receiving GIS will get a supplement to the GIS payment offsetting fully the limitation on indexation of Old Age Security payments.
Why pick on senior citizens, Mr. Speaker? What they want to know is what the Government has against senior citizens, especially those who are most in need. What reason do they have for not giving them what the Liberals were prepared to give?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, what a petty and hypocritical question! The Hon. Member ought to be ashamed to ask such a question. The elderly in Quebec and Canada know perfectly well that economic renewal is necessary, that it is the cornerstone of any decent guaranteed income or social security program. All Canadians,
June 7, 1985

including and especially senior citizens, know perfectly well that our social programs have been put at risk as a result of the national debt, and that the only way to get out of this situation is by creating jobs.
1 think the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie should realize that among the 159,000 jobs created in only two months, 60,000 were created in Quebec. That is the best news Quebec has had in ten years, and senior citizens are well aware of that.


Ms. Copps:: Qa c'est mentant.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Get out of here, baby.


MANITOBA LEGISLATURE RESOLUTION
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. While he is the Minister for all of Canada, he is also a Manitoban. He knows that yesterday a unanimous resolution was passed by the Legislation of that province calling for the full indexation of old age pensions for seniors, and talking about the profoundly negative effect the federal Government's program of deindexation will have on old age pensioners. Will he join other Manitobans and make sure that the Government reverses its position?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the resolution and have had discussions about it. The Hon. Member knows that he and I have said in the House many times that we are going to monitor the situation. It is not even in effect, only to come into effect on January 1 next. Therefore, the situation remains the same.
I also tell him that the Manitoba Legislature, as is any other legislature, is an independent parliamentary body. They can pass their resolutions and we can accept them and examine them, as with other representations.


REQUEST FOR FULL INDEXATION
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. He made a promise during the election campaign. He has now heard from the Province of Manitoba and the Province of Ontario. He has heard from seniors and young people right across the country.
The reason he has given the House is that the deficit is a problem. Will he not admit that when the Liberals were in Government, the Conservative Party, just as the New Democrats, said that the deficit would be higher than it actually turned out to be? Would he not admit that and reinstate that pension for the old people?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the difference is that the February figures provided by the
Oral Questions
former Government provided a large deficit plus a trend line which it said was going down. However, when we came into office we discovered that the trend line was going up.
I ask my hon. friend to reflect upon what that does. For example, if we go from 10 cents on the dollar to 33 cents on the dollar, and ultimately to 40 cents and 50 cents on every dollar of government revenue to pay the interest on the debt, that puts the capacity of the Government of Canada to maintain these social programs in peril.
It is because we want to maintain their integrity, and to enhance them at the earliest possible time, that we are taking measures which are painful for all Canadians. However, they are designed to be helpful in creating the kind of durable job creation that throws off tax dollars and the new wealth that will allow us to sustain and enhance those social programs, particularly for the elderly.
I think the news this morning of the creation of 271,000 new jobs in Canada should be cause for rejoicing by the Hon. Member.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Alex Kindy (Calgary East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. There is good news from Statistics Canada today because
159,000	new jobs have been created in the last two months. We have not heard a question from the Liberals or the New Democratic Party about this situation. They do not want to ask about that because it is good news. Therefore, let me ask the Minister if she could give us an analysis of those new jobs that have been created.


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the figures that were released this morning by Statistics Canada concerning the creation of new jobs in the last few months, and indeed since September of last year, represent the breakthrough in economic renewal right across the country.
Since September of last year 271,000 new jobs have been created as against the 94,000 jobs that had been created under the Liberal Government in the same period of the previous year. Furthermore, 131,000 fewer Canadians are unemployed as against the same period of time when unemployment went up under a Liberal Government. People have to recognize that those are the kinds of statistics which have brought about the economic breakthrough which the country is witnessing.

June 7, 1985
Oral Questions


THE ADMINISTRATION
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, my questions are directed to the Prime Minister. I have read and reread all the arguments the Prime Minister has made on the record in defence of the conduct of the Minister of Justice in relation to giving government legal work to his sons, to try to find the case the Prime Minister was making. I bear in mind today's revelation that CMHC work was given directly to them, not to them in any capacity as members of a firm. Is the Prime Minister saying that when he, as Prime Minister, is satisfied with the probity, integrity, and honour of one of his Ministers, that that Minister is not obliged to follow the guidelines?


Martin Brian Mulroney: No. Mr. Speaker, I have said no such thing. In fact I have said quite the contrary. The implication of my hon. friend is, as he knows, vexatious and spurious. It does him no honour to persist in this kind of malice in the House of Commons, which is both unfair and misleading.


CONFLICT OF INTEREST GUIDELINES
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I would protest the imputation that my concerns are not sincere. I am wondering what the guidelines mean. How can the Prime Minister take clear guidelines and find that what the Minister of Justice has done is not preferential treatment? How can he defend it based on the specific words, the clear words of the guidelines?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I hope I gave an answer which would satisfy my hon. friend. It was given in good faith. It dealt with the facts of the issue and the extent to which, indeed, the guidelines were very much in force. Not only must they be implemented and clear of violation, but even the appearance of violation must be avoided. I think that has been established to the satisfaction of the House, I hope that is the case, but I would be happy to provide any further information the Hon. Member wishes.


UNACCEPTABLE CONDUCT INQUIRY
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Prime Minister to enlighten the country. How can the guidelines, as they have been interpreted in the case of the Minister of Justice, ever be violated? What would constitute unacceptable conduct by one of his Ministers?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member asks a hypothetical question. I can only tell him that Canadians quite properly expect Ministers of the Crown, and all Members of Parliament, to adhere to the highest possible standard of conduct, and that is exactly what we are going to do. Anything at variance with that would be unacceptable. I have made that very clear. Having said that, I
am satisfied that the explanations provided by the Minister of Justice are appropriate, and I hope my hon. friend would agree with that.


PENSIONS IMPACT OF BUDGET
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. He has indicated, if not said, that he derives no pleasure from the measures which were brought about that will take from senior citizens a certain part of their expendable income. With that in mind, would he undertake to review the five options we offered yesterday, options which, if implemented, could yield to the Treasury in excess of $3 billion in any calendar year, or any fiscal year, with an eye to finding, within the five areas we have recommended could be reviewed and taxed in a somewhat different way, the required $245 million, to allow the Government not to decrease the indexing provisions applicable to old age pensioners?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my friend raises an excellent point. While I have not read the transcript, I noticed that one of the committees of the House dealt yesterday with the thrust of the question which my hon. friend raises, where the Liberals, in a gift to their friends in big business, threw off $2.5 billion in forgone tax revenues in R and D spinoffs. We shut down that tax loophole, because that was what was happening to the social programs.
We have imposed a tax on the capital of banks and trust companies, we have imposed a surcharge on the wealthy, and we are going to impose a minimum tax on the wealthy, because we agree with that spirit of fairness.
Again I give my hon. friend the assurance, as was said in the budgetary documents, that we will monitor this very closely and at the earliest possible moment discuss it in the House with my hon. friend, at his convenience. We will continue to monitor it to ensure, to the extent humanly possible and as quickly as finances permit, that no difficulty is sustained by our elderly in Canada.


REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister will recognize that we have six months to change this policy toward old age pensioners. I ask him to look seriously at whether, within the five options we have offered, or in any other way, there seems to be sufficient money to meet the demand. Would he look at those and determine for himself that it is in fact possible to rearrange the tax structure within those areas in such a way as to raise the $245 million, and to say to Canadian seniors that in fact we recognize their contribution to the building of the country and that, as a grateful nation, we will ask others with more disposable
June 7, 1985

income to take on the burden which would otherwise have been placed on them?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, there will be no change in the documents filed by my hon. friend.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Before you are overcome with your own maudlin sense of self-importance-not the NDP House Leader, the people behind him-and before you expire on the spot, we, conscious of this, have given an indication in the budgetary documents that we would do precisely that, that we would monitor it very carefully.
However, we also indicated-and 1 know my hon. friend would agree with this-that the only way it could be done, in that borrowed money and printed money do not work any more, is through job creation and long-term, equitable sharing of new wealth. And 271,000 new jobs represent new wealth, new prosperity, and new hope for all Canadians.
Oral Questions
the parks are very much part of our national heritage and will always remain so.


WILDLIFE TOXIC FUND-NORANDA MINES CONTRIBUTION
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear that the Minister was misquoted. However, I wonder whether, by accepting from Noranda Mines a contribution of $50,000 to the wildlife toxic fund announced by her a few days ago, she has opened the door to a possible conflict of interest in our national parks.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: 1 will take a look at it, Mr. Speaker, but I will have to check the record to see what Noranda Mines contributed to the Liberal Party. If he wants to carry it to that extreme, I think it will wind up in a little fit of lunacy. I think we have to be reasonable and thoughtful in our approaches here, and I think that is what we have tried to be.


NATIONAL PARKS
[Stage Direction]
*
* *
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of the Environment I will direct my question to anyone among that uninspired lot of Ministers. The Minister of the Environment has made the front page of at least one national paper and was quoted as saying: "I don't have to think the national parks are sacred". She went on to say that she would not rule out mining and forestry in national parks. My question is a simple one. Is this an expression of her own opinion or an expression of the consensus of Cabinet and of the Prime Minister, in a year in which Canadians are celebrating the centennial of Parks Canada?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, 1 should say that I am getting a little dismayed at coming to the House of Commons and constantly finding the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the NDP absent.


An Hon. Member:: Where are they?


MEDICAL USE OF HEROIN
Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister of National Health and Welfare tell the House if he has reached agreement with the provinces and law enforcement agencies with respect to a protocol for the medical use of heroin in Canada?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his question. As all Hon. Members know, he has been the foremost spokesman on this important issue in the House. I would say the protocol is coming to conclusion. We expect it to be concluded by the end of this month. The sourcing will come from the United Kingdom. According to that source, we understand it could be available at the beginning of October, 1985.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I think they are off at an engagement party in Queen's Park.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Rossi:: TV cameras are the only attraction keeping you here this morning!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Liberals out of office, now that really hurts! [English]
I can tell my hon. friend that I understand the Minister indeed was misquoted, because her view is that of ours, that
As the Hon. Member also knows, heroin has to be put on each provincial pharmacological calendar. 1 have discussed that matter with the provinces and I think it is well in hand.


CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORT
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions presented by Hon. Members on Thursday, June 6, 1985, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.

June 7, 1985
Privilege-Ms. Copps PRIVILEGE


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to have to rise for a second time in a week in the House and ask government Members, and in particular the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), to withdraw the sexist remarks he and members of his Party have made two times in one week.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sheila Maureen Copps: The House Leader may not consider this a question of privilege. I consider it a question of privilege when the women of Canada are insulted by terms such as "baby".
I would ask you, Mr. Speaker-and I have forwarded a letter to the Chair to this effect-in light of the fact that we are living in 1985 and such sexist terms are not acceptable in the House of Commons, to order the Minister of Finance to withdraw the statements he made, which included the words, "Get out, baby". I am not his baby. I am not the baby of any Member on the government side of the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Sheila Maureen Copps: 1 am sorry that the members of the Conservative Party think it is a big joke to call other Members of this place "baby". I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to rule that the Minister finally and unequivocally remove the word "baby" from the House of Commons.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, 1 would never use a word such as that unless properly provoked. The Hon. Member used the word menteur three times in referring to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). That means, in English, liar, liar, liar. The Hon. Member knows that and she will not deny it.


Sheila Maureen Copps: I do not deny it.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: She says she will not deny it.
Any time a Member of the House uses that sort of language, that Member loses the total respect of the House. After that point in time, whatever language is used in connection with the Member goes. I do not take back what I said.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) has stated a proposition which simply cannot be accepted. Even if hypothetically one Hon. Member uses unparliamentary language, it does not justify another Hon. Member's use of unparliamentary language, especially when the Minister of Finance has used language which is not only an insult to a distinguished Member of this House-


Some Hon. Members:: Who? Who?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: -but to all women of Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: I did not hear the comments which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) said the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) made.


An Hon. Member:: She admitted it!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
I did not hear the comments the Hon. Member for Hamilton East says the Minister of Finance said. There is a simple reason for that, which is that it is often difficult for me to hear during Question Period in the House.
The Hon. Member for Hamilton East has sent me a letter with respect to this matter. There is no question in my mind that sexist remarks are objectionable. However, there is some question in my mind as to whether or not the fact that they are objectionable makes them unparliamentary. Equally, there is no question that language which the House generally finds objectionable tends to cause disorder, which then brings us into the area of order, the use of language, and the creation of disorder through language, which is a separate matter.
Under the circumstances, having recognized the seriousness with which Hon. Members have taken this point in their comments, I think we all have an obligation to each other-males to females, females to males, Liberals to Conservatives, NDP to all of us and everybody to the NDP-to bring our language into check and to remember that this is the House of Commons of Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



POINTS OF ORDER


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I asked that a document from which the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) quoted be tabled. I understand the Government's reply to that request is to refer to a letter of former Prime Minister Trudeau which has been tabled in 1984. I rise because the letter from Mr. Trudeau is not the document which I was asking to have tabled. I was asking to have tabled the document from which the Prime Minister was quoting.
Yesterday, the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnaty-shyn) said, as reported at page 5490 of Hansard'.
Mr. Speaker, I am not one to peer over the Prime Minister's shoulder, but that was a separate document altogether, with an extract. It was not a letter.
In other words, the document before the Prime Minister was not a letter; it was a document that I gather contained an extract from former Prime Minister Trudeau's letter. According to Beauchesne, Members of the House are entitled to have tabled the document from which the Prime Minister was reading yesterday.


Mr. Speaker:: Beauchesne is very clear on this point. In fact,
1 can quote it from memory:
Only the document cited need to be tabled by a Minister.

June 7, 1985
That is the very clear practice. If, for the sake of argument, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) were holding a piece of paper on which was printed a single paragraph taken from a letter, and he then indicated, as I think he did, having seen the videotape, that he was quoting from a letter with a date and read the quotation, then the document that is properly required to be tabled is the letter he has cited. If the Hon. Member is arguing that the piece of paper he was holding has to be-


An Hon. Member:: No one said that.


Mr. Speaker:: I take it that if that is what the Hon. Member is saying, then, no, no such obligation is necessary.
Let us be clear that what is cited is the letter from the Prime Minister to the Ministers. That is to what he referred.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, may I respectfully refer you to Beauchesne, page 116, at the top of the page where it is written:
It has been admitted that a document which has been cited ought to be laid upon the Table of the House-
I respectfully submit that, yesterday, the Government House Leader (Mr. Hnatyshyn) told you, Sir, that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) was talking about a document. I respectfully ask, Mr. Speaker, that you give some further consideration to the matter, in light of the words of the Government House Leader.


Mr. Speaker:: I am in some difficulty because we dealt with this matter separately yesterday. At the time, I invited argument from Hon. Members. Yesterday, the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) and the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) asked me to hear arguments on this very question. I did. I take it that the Hon. Member for York Centre is now trying to raise a separate point which is with respect to whether or not the piece of paper is the document to which Beauchesne refers. It is not my view that that is what Beauchesne means; nor would it make any sense if it were taken that way. I take it that what it means is that, when a Minister indicates, as he did yesterday, that he is quoting from a letter, which is exactly what the "blues", the videotape, and Hansard show, then his obligation is to table that letter.



ALLEGED INCORRECT S.O. 21 STATEMENT

Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Earlier today, when making a statement under Standing Order 21, the Hon. Member for Nanaimo-Alberni (Mr. Schellenberg) suggested to the House that I had received a political appointment, or had been recommended for one by the previous Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, when I started working here in 1966.
Page 243 of the Canadian Parliamentary Guide for 1981 shows clearly that the previous Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, one Denis Ethier, was first elected to the House of Commons in 1972-six years after I had started working here. The Parliamentary Guide indicates that the Hon.
Petitions
Member for the riding in which I lived at that time was one Paul Tardif, later succeeded by John Turner. Those were my Members of Parliament, not the one stated incorrectly by the Hon. Member.



CORRECTION OF S O. 21 STATEMENT

Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) on two or three occasions in this House has stated during Statements Pursuant to Standing Order 21 and during the course of Question Period last week that representatives of Action Now, a senior citizens' group from Saskatchewan, had been refused a meeting with me. I have checked with my office. There has never been any such request for a meeting with me. I would gladly meet with this group as I have over the years. I just wanted to make clear for the record that the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville is wrong in his facts and in this particular case he is ultimately and very much wrong.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of pride in the young people of our country that I present a petition today from some 400 students of Malvern Collegiate who are asking the Government to live up to the promise it made during the election campaign to index pensions to the full cost of living and ask the Government to reconsider its present policy.
I have another petition from senior citizens who reside at 1080 Eastern Avenue in my constituency and they make the same request.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I also have a petition signed on behalf of the old age pensioners of Canada in which the petitioners ask the House to make sure that the Conservative Government lives up to its election promise of indexing the old age pension to the actual cost of living on a quarterly basis, and I think that that is very important. This is the fifth day on which Members of our Party have risen to present these petitions and the request obviously has the overwhelming support of Canadians everywhere.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and privilege to present a petition to the House from many citizens of Windsor who protest the proposed deindexing of the old age pensions and call on Parliament to re-establish the full indexing of old age pensions.

June 7, 1985
Order Paper Questions


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition from a number of citizens of Ottawa pointing out that the proposed cut in the old age pension will take from old age pensioners $100 in 1986, $205 in 1987, and $315 in 1988, and they are asking this House to reinstate full indexation of the Old Age Security Program of Canada.
I have another petition, also signed by a number of residents and pensioners of the City of Ottawa, who petition the House of Commons to reinstate the full indexation of the old age pension and who recall that during the election campaign, Progressive Conservative Members stated that a PC Government would once more index the old age pension to the actual cost of living on a quarterly basis. They are asking that that promise be kept.


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians from coast to coast are getting very concerned about the lack of indexing on pensions. It is my privilege to present a petition from citizens, who are mostly from Saskatchewan, protesting the Government's action in cutting the indexation of Old Age Security, reminding the Government of its promise to index pensions fully, and urging that indexing be fully restored.


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition from citizens of Canada reminding the Government that it promised to restore full indexation of pensions and requesting Parliament to see to it that that full indexation is in fact restored.


Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-l ake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition to present from some residents of my riding who are petitioning the Government to reverse its policy on deindexing Old Age Security Program payments because of the ultimate high cost to pensioners. They are asking that the Progressive Conservative Government live up to its election promise to continue the indexing of pensions on a quarterly basis based on the actual cost of living.

[ Translation]


[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Paul Dick (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, question No. 53 will be answered today.


Mr. Howie: What are the (a) names (b) positions of the persons who occupy positions on the Executive and Board of Directors of the Canada Development Investment Corporation and, in each case, what amount was he/she paid in respect of that position in the fiscal year ended March 31, 1984?
Hon. Sinclair Stevens	(Minister of Regional Industrial
Expansion): As of March 31, 1984, the reply for the Canada Development Investment Corporation (CDIC) is as follows:	
(a) Name	(b) Position
Executive Committee	
Maurice F. Strong	Chairman
Joel I. Bell	President and Chief Executive Officer
Ralph Barford	Director
Marshall A. Cohen	Director
Bernard Lamarre	Director
Paul E. Martin	Director
J. William E. Mingo	Director
William R. Teschke	Director
Board of Directors	
Richard A. Bonnycastle	Director
John Bruk	Director
Richard 1. Good	Director
Arthur Kroeger	Director
Helene LeBel	Director
John McArthur	Director
John R. McCaig	Director
Paul J. Phoenix	Director
Robert Rabinovitch	Director
Donald McQ. Shaver	Director
Thomas K. Shoyama	Director
Compensation paid to members of the Executive and Board of Directors in the fiscal year ending March 31, 1984 is as
follows:		
	Name	Amount
	Ralph Barford	$ 4,100
	Joel I. Bell	$100,000
	Richard A. Bonnycastle	$ 5,300
	John Bruk	$ 11,467
	Marshall A. Cohen	nil*
	Richard I. Good	$ 417
	Arthur Kroeger	nil*
	Bernard Lamarre	$ 5,300
	Helene LeBel	$ 5,300
	John McArthur	$ 9,017
	John R. McCaig	$ 13,467
	Paul E. Martin	$ 17,067
	J. William E. Mingo	$ 19,767
	Paul J. Phoenix	$ 2,034
	Robert Rabinovitch	nil*
	Donald McQ. Shaver	$ 2,034
	Thomas K. Shoyama	$ 14,217
	Maurice F. Strong	$ 20,817
	William R. Teschke	nil*
The salary range for the President and Chief Executive Officer is $135,000 to $ 160,000.
* Directors appointed from the Public Service of Canada receive no remuneration.


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


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
June 7, 1985



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada) moved:: That:
Whereas the Prime Minister of Canada is committed to convening before the end of 1987 a constitutional conference composed of the Prime Minister of Canada and the first ministers of the provinces to consider proposals for the reform of the Senate;
And whereas it is expedient, at this time, that the powers of the Senate with respect to bills that are passed by the House of Commons be limited;
And whereas sections 38 and 42 of the Constitution Act, 1982 provide that an amendment to the Constitution of Canada may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada where so authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and resolutions of the legislative assemblies as provided for in section 38 thereof;
Now therefore the House of Commons resolves that an amendment to the Constitution of Canada be authorized to be made by proclamation issued by Her Excellency the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada in accordance with the schedule hereto.


SCHEDULE
[Stage Direction]
1.	The Constitution Act, 1867 is amended by adding thereto, immediately after section 54 thereof, the following sections:
"54.1 (1) Where a money bill, having been passed by the House of Commons, is presented to the Senate at least thirty days before the end of the session but is not passed by the Senate without amendment within thirty days after it is presented, the bill shall, unless the House of Commons directs to the contrary, be presented to the Governor General for assent, whether or not Parliament is then in session, and when assented to shall have the same force and effect as if passed by the Senate.
(2)	There shall be endorsed on every money bill when it is presented to the Senate and when it is presented to the Governor General for assent the certificate of the Speaker of the House of Commons signed by the Speaker that it is a money bill.
(3)	A certificate of the Speaker of the House of Commons given under subsection (2) shall be conclusive for all purposes, and shall not be questioned in any court of law.
(4)	In this section and section 54.2, "money bill" means a public bill that, in the opinion of the Speaker of the House of Commons, contains only provisions dealing with the following:
(o) the imposition, repeal, remission, alteration or regulation of taxation;
(b)	the imposition for the payment of debt or other financial purposes of
charges on the Consolidated Revenue Fund or on money provided by
Parliament, or the variation or repeal of such charges;
(c)	supply;
(d)	the appropriation, receipt, custody or issue of public money;
(e)	the raising or guarantee of any loan or the repayment thereof; or
(/) subordinate matters related to any of the matters set out in paragraphs (a) to (e).
54.2	(1) Where any bill, other than a money bill, having been passed by the House of Commons, is presented to the Senate at least forty-five days before the end of the session but is not passed by the Senate within forty-five days after it is presented, the bill shall, unless the House of Commons directs to the contrary, be presented to the Governor General for assent, whether or not Parliament is then in session, and when assented to shall have the same force and effect as if passed by the Senate.
The Constitution
(2) Where any bill, other than a money bill, having been passed by the House of Commons and presented to the Senate, is passed with amendments by the Senate, and the House of Commons does not concur in the amendments within fifteen days after the bill is passed by the Senate, the bill, in the form in which it was presented to the Senate but with such amendments made by the Senate as are concurred in by the House of Commons, shall, unless the House of Commons directs to the contrary, be presented to the Governor General for assent, whether or not Parliament is then in session, and when assented to shall have the same force and effect as if passed by the Senate.
54.3	(1) In every bill presented to the Governor General under section 54.1 or 54.2, the words of enactment shall be amended by striking out any reference to the Senate.
(2) Any alteration of a bill to give effect to this section shall be deemed not to be an amendment of the bill.
54.4	Any law made pursuant to section 54.1 or 54.2 shall be deemed, for the purposes of any other provision of the Constitution of Canada, except Part V of the Constitution Act, 1982, to have been made by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons.
54.5	For greater certainty, nothing in sections 54.1 to 54.4 shall be construed as amending Part V of the Constitution Act, 1982.
54.6	Nothing in sections 54.1 to 54.4 diminishes or qualifies the rights and privileges of the House of Commons."
2.	The said Act is further amended by adding thereto the following heading and section:

[Stage Direction]
148. A reference to this Act shall be deemed to include a reference to any amendments thereto."

[Stage Direction]
3.	This Amendment may be cited as the Constitution Amendment, year of proclamation (Powers of Senate).
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to have the opportunity to move such an important resolution that will affect the Constitution of Canada in a very significant way if the resolution is adopted by this House and then adopted by the requisite number of provinces, which in this case would be seven provinces, having in excess of 51 per cent of the population of Canada. The resolution goes to the very heart of the parliamentary democratic system of Government.
The purpose of the resolution is to seek to ensure that the will of the people, as expressed through free elections and as represented in the House of Commons, which is where the people of Canada are represented in our electoral system, cannot be blocked, frustrated or undermined by the Senate. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the other place is a non-elected, appointed body which is appointed solely by the Government of Canada through the Privy Council and the Cabinet.
The resolution before the House has two main purposes. It would alter, through a constitutional amendment, the powers of the Senate and thus ensure that the Senate cannot exercise an absolute veto over Bills adopted by the House of Commons. At present, the Senate, the unelected part of the Houses of Parliament, can veto absolutely Bills that this House of Commons adopts. The resolution would commit the Government to convene a First Ministers' Conference before the end of 1987 so that the 11 First Ministers of Canada and their Governments could consider fully the options for the future of the
[Stage Direction]
June 7, 1985
The Constitution
Senate. There is a commitment from the Government that this would be done if the resolution becomes part of our Constitution.
1 would like to tell the House of the evolution of our democratic institutions to give the background for the reason we are moving this resolution. In doing that, it is necessary to review our gradual but continuing process from the arbitrary rule of French or British colonial Governors with their appointed Councils to full self-government through democratic and responsible institutions.
As Hon. Members know, our form of Government has evolved dramatically since its early days. Like other democratic countries which follow the British system, we are continuously adapting our political institutions to changing values and different circumstances, all of which reflects the unending quest to try to put into practice the ideals of democracy.
The first critical step toward these ideals was taken 227 years ago in 1758 when the first representative assembly was convened in Nova Scotia. For the first time in any part of what is now known as Canada, the British Governor and his Council could no longer impose taxes without the consent of an assembly which represented the people. That began in Nova Scotia in 1758.
It was an important development which began to move toward control by the people over their Government. In the following decades, representative assemblies were established in other British North American colonies: Prince Edward Island in 1773; New Brunswick in 1784; Upper and Lower Canada in 1791-of course, Upper and Lower Canada followed behind the Atlantic Provinces-and Newfoundland in 1832, which followed behind Upper and Lower Canada. Newfoundland has been following behind ever since.
Shortly thereafter, leaders such as Joseph Howe in Nova Scotia, Louis Joseph Papineau in Lower Canada, William Lyon Mackenzie in Upper Canada, and Amor de Cosmos in British Columbia began to campaign, not only to control the imposition of new taxes, but they also demanded that the executive be responsible to the elected assembly for government policies and how the taxes were spent.
That led to the next crucial step in the evolution of our political institutions-responsible government. Mr. Speaker, as you are a well-known constitutional scholar in your own right, you will know that, again, Nova Scotia led the way. In January, 1848, the Nova Scotia Assembly adopted a motion of non-confidence. The Executive Council, which was led by James Johnston, resigned and J. B. Uniacke was asked to form a Government. Following the Nova Scotia example, that historic change spread throughout British North America. It occurred later that year in New Brunswick and in the Province of Canada. It occurred in Prince Edward Island three years later, and in 1855 in Newfoundland. Newfoundland, which is usually a half hour ahead, was a number of years behind in that case.
Thus, the principle of responsible self-government in domestic affairs was firmly rooted in the unwritten part of the Constitution, which was important even before Confederation. The rule was established that the Government which lost the confidence of the elected House would have to resign or seek a new mandate. There is an example of that now in the Province of Ontario. Apparently, that Government may have lost the confidence of the elected House. The Liberal Party and the NDP, heart-to-heart, cheek-to-cheek, jowl-to-jowl and toe-to-toe, as they usually are, are joining together in an attempt to eject the Government which is governing at Queens Park. We will know in the next two or three weeks whether they will be successful.
That is the system. If the New Democratic Party and the Liberal Party wish to coalesce, to act covertly, overtly, or in any other way, that is their responsibility and the electorate will deal with them later.
The Ministry collectively became responsible to the elected representatives of the people for government policy. For example, the Cabinet is responsible to the elected representatives for government policy, not to the Senate. The Cabinet is not responsible to the Senate. Each Minister with a portfolio became accountable to the House for the administration of his or her Department. As a result of those developments, responsible government was the guiding principle for the Fathers of Confederation when they met in Charlottetown, Quebec City and London to consider what form the union should take.
In the years that followed, as Canada grew eastward, westward and northward-eastward, of course, to take in Newfoundland-representative and responsible government was established in other provinces. In the 1860s, British Columbia did not have an elected assembly. That province's struggle for responsible government coincided with the campaign to join Confederation. In 1871, B.C. became a province. Later that year, in accordance with the terms of the union, responsible government was instituted in British Columbia. 1 will not say any more about responsible government in British Columbia, as that might be debated.
Manitoba was created in 1870 with an elected assembly and a responsible government.
Rodney Edward Murphy: He is on camera now.


John Carnell Crosbie: Who is on camera? The hon. chatterer opposite is certainly not on camera. It would be very damaging for his Party if he were. If that simpering visage went across the country, I am sure it would badly damage his Party's standing in the polls, which is already very low.
A Territorial legislature was established in the prairie region in the late 19th century. Alberta and Saskatchewan were granted responsible government when they became provinces in 1905. The Yukon and the Northwest Territories have had fully-elected Councils since 1908 and 1966 respectively. Although the form of responsible government is not yet perfect in that part of the country, the political development is moving in that direction.
June 7, 1985

Many changes have been made in Canada, as in other democracies, to bring about a more full and more equitable participation of the citizens in the process of choosing who should govern them. Citizens have the right to choose who should govern them. But mark this. If we do not do anything to change the powers of the Senate, then the citizens of Canada will not choose who should govern them because they will be governed by the Senate. Legislation which is passed by this House can be repudiated and rejected by the non-elected, appointed Senate, which has a Liberal majority, a majority of Liberals who were repudiated by the people of Canada in the last election.
At the present time there are three vacancies in the Senate. One person has been named, but not yet appointed, from New Brunswick, Mr. Simard. There are 72 Liberals in the Senate, 25 Progressive Conservatives, three independents and one independent Liberal. The Senate is dominated completely by the Party which was rejected decisively in the election of last September. Very few might regret that, but that is what happened. The Party which now controls the Senate has been rejected by the people of Canada. The Party which has a majority in the House of Commons has been chosen. Its policy and its leader have been chosen by the people to govern Canada. What we are dealing with is whether Canadians can choose who should govern them. If the Liberal cabal in the Senate can reject or delay unduly the legislation of the House, then the people of Canada are not choosing who governs them.
Many changes had to be made in Canada to achieve the political process which we have today. There were a number of barriers. There was once a very stiff property qualification for candidates for the House of Commons. That was changed in 1874. Until 1898, ony men who met a property-owning requirement had the right to vote. Some women gained the right to vote in 1917, and basic adult suffrage was established in 1920, although even then it was not fully universal. Certain groups of oriental origin were denied the suffrage until 1948. That is quite amazing. Indians, Inuit and Doukhobors did not gain the right to vote in federal elections until 1960. By 1940 all provinces had granted the franchise to women. It is unfortunate that the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) is not here to celebrate that. In the 1970s, limits were placed on election spending in order to limit the influence of Parties' and candidates' financial resources in election campaigns. Today, all political Parties are starting to ensure that women, visible and audible minorities, and disadvantaged groups participate fully in the political process.
An important anomaly persists in Canada-an appointed and not accountable Senate is still empowered to exercise an absolute veto over legislation which is adopted by the elected House of Commons. Why has this anachronism persisted until now? To get the answer we must look at what the Fathers of Confederation intended when they designed the Senate. They tried to marry the principle of federalism to a parliamentary form of Government. That took some imagination and boldness and, on the whole, the form of Government they devel-
The Constitution
oped has served us pretty well, but we are trying to combine a parliamentary form with a federal system of Government.
The Senate was conceived as a hybrid second Chamber. Its name, and the basic principle of representation, was supposed to be equality of representation of regions rather than representation by population, and that was based on the example of the American Senate. On the other hand, the Fathers of Confederation chose a method of selection which was more like that of the House of Lords in the United Kingdom. The method of selection was not a surprising one for those times. We often forget, Mr. Speaker, that the American Senate was not then elected. It was an appointed body in the 19th century. Appointment reflected the values and the desire of the Fathers of Confederation to protect against what they called "The excesses of democracy". We all know, Mr. Speaker, that there are excesses of democracy, but our view today is that it is up to the people to decide whether or not there have been excesses. As a result, the legitimacy of the Canadian Senate at that time compared favourably with second Chambers which existed elsewhere.
The Fathers of Confederation also chose to give the Senate powers virtually equal to those of the House of Commons. That did not shock anyone in the year 1867. The Senate had the full legislative functions of the House of Lords at that time, including an absolute veto over legislation. Its powers were just about the same as those of the elected House. But since then, of course, we have had an evolution in other countries and major changes to both of the second Chambers which were the model for our Fathers of Confederation. In 1907, Mr. Speaker, the House of Commons in England adopted this motion:
In order to give effect to the will of the people as expressed by their elected representatives, it is necessary that the powers of the other House to alter or reject Bills passed by this House should be so restricted by law as to secure that within the limits of a single Parliament the final decision of the Commons shall prevail.
We all recall the bitter struggle which took place between the House of Lords and the then Liberal Government of the United Kingdom, which was finally settled with the adoption of the Parliament Act in 1911, after two elections, as I recall. So the power of the House of Lords over money Bills was reduced by law to a short delay. Its absolute veto over other legislation was reduced to a suspensive veto. And in 1949 in the United Kingdom, the length of the suspensive veto over ordinary legislation of the House of Lords was further shortened. So that is the situation in the United Kingdom.
In the United States, the American Senate underwent a major change early in this century. The Senators were chosen by the state legislative assemblies. But in 1913, only two years after passage of the Parliament Act in Britain, a constitutional amendment was adopted which provided for Senators to be popularly elected on a state-wide basis.
We have not as yet, Mr. Speaker, followed either the British or the American development. Why is it that Canadians were content to leave the Senate as it was originally constituted

June 7, 1985
The Constitution
despite the fact that these major changes took place in the United Kingdom and in the United States? Basically, the reason is that, for the most part, the Senate has been quiescent. It has not interfered with the elected House of Commons. Therefore, no one has bothered or been forced to take any steps with reference to the Senate. That is basically the reason. But now we see a different tendency, Mr. Speaker. We see a situation where the majority of the present Liberal caucus of Parliament is composed of Senators. There are 72 Senators. The Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner) has 72 Senators in his caucus, and I think it is 42-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Thirty nine others.


John Carnell Crosbie: -thirty nine others besides himself in the House of Commons. Liberal Members of Parliament are outnumbered in their own caucus by 72 to 40. So one can understand the dilemma in which this places the Leader of the Opposition. He is dominated by the Senate and the Senate dominates his caucus. The Senators, the cabal, the unelected group which wields the power in the Senate, wields it in the Liberal caucus and, naturally, that poses a dilemma for the Leader of the Opposition. That is why we are likely to see him today do everything he can to postpone this legislation, to prevent us from getting on with the job of bringing Canada into the 20th century electorally and democratically. That is why the Leader of the Opposition is likely to do everything he can to propose amendments, to fiddle with the principle of this resolution, so that the cabal will be left in charge in the Senate, able to thwart the will of the people whenever it wishes. I sympathize with the dilemma in which the hon. gentleman finds himself. But perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps he will spring to his feet as a new George Washington, even with his wooden false teeth, the father of his country.
I am a Senate supporter myself, Mr. Speaker. I think it performs useful functions. It is a place for legislative review and inquiry. Senate committees have done excellent work. I have seen excellent reports, as we all have, from Senate committees. I have praise for their thoroughness. Some of those reports have even gained recognition outside of Canada. But its method of selection is undemocratic, we have to admit that. Therefore, the authority of the Senate is weakened because the Senate does not have the endorsement of the people of Canada in any evident sense.
The Senate has been reluctant, usually, to challenge the will of the elected House. But from time to time, Mr. Speaker, the Senate has caused problems for the operation of parliamentary democracy in this country. It is most quiescent when the majority in the House of Commons is similar to the majority in the Senate, when the Party majorities are the same. In those periods the records show few difficulties. Canadians tend to forget that the Senate has this absolute veto because it does not exercise it, and we have seen that from the years 1965 on to 1985, except for the eight months of interregnum.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Nine months.


John Carnell Crosbie: No, it was not nine months. It was eight months, time enough to conceive.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: It seemed like nine months.


John Carnell Crosbie: Yes, but not to deliver. You will recall that.
We all know Mr. Speaker, that in the last 20 years, the Liberal majority in the Senate did not dare to berk or oppose actions taken by the Liberal Government and by the Liberal majority in the House of Commons. So no one had to worry or bother with the Senate. But the Senate now appears to be in the mood for constitutional confrontation. If that is the case, then, Mr. Speaker, we who are elected by the people of Canada have to be ready to meet that challenge. When the unelected want to disrupt the system, to impose their own arbitrary will, and to oppose those who are elected here by the people of Canada, then we have to be prepared to seize the nettle, not to mind the pricks of the thorns in the nettle, and get on with the job of seeing that this country operates in a democratic fashion.


Don Boudria: You are full of sincerity.


John Carnell Crosbie: The man who got his start through patronage should not interrupt a statesman-like speech.


Mr. Marchi:: You are the expert, John. You are the professional.


John Carnell Crosbie: If the hon. gentlemen will just keep quiet for a while, we won't remind them of their patronage antecedents.


Mr. Turner (Vancouver Quadra):: You brought patronage to an art form, John.


John Carnell Crosbie: What about you?


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


John Carnell Crosbie: The Hon. Leader of the Opposition really takes a chance when he gets on with remarks about patronage. Do you realize, Mr. Speaker, that Senator Lewis's firm received $479,497.98 in legal fees in the last three years down in Newfoundland?


Mr. Nunziata:: You are shameless, Crosbie.


John Carnell Crosbie: Or that the Leader of the Opposition's firm down in Newfoundland-


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


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: I have the facts. I am going to deal with you weasels when the time comes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. I would like Hon. Members to get on to the relevance of this motion.


John Carnell Crosbie: Sorry, Mr. Speaker, I was diverted.
June 7, 1985

The situation has been different when the majorities in the two Houses were not the same. Let us just see what has happened. The Senate proves troublesome when the majority in the Senate is not similar to the majority in the House. Then it seeks to block or delay Bills unduly passed by the House. In 1913, two years after Sir Robert Borden obtained a mandate for change from the people following 15 years of Liberal rule, the Liberal-dominated Senate vetoed the naval Bill. In the 1920s, disagreements between Mr. King's Government and the Conservative majority in the Senate were fairly numerous. Between 1921 and 1930, 32 government Bills adopted by the Commons failed to pass the Senate, among them the old age pension Bill of 1926. In 1961, three years after Mr. Diefen-baker received what was then the largest mandate in Canadian history, the Senate, with a large Liberal majority after 22 consecutive years of Liberal rule, refused to proceed on a Bill to remove James Coyne as Governor of the Bank of Canada, a Bill which had been adopted by the House of Commons. In the same year, the two Houses clashed over a change that the Senate majority proposed to a Bill to amend the Customs Act.
This is what emboldens the little group of wilful Liberal Senators up there now to adopt this kind of conduct. This cabal, encouraged by the 1961 precedent, believes that in 1985 it can act in the same manner-a group of appointed persons who have not been authorized by the people of Canada to do anything. In fact, the people of Canada would like to see them disappear; they indicated that last September 4. But these Senators think they are in a legal position to checkmate the House of Commons and the government majority, and these examples from 1961 encourage them. Well, let them try it. That is the purpose of this resolution, and I expect the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition will have a change of heart and join us in putting this through today. That is what should be done.
The last time the Senate interfered with or opposed the House of Commons was in 1961, 24 years ago. In all the time since, the Liberal majority in the Senate tamely went along with whatever was proposed by Liberal Governments in this House. Three months after the present Government received the largest mandate ever in Canadian history, the Liberal-dominated Senate sought to frustrate the will of the Commons. Bill C-11, an Act to provide borrowing authority, was sent to the Senate on December 21, 1984, after being passed by the House of Commons with unanimous support. Unanimous. Unanimity. In other words, all three Parties in this Chamber supported the borrowing authority Bill. It went to the Senate and it had to be passed because of expenditures authorized by the previous Liberal Government. We had to do the borrowing in order to carry out obligations entered into by the Liberal Government, yet the Senate refused to pass the borrowing authority Bill passed unanimously by this House. The majority who refused to do that are members of the caucus of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition. They returned from Christmas recess and still postured for 37 calendar days before they passed Bill C-ll on February 27, 1985. That long delay had
The Constitution
serious financial implications for the Government of Canada; it created uncertainty in the capital markets. The financiers of the world wondered who was in control of the Government of Canada. Should they listen to the Government when the Government tells them that it wants to borrow money? Or did they have to deal with Senator MacEachen? Senator Mac-Eachen was the Minister of Finance whose record was, of course, terrible in the Budgets of 1981, 1982 and 1983 which he brought up; he did not even bring them down. Is this Senator MacEachen-


Sergio Marchi: What happened in 1979, John?


John Carnell Crosbie: -now to be the person with whom the people who lend money have to deal? The people of Canada suffered because of 1979, that is for sure, Mr. Speaker.


John Napier Turner: Tell us about your Budget, John.


John Carnell Crosbie: The question is: Do the lenders of the world have to deal with Senator MacEachen and Senator-who are some of the other queer names up there? They have never put themselves on the line, most of them; they have never run for election. Senator Grafstein never ran for anything but orange juice at a political meeting. Senator Kirby, the famous machiavellian of the Constitution. Senator Kenny.


Carlo Rossi: Hnatyshyn.


John Carnell Crosbie: Senator Sinclair. When did any of them ever run for elective office? 1 do not believe one of them has ever run for anything, and if they did they were certainly never elected. This is the Trudeau swat team, or the Turner swat team, and what happened?


Carlo Rossi: You never made it.


John Carnell Crosbie: You can shout all you like but you-we were wondering where Mr. Rossi was. There he is. Whenever you hear a loud noise you know where that honourable gentleman is, Mr. Speaker.
I have a letter here from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) which says this:
-the Senate delay in passing Bill C-ll forced the government to postpone several planned borrowing operations because there was insufficient Parliamentary Borrowing Authority outstanding to authorize the raising of new funds. It is estimated that this interruption in the borrowing program cost the government about $15 million due to interest rate increases that occurred before the postponed operations could be rescheduled.
That is the calculable cost, $15 million, of this obstinate Senate's delay in passing a borrowing authority Bill which was necessitated by the previous Liberal Government's actions, and which all Parties in this House agreed should be enacted. The Minister goes on to say:
There were also indirect costs associated with the Senate delay. Although these costs are difficult to measure, it is clear that any interruption in the government's borrowing program will introduce some confusion and uncertainty into financial markets, if only because the federal government's position in the market forces all other participants to plan around the federal borrowing schedule. On this occasion in particular, however, it should be noted that the

June 7, 1985
The Constitution
delay coincided with a period of considerable downward pressure on the value of the Canadian dollar in foreign exchange markets, and participants were concerned that the government would not be able to borrow international reserves with which to support the dollar.
That is the uncalled for and unjustified risk to which the Senate action exposed the Government of Canada. The letter is dated May 22, 1985, and if anyone wants a copy of it, I have no objection.
That is why this resolution is before the House, Mr. Speaker. It has become evident that we will have to deal with this Liberal cabal, this unelected coterie of wilful Liberals in the Senate, before our term has expired. That kind of obstruction of the Government's legislative program is unacceptable. The question is: Do the people of Canada deal with a Government led by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), who has a majority of 211 in this House of Commons, or do they have to deal with Senator MacEachen the Liberal Leader in the Senate, and Senator Kirby and Senator Grafstein? None of them are now elected, and most of them never have been elected. Are they the hidden Government of Canada? Or is the Government of Canada the Government which sits on this side and in those two wings of the House of Commons? That is the question this resolution puts before this Chamber and the people of Canada.
If the Liberal majority in the Senate, so early in our term- we have not been here a year yet-was willing to obstruct a measure which had been unanimously adopted by the Commons-


John Napier Turner: People think it is a very long time already.


John Carnell Crosbie: -how will it react on important policy issues upon which there will be strong differences coming forward in the months ahead? How are they going to act then?
It is going to be a lot longer for you chaps, the rat pack.


John V. Nunziata: You brought the Government down after nine months. It was your Budget, John.


John Carnell Crosbie: The hon. titmice. We can deal with members of the opposition in this House; they are elected and we have to put up with them no matter how vacuous, nonsensical, unethical or lacking in standards they are. However far they sink in the realm of human decency, we have to forgive them; they have been elected. But that does not apply to the Senate because it was never elected.
Some of the measures we want to propose in the months and years ahead will generate controversy in this House. But we have the mandate. We are not prepared to accept a repetition of incidents such as the naval Bill affair or the Coyne affair. We are a new Government with a strong mandate to provide new directions, but we have been frustrated by the Senate. However, we are not prepared to stand by while they do that; if they wish a constitutional crisis, so be it, we will meet the constitutional crisis.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: We believe that Canadians will support us and the principles which underlie a democratic government. Those principles lead us to change our political institutions when they are found wanting. Recent events have prompted us to resolve that the time has come to bring the Senate up to date. This could be done in a number of ways. Abolition of the current Senate is one possible course. Not one member of the NDP is here in the House to listen or participate. Perhaps there will be somebody-oh, there is one coming now. They are not interested in this constitutional conundrum. This is the Party which is supposed to be so worried about the ordinary people of Canada. The members of the NDP, they are not even around when we are debating the form of government of this country and what should happen to our Constitution. Then they come in and whistle. Let us all stop and listen. The whistling makes more sense than anything that gentleman is going to say later in this debate.
Abolition of the current Senate is one possible course. The Premier of Manitoba has said that that is the course he prefers. I understand it is the course that the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) says that he prefers. However, it is not an obtainable course because there are provinces in the country which want the Senate maintained because they believe it helps to protect the regions of the country from domination by central Canada. Therefore, we will not have the abolition of the Senate. As well, the Senate would have to concur in its own demise, so that is not a possible course of action whether we like it or not.
What will the New Democrats do in the face of that? Will they support this resolution or will they oppose it because they prefer to have the Senate abolished? What are their confreres going to do in the Legislature of Ontario? Are they going to help preserve the veto for the appointed Senate, for the Liberal cabal, or are they going to vote in the Ontario Legislature to support this resolution? That will be an interesting question to be decided in the next few months. Will the NDP work with the Liberals in Ontario and here to preserve the unelected Senate?


John Napier Turner: I thought you had Ontario sewn up for your resolution.


John Carnell Crosbie: We believe Ontario to be sewn up, but it remains to be seen.
A second broad option is a major reform of the Senate.


Rodney Edward Murphy: You sure screwed it up.


John Carnell Crosbie: You have your chance to govern in Ontario. Let us see what happens when you little turkeys get some responsibility in Ontario. We will see what happens when they have to take responsibility rather than just sitting around criticizing.
The other broad option, which we think is the most promising one, is a major reform of the Senate. We have all heard many suggestions through the years. Some advocate electing
June 7, 1985

the Senate and some advocate appointments by the provincial Governments or sharing appointments between federal and provincial Governments. Various groups in western Canada, particularly in Alberta, favour what they call a "Triple E" Senate. A committee of the Alberta Legislature has just given a well researched report, and the Alberta Legislature has passed a resolution for the adoption of that report. Others have suggested that the legislative powers of the Senate be reduced and that it be assigned some new and more specialized powers. Some have suggested a double majority on linguistic matters or a role in reviewing appointments to major federal boards.
However, there is no consensus at present among the public or Governments on the nature of a broad reform package that would be generally acceptable, nor are we close to one. Many proposals must be examined and debated before they can be reconciled. That will take a long time. In the meantime, the Senate's powers would remain as they are and the possibility of obstruction would continue to haunt the Members of this House.
With all of that in mind, the Government has chosen a course to deal with both the short term and the medium term. We are proposing that the present legislative powers of the Senate be curtailed to bring it into line with the principles of democratic parliamentary government. We are making a commitment that in addition to this limited constitutional measure the future of the Senate be thoroughly addressed after the amendment is enacted. After careful consideration we feel that reducing the powers of the current Senate is the most reasonable way to overcome, at this time, this anomaly in our representative and responsible federal institutions. It has the advantage of ensuring that the will of the elected House will ultimately prevail. It can be brought about in relatively short order.
Our resolution proposes that the power of the Senate over money Bills be reduced to a suspensive veto of 30 days, which is more than adequate time for it to study money Bills and give us its views. Money Bills would be defined in the Constitution. Each such Bill would be so certified by the Speaker of the House of Commons whose opinion could not be challenged in court. The Senate would have a suspensive veto of 45 days over all other Bills.
Both of those periods are longer than the average time taken by the Senate to pass Bills in recent decades. The average time taken is perhaps four or five days. In addition, the Senate has a custom and a right to begin to study Bills as soon as they are introduced in the House of Commons. In addition, a procedure would be instituted whereby any non-money Bill amended by the Senate would be presented for assent to this House, either in an unamended form or in other forms with amendments that might be agreed to by the House.
We value the service which the Senate performs in suggesting amendments to correct errors or deal with potential problems that they may notice which we have not. We all know that proposed legislation does not always leave this House in perfect form. The second look by the Senate can often identify improvements which do not challenge government policy. If
The Constitution
they do challenge government policy, government policy must overcome. However, possible improvements which do not challenge government policies are well and good.
Following proclamation of this amendment the Senate would continue to perform its legislative review function and the House would still be notified by message of Senate amendments to Bills. The Government will recommend that amendments made by the Senate be reported to the House and dealt with. The preamble to the resolution specifically commits the Prime Minister to convene, before the end of 1987, a Constitutional Conference of First Ministers to consider proposals for Senate reform. In addition, the Prime Minister has given the Premiers a written commitment that, soon after proclamation of this amendment, a federal-provincial continuing committee of Ministers chaired by the Minister of Justice will be established to begin the preparatory work for the 1987 conference.


John Napier Turner: Will you table that correspondence?


John Carnell Crosbie: It is all right here. I am coming to it. I can assure Hon. Members and all Canadians that a full public debate on the future of the Senate will accompany these federal-provincial meetings.
What is the position of the Government on reform of the Senate? At this stage we have an open mind on the shape of a future reformed Senate. Many ideas have been put forward. We will assess the past proposals, as well as others, before determining what options we prefer and the position that we will take in these inter-governmental discussions that will take place if the resolution is adopted by the House and the necessary number of provinces.
What is the process for adopting the amendment? In closing, I would like to point out that I am hoping that this will not be an overly long debate. I would think that Members of the House on all sides would wish to pass this resolution quickly because there is surely no one in the House who believes that an unelected body should be in a position to obstruct completely the elected people who represent this nation. I would be dumbfounded if even the Official Opposition were to take that position. However, perhaps it will bow to numbers-72 to 40. The superior brain power of its Senate representatives will probably carry the day. However, I am hoping for the best. I assume that we will have the co-operation of the NDP. Since it wants the Senate abolished, it will of course help curb its power.
What is the procedure? After a short debate today, the House will be asked to adopt the resolution. By the way, when the former Liberal Prime Minister, Mr. Trudeau, responded last year to the report of the Special Joint Committee on Senate Reform, he agreed with the recommendations of the committee. I would like to point this out to the Leader of the Opposition, who usually does what his predecessor wants him to do, particularly in the matter of appointments, Mr. Speaker. The former Prime Minister said that the House of Commons should continue to be the pre-eminent Chamber in Parliament. It cannot be the pre-eminent Chamber in Parliament unless
5538

June 7, 1985
The Constitution
the veto power of the Senate over this Chamber is removed. It should also be kept in mind that we are not considering all aspects of the Senate on this occasion. This is a limited measure and the broader questions will be considered later.


John V. Nunziata: I have a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I believe it is getting awfully close to one o'clock. If I received unanimous consent we could carry on.


John V. Nunziata: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All right. It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock p.m. this day.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: When the House rose at one o'clock, the Hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) had the floor.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I will only be a few minutes in finishing my remarks. Although there must be a quorum, only the Leader of the Opposition is on the Liberal benches. The rest of them are gone.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. I believe there is a quorum in the Chamber and I hope that Hon. Members will not reflect on the attendance in the Chamber. I see a sufficient number of my colleagues in the House. I hope the Hon. Minister will carry on with debate.


Carlo Rossi: There are only 10 Tory Members.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, normally the Liberal MPs are here and the Leader is not. Today, the Leader is here and none of his MPs are present-I am glad that four have struggled in.


John Napier Turner: Listening to you is a struggle.


John Carnell Crosbie: I saw a movie on TV recently. It was about the last little band of gorillas left on Borneo. I must say that they had a lot in looks over you guys.


John Napier Turner: I noticed the Minister's knuckles scraping the ground every time he walks down the street.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the Senate, I hope we are proven wrong when the NDP spokesman makes his remarks. If a Party wishes to have the Senate abolished totally, surely the logic of at least reducing the power of the Senate becomes overwhelming. 1 am expecting that before our
debate is finished we will hear that the NDP, even if it is reluctantly, will join us both here and in the legislatures of the provinces to see that the powers of the unelected Senate are curbed so that we may move on to debate in the next several years what should happen to the Senate in the ultimate sense.
For members of the NDP to take the position that they do not want a Senate at all and then refuse to help curb the powers of that same unelected body that they object to is so inconsistent and illogical that one does not expect even the NDP to stick to it.
You are no doubt aware that this amendment will require the consent of the legislative assemblies of at least seven provinces having at least 50 per cent of the population. We have consulted with the Premiers about the proposed amendment and I am pleased today to table letters of support from eight of the Premiers.
Premier Levesque has informed the Government in writing that while the Government of Quebec does not oppose the substance of the resolution, it will not participate in the debate on the amendments until a solution has been found for Quebec's constitutional grievances of 1981.
There are two possibilities. Our Prime Minister, with his well known and well developed negotiating skills will reach an agreement with Mr. Levesque that will provide a solution for those constitutional grievances, or there may be a change in the Province of Quebec at the next election that will produce a leader in Quebec who will be able to settle with the Government their constitutional grievances. I am still expecting that before the process has ended we will have the support of the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Quebec.
In any event, Premier Levesque has written and I will table his letter together with the letters from the other Premiers.
Premier Pawley has also advised us that the Manitoba Government prefers the abolition of the Senate and therefore will not endorse the proposed amendment. Even Premier Pawley, I believe, will see the logic of joining in at least reducing the powers of the Senate, even if the NDP cannot get what it perceives to be perfection, which is the total abolition of the Senate. May I table these letters, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The House would have to revert, by unanimous consent, to tabling of documents. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
June 7, 1985



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to table the letters from the Premiers which I have mentioned.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
AMENDMENT RESPECTING POWERS OF SENATE The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Crosbie:
That:
Whereas the Prime Minister of Canada is committed to convening before the end of 1987 a constitutional conference composed of the Prime Minister of Canada and the first ministers of the provinces to consider proposals for the reform of the Senate;
And whereas it is expedient, at this time, that the powers of the Senate with respect to bills that are passed by the House of Commons be limited;
And whereas sections 38 and 42 of the Constitution Act, 1982 provide that an amendment to the Constitution of Canada may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada where so authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and resolutions of the legislative assemblies as provided for in section 38 thereof;
Now therefore the House of Commons resolves that an amendment to the Constitution of Canada be authorized to be made by proclamation issued by Her Excellency the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada in accordance with the schedule hereto.

[Stage Direction]
1.	The Constitution Act, 1867 is amended by adding thereto, immediately after section 54 thereof, the following sections:
"54.1 (1) Where a money bill, having been passed by the House of Commons, is presented to the Senate at least thirty days before the end of the session but is not passed by the Senate without amendment within thirty days after it is presented, the bill shall, unless the House of Commons directs to the contrary, be presented to the Governor General for assent, whether or not Parliament is then in session, and when assented to shall have the same force and effect as if passed by the Senate.
(2)	There shall be endorsed on every money bill when it is presented to the Senate and when it is presented to the Governor General for assent the certificate of the Speaker of the House of Commons signed by the Speaker that it is a money bill.
(3)	A certificate of the Speaker of the House of Commons given under subsection (2) shall be conclusive for all purposes, and shall not be questioned in any court of law.
(4)	In this section and section 54.2, "money bill" means a public bill that, in the opinion of the Speaker of the House of Commons, contains only provisions dealing with the following:
(a)	the imposition, repeal, remission, alteration or regulation of taxation;
The Constitution
(b)	the imposition for the payment of debt or other financial purposes of charges on the Consolidated Revenue Fund or on money provided by Parliament, or the variation or repeal of such charges;
(c)	supply;
(d)	the appropriation, receipt, custody or issue of public money;
(e)	the raising or guarantee of any loan or the repayment thereof; or
(/) subordinate matters related to any of the matters set out in paragraphs (a) to (e).
54.2	(1) Where any bill, other than a money bill, having been passed by the House of Commons, is presented to the Senate at least forty-five days before the end of the session but is not passed by the Senate within forty-five days after it is presented, the bill shall, unless the House of Commons directs to the contrary, be presented to the Governor General for assent, whether or not Parliament is then in session, and when assented to shall have the same force and effect as if passed by the Senate.
(2) Where any bill, other than a money bill, having been passed by the House of Commons and presented to the Senate, is passed with amendments by the Senate, and the House of Commons does not concur in the amendments within fifteen days after the bill is passed by the Senate, the bill, in the form in which it was presented to the Senate but with such amendments made by the Senate as are concurred in by the House of Commons, shall, unless the House of Commons directs to the contrary, be presented to the Governor General for assent, whether or not Parliament is then in session, and when assented to shall have the same force and effect as if passed by the Senate.
54.3	(1) In every bill presented to the Governor General under section 54.1 or 54.2, the words of enactment shall be amended by striking out any reference to the Senate.
(2) Any alteration of a bill to give effect to this section shall be deemed not to be an amendment of the bill.
54.4	Any law made pursuant to section 54.1 or 54.2 shall be deemed, for the purposes of any other provision of the Constitution of Canada, except Part V of the Constitution Act, 1982, to have been made by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons.
54.5	For greater certainty, nothing in sections 54.1 to 54.4 shall be construed as amending Part V of the Constitution Act, 1982.
54.6	Nothing in sections 54.1 to 54.4 diminishes or qualifies the rights and privileges of the House of Commons."
2.	The said Act is further amended by adding thereto the following heading and section:

[Stage Direction]
148. A reference to this Act shall be deemed to include a reference to any amendments thereto."

[Stage Direction]
3.	This Amendment may be cited as the Constitution Amendment, year of proclamation (Powers of Senate).
He said: Mr. Speaker, let us look at the roll call of honour. The Premier of British Columbia says that his Government will support this resolution. The Province of Alberta, through Premier Lougheed and the Government, has expressed the same position. The Government of Saskatchewan has indicated its support through Premier Devine. The Government of Ontario has indicated its support through Premier Miller.
John V. Nunziata: Former Premier.


John Carnell Crosbie: If Premier Miller does happen to lose the confidence of the House and another Premier is elected, I have every faith that the new Premier of Ontario and the coalition will support the resolution.

June 7, 1985
The Constitution


John Napier Turner: Don't be too presumptuous. Don't count on it.


John Carnell Crosbie: I have no doubt that the Progressive Conservative Party will. Perhaps it is not likely that the Liberal Party there will not, but the Senate does not control it as it controls the federal caucus here by 72 to 40. Those are big odds, and we feel sorry for the hon. gentlemen opposite, knowing that they are in the hands of 72 elected Senators.
The Province of New Brunswick, through Premier Hatfield, has indicated its support.


An Hon. Member:: Who is that?


John Carnell Crosbie: Premier Hatfield has zapped you guys for 15 years and I will be very surprised if he does not zap you for another 15 years.
The Premier of Prince Edward Island has indicated that province's support. Premier Peckford of Newfoundland and Premier Buchanan of Nova Scotia have indicated their support.
If we pass the resolution, it will go to the Senate. The Senate may or may not pass the resolution, and if it does not pass the resolution within the next six months, it will come back to the House for us to deal with it a second time. Apart from that, there will be a period of one year from the time the House passes the resolution for the necessary number of provinces to act. The constitutional amendment will not become effective for at least one year from the time was pass it unless all 10 provinces concur with it. Since it is unlikely that all 10 provinces will concur with it, it will mean that once it passes this House there will be a period of at least a year during which, if the necessary number of provinces support it, it will become an effective constitutional amendment a year after we have passed it in this Chamber. That is the procedure, and I think there is a very good chance that the necessary support will be forthcoming.
If the majority in the Senate acts again in the same antidemocratic way as it did with respect to the borrowing authority Bill, with as little cause or as little reason to delay or veto legislation sent to it by the majority in this House, I have no doubt that it will aid us in our cause of having the necessary consent of those provinces. I do not believe any responsible Party or Government today would take the position that an appointed Senate, appointed in this particular manner, should be able to thwart what the people of Canada want through the Government they have elected.
I am coming to the end of my remarks. I have mentioned that the Senate has only a suspensive veto here. If it uses its suspensive veto, then it will be back before the House a second time. Perhaps the steps 1 have outlined could be completed by this autumn, but I doubt that we could have proclamation of this amendment until some time in 1986.
In conclusion, the resolution before the House is necessary, fair and reasonable. The only reason it was not brought in
many years earlier was that normally the majority in the Senate was the same as the majority governing in this House, that the Government has had a majority in the Senate. If that had not been the case, I think we would have seen this amendment proposed many, many years ago. If carried, it will remove a major anomaly in our system of democratic Government and will adjust the Senate's powers so that they are more appropriate for a wholly appointed second Chamber. In addition, this will launch the process of full consideration of the future of the Senate. It will allow Canadian people to be involved in determining what role the second Chamber should play or whether or not it should play a role at all.
I urge all Hon. Members to support this resolution, to support the principle of democracy. I cannot see in this day and age any Member of the House who would vote against the idea that it is the people of Canada to whom we are responsible. It is the people elected by the people of Canada in this House to whom the Government is responsible, not to the Senate. The Senate has not been given any authorization whatsoever by the people of Canada. It has no place in our structure except as an anachronism when it comes to finally deciding what should or should not pass into the statutes of the country. It has a power now which is no longer reasonable or explicable in the 20th century. It should be prepared, just as the Parties opposite should be prepared, to help us bring the Senate into line with the democratic realities of the 20th century. Anyone who is not prepared to do that has some explaining to do to the Government and to the people of Canada. How can it be tolerated any longer that a group in the Senate, not even of the same Party as the one which forms the Government in the House, should be able to say yea or nay to the people of Canada and to the Government of Canada? That situation is no longer tolerable.
I invite the Leader of the Opposition and the representative of the New Democratic Party to indicate their acceptance of that principle today, to agree to the longer term process of reform in the Senate and, with their co-operation, to have this resolution voted on this very day and sent to the Senate so that it as well can consider what its position should be.
Some Hon.Members: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, in listening to the Hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) urge passage of his resolution in a single day, and in listening to him for so long, I wondered whether he was being consistent. I want to assure him, as one who believes in the supremacy of the House of Commons, that we will conduct our debate along those lines. I wondered whether his heart was really in it for a while when he mentioned those three vacancies in the Senate, but I hope he has not said things about our colleagues in the other place which will make it uncongenial for him if he should ever find himself there, for their memories are long. I do not think our colleagues in the other place will tremble when reading the words which the hon. gentleman uttered this morning and this afternoon.
June 7, 1985

In light of the history of this particular resolution, the Prime Minster (Mr. Mulroney) in his bluffing style challenged me to support an immediate move for the abolition of the Senate. Frankly, 1 am surprised, since the hon. gentleman commented on my occasional absences from the House, that the Prime Minister is not here himself to deal with this particular situation because it goes right to the fundamental aspects of our Constitution. The Senate, as the Hon. Minister pointed out, represented the territorial impulse in our Confederation. That was the reason the smaller provinces agreed to join with Upper Canada, now Ontario, in our Confederation. This is not an ordinary resolution. It is not a Bill. It goes right to the fundamental constitutional structure of the country. The Prime Minister was the man who raised this in the public consciousness. With the greatest respect to my friend, he should have been the one to bring this before the House of Commons, dealing as it does so fundamentally with the way our country is put together.
This resolution is nothing more or less than an indirect attempt to abolish the Senate of Canada. If that be so, the NDP should have no difficulty in supporting it. However, it is also a resolution which has very serious implications for the constitutional responsibilities of this House, and I will describe why. It also relates to the rights, responsibilities and duties of all its Members. We have read the resolution very carefully, and we believe that this House ought to be apprised of some of its implications, and indeed the country should as well.
Effectively, this resolution is really an attempt to reduce the Parliament of Canada to a one House Parliament, so it restricts any role that the Senate might play. This item is on the Government's agenda at a time when the attention of the Government, and indeed the focus of both Houses of Parliament, should be on the economy, on jobs, on the plight of pensioners and on the problems of young people, particularly those between the ages of 15 and 24, who are trying to find jobs. I interpret the coincidence of the debate of this issue on this Friday as a diversionary tactic, hoping to catch the attention of the newspapers and other media over the weekend and to distract the attention of the people of Canada from the atrocious Budget which the Government brought down a few days ago. It is an atrocious Budget which is unfair in that it taxes the average Canadian family about $500 and allows the wealthy investor to receive a lifetime cash bonus of $125,000. It is sneaky because it taxes by way of deindexing our tax system and it contains hidden, secret tax increases of 3 per cent per year, per year, per year, hitting our old age pensioners. It is a Budget which does not provide for jobs or growth. On the basis of the best advice we can receive, it will cost between 100,000 and 125,000 jobs in the next two years. It is a diversionary tactic and a desperate attempt by the House Leader and the Prime Minister, using the Minister of Justice as a decoy, to distract-


An Hon. Member:: A decoy?


John Napier Turner: He is a sitting duck, 1 will put it that way.
The Constitution


An Hon. Member:: He is a big decoy.


John Carnell Crosbie: Come and get me.


John V. Nunziata: Come outside, John.
[DOT] (M20)


John Napier Turner: We might have the rat pack on this side; you have the quack, quack over there.
This is a diversionary tactic, a desperate attempt by the Government to distract the airwaves and the news over the weekend. The Government, with its overwhelming majority in this Chamber, is more concerned with settling old scores, reigniting old feuds and avenging old vendettas, particularly in the Atlantic Provinces, if one listened to the Minister this morning.
I wish to say at the outset that the Liberal Party has always been, remains and will remain in favour of Senate reform. At the 1982 policy convention of the Party I have the honour to lead, a resolution was passed calling on the Government of the day to examine the possibility of an elected Senate and of increasing the role of regional representation therein. That is the position we are taking with respect to this resolution.
In order to obtain speedy provincial agreement, it is stated in the preamble to the resolution before us that the Government is holding out the promise of a full constitutional conference on the Senate by 1987. Although outside the House, the Prime Minister said that 1987 might not be the date, and that it might be 1988 or 1989, one wonders how firm his commitment is. In the resolution itself there are no real proposals for reform, either with respect to the method of appointment, the term of office, the role or the regional balance of Senators. There have been no pronouncements by the Government with respect to where it stands in regard to Senate reform so as to give the provinces and the country an indication of where the Government intends to take us. There is no White Paper, no discussion paper, no Grey Paper. There is no basis upon which this debate can be conducted.
Until this morning, the Minister of Justice made no speeches with respect to the subject. Certainly, the Prime Minister has not clarified his ideas to the country. There have been no speeches stating what the reform might be or in which way the Government may be contemplating it. This resolution gives us no guidelines as to what further reforms are contemplated.
As the Minister has indicated, the resolution borrows some of the language of the Parliament Act of the United Kingdom which was passed in Westminster in the year 1911. That Act applies the same 30-day limit on the House of Lords' consideration of money Bills as the Minister would like to put on the consideration of money Bills by the Senate. For the enlightenment of the provincial Premiers, who seem acquiescent with respect to the resolution in exchange for a full conference on constitutional reform of the Senate later, for as yet unspecified reforms, the Government has not revealed its hand. Certainly, the Minister did not address the subject this morning. I wish to

June 7, 1985
5542_____________________________________
The Constitution point out that the Parliament Act of 1911 of the United Kingdom has an interesting sentence in its preamble which states:
And whereas it is intended to substitute for the House of Lords as it at present exists a second Chamber constituted on a popular instead of hereditary basis, but such substitution cannot be immediately brought into operation.
It was on the basis of that preamble that the Government of the day was able to convince the House of Lords and, indeed, Parliament, to pass the Act. That was some 74 years ago. The preamble states that it was the Government's intention to bring in a popularly-elected second Chamber. As we all know, the Lords of the United Kingdom are still created by Her Majesty on the advice of her Government.
Thus, I say to our provincial Premiers: "Don't be duped, fooled, cajoled and inveigled into this type of resolution on the basis of a future constitutional conference in 1987. The people of Great Britain have been waiting for 74 years". I have even less confidence in our Government than I would in the Government of the United Kingdom in 1911.
As a reminder to the House and to you, Mr. Speaker, I wish to point out that Ministers call you a constitutional expert. I am happy to second that particular compliment. Constitutional change is slow and difficult, as it should be. It will only come about if there is a concerted effort and a political will to bring about change among all participants-in this case, the federal and provincial Governments.
The constitutional amendment before us, like the Parliament Act of 1911, would limit Senate consideration of a money Bill to 30 days. Frankly, we do not see any objection to that. However, the authority to decide what constitutes a money Bill will lie on your shoulders, Mr. Speaker. You will be asked as Speaker of the House to sign a certificate indicating that a particular piece of legislation is, in fact, a money Bill. Your decision-and the Minister confirms this-will be conclusive and beyond challenge, either here, in the other place or before the courts. Your fiat will be clear anywhere and anytime with respect to the definition of a money Bill.
I do not question your wisdom, Sir, in any way. However, it is too much of an imposition to put upon a Speaker. In the United Kingdom, a money Bill must be absolutely pure. That is to say, no other matter can be tacked on to that Bill. We know from our close relationship with the United States that money Bills in the House of Representatives and the Senate in that country have all sorts of amendments tacked on to them. That practice is growing under our parliamentary system. However, in the United Kingdom, under the Parliament Act of 1911, no other matter can be tacked on. No related non-money provisions, such as changes to the machinery of collection, and so on, can be tacked on. I venture to say that your decision, Mr. Speaker, can be enormously difficult if it is left to you and you alone. The British legislation anticipated just that. It provides that the Speaker shall consult with:
-two Members to be appointed from the Chairman's Council at the beginning of each session by the Committee of Selection-
-before deciding if a particular piece of legislation is a money Bill or not. In other words, the Parliament of the United
Kingdom buttresses the decision of your colleague, Mr. Speaker, the Speaker of Westminster, with the supplementary advice that he has to consult and form a committee to decide on what is a money Bill and what is not.
The resolution before us does not contain that important provision. Unlike the British Bill, the amendment being sought by the Government would also impose a 45-day limit on all other Bills, Bills which are not money Bills. In other words, if it is a money Bill, the Senate can have it for only 30 days. Then, it is automatically sent for Royal Assent. If it is a Bill which proposes to do something else, then the Senate can have it for only 45 days, after which time it is given Royal Assent. It may be very difficult to decide whether or not a Bill is a money Bill. Under the British legislation, the House of Lords can delay almost all non-money Bills for slightly over one year. I wish to recite for the House how that provision works.
If a Bill other than a money Bill, or a Bill to extend the duration of a Parliament, which has been passed by the House of Commons twice in successive sessions and sent up to the Lords at least one month before the end of the session, is not passed by the Lords without amendment, then that Bill may be presented for Royal Assent. However, one year must have elapsed between the second reading of the Bill in the first of the two sessions and the third reading of the Bill in the second session. In other words, the delay for the review of that Bill by public opinion and by both Houses is just over a year.
The resolution before us limits that process of Senate consideration of any money Bill to only 45 days-not a year, not 180 days. That is, quite simply, the abolition of the Senate as we know it. It is the abolition of any constructive role that the Senate might have in amending or improving legislation.
Throughout its history the Senate has provided very valuable amendments to certain pieces of legislation. Over the years it has helped us improve hundreds of Bills with amendments. In 1975, for example, it proposed 139 amendments to the bankruptcy Bill. Those amendments were so all embracing and conclusive that the Government of the day withdrew the Bill and reintroduced it reflecting those amendments. In 1977, the Senate proposed some 80 amendments to the Maritime Code Bill, a new code of maritime law in this country. In 1983, a Senate committee rewrote a large part of the Canadian security intelligence Bill.
There is nothing extraordinary about the Senate's proposing amendments to Bills that have been passed by this House. Sir John A. Macdonald wanted a House of sober second thought, a difficult metaphor for him to have proposed, but in any event he wanted the Senate to have the opportunity to review legislation.
In addition, and the Minister recognizes this, Senators have provided very valuable committee work on the matters of aging, science and technology, poverty, pensions, the Income Tax Act, agriculture and so on. If this constitutional amendment is agreed to by the House, there will be no time for the Senate to fulfil its role adequately or to fulfil its constitutional
June 7, 1985

duty as a House of sober second thought. It will be converted to a reading club.
Just as important is the provision in the resolution that if an amendment is made by the Senate and the amended Bill is returned to this House, this House will be given only 15 days to consider and agree to amendments before the Bill automatically goes to Royal Assent in the form in which it was first passed by the House. The clock starts ticking as soon as the amended Bill returns from the Senate. It starts ticking as soon as the message is received by Your Honour.
There would be no requirement for the Government to move concurrence. Therefore, if the Senate were to propose an amendment, we would be at the mercy of the House Leader, who could conceivably put it on the Order Paper and thus, with the stroke of a pen, simply ignore the views of Members of the other place and, most important, Members of this House who might want to speak on an amendment. The opportunity to comment on amendments proposed by the Senate would be lost. It would become constitutional closure of the House of Commons.
As well, the resolution states that this 15-day limit on any further debate or discussion applies, in the words of the resolution, whether or not Parliament is then in session. In other words, Members of the House of Commons will not have to be here to pass legislation. We could do it by default if the Senate amended a Bill and we did not have the opportunity to review Senate amendments. We would reject them automatically if we were not sitting or we would reject them automatically if the House Leader did not give us the opportunity to consider them.
Why have a Senate at all? That was my view at one time when I wrote a thesis on the subject. Then I found that it was constitutionally impossible to abolish the Senate because the provinces are intimately involved. That is why the bluff of the Prime Minister was so empty.
As long as we have a Senate, what Senator will spend any amount of time considering amendments that will improve legislation? Why would he or she even bother reading such legislation if there is so little chance that his or her amendment will ever see the light of day and that any changes will be acted upon by the House of Commons? What government Minister would bother going before the Senate any longer when all he or she would have to do is to allow the time to run out? Why should any Minister go before the Senate to defend and explain his or her legislation?


John Carnell Crosbie: Because of our respect for them.


John Napier Turner: I doubt that, and so does the Minister. I know that the Minister has a very sensitive feeling for the Senate, particularly for those three vacancies.


John Carnell Crosbie: There is one from Newfoundland.


John Napier Turner: Why would he bother appearing before the Senate? He and his colleagues would just have to wait 45 days and the Bill would become law.
The Constitution
The amendment contained in the resolution would have another immediate consequence for the operation of Parliament. If the principle that what can be done will be done becomes the practice, constitutionally giving the Senate a 30-day suspensive veto on money Bills and a 45-day suspensive veto on non-money Bills, then the Senate would have the unchallengeable constitutional right to impose that delay on all legislation. I am not so sure that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice have really thought that matter through.
It should be noted that Bill C-ll, the Appropriation Act which apparently prompted this ill-conceived resolution, was under consideration in the Senate for only 37 days. It was under consideration from January 22 to February 27, one week longer than the suspensive veto period. Now envisaged in the resolution and a considerably shorter period of time than the suspensive veto period of 45 days for non-money Bills.
In its haste to attack and emasculate the Senate, the Government is now saying that the Senate should have a suspensive veto of 30 days. It is saying that the reason that that is so necessary, the reason we must change the Constitution, the reason we must get all the Premiers to agree, the reason we must put aside the question of jobs, pensioners, the Budget and economic matters, the reason we must open with such urgency the question of Senate reform so inadequately dealt with in this resolution, is that the Senate held up Bill C-l 1 not for 365 days, not for 180 days, not even for 45 days but for 37 days. That is precisely seven days longer than the period of delay which is now to be constitutionally enshrined in the suspensive veto for money Bills. In other words, we are going to embark on a whole process of constitutional change because the Government was delayed for seven days in getting its way on a Bill. I think that is pathetic.
By reducing the Senate powers on all Bills to a suspensive veto, a Government will be able to extend its own life indefinitely in certain circumstances. Under the War Measures Act, 1914, a proclamation by the Governor in Council-


John Carnell Crosbie: What twisted nonsense is this?


John Napier Turner: The Minister has not even thought these questions through in his obscene haste to get on the record books, to do the bidding of the Prime Minister and to seek revenge on certain of his Atlantic colleagues.


John Carnell Crosbie: Whose legal advice are you taking, Nun-ziata's? Is he your constitutional expert?


John V. Nunziata: I'm a little brighter than your sons.


John Napier Turner: All right, now.


John V. Nunziata: I passed law school, John, and you know it, the first time around.


John Carnell Crosbie: I'm surprised that you creeped out of anywhere.


John Napier Turner: You are still blinking your eyes in the light as well.

June 7, 1985
The Constitution
In any event, I wanted to draw this to the attention of the Minister because I do not think that he thought it through. Under the War Measures Act of 1914, a proclamation by the Governor in Council is conclusive evidence that war, invasion or insurrection, real or apprehended, exists, and has existed for any period stated therein. Under the Constitution Act, 1982, Section IV, a House of Commons may be continued beyond five years by an Act of Parliament if no more than one-third of the Members vote against the Bill. If the Senate is reduced to a suspensive veto, then a Government with the support of more than 189 Members, two-thirds of 282, could pass such an Act and have to wait only 45 days through the suspensive veto power of the Senate before the law perpetuating itself automatically comes into force.
As well, it has been established by the Supreme Court of Canada that the emergency powers interpretation of the peace, order and good government clause found in Section 91 of the Constitution Act allows that in times of emergency, Parliament may make laws relating to matters ordinarily under provincial jurisdiction. With only a 45-day veto, the Senate would be powerless to prevent a Government determined to invade a provincial area of responsibility. That, by the way, is one of the reasons we have a Senate. It was the territorial impulse at the time of Confederation to protect the weaker provinces from the stronger ones so that they would not be overwhelmed by votes in the House of Commons.
I sincerely hope, therefore, that provincial Premiers, when considering support for this resolution in return for a conference on real reform in the future, will take into consideration the very real threat to their own powers contemplated by the indirect abolition of the Senate. Where is that provincial support? I believe that the Minister does not have that support. I believe that without that support, this is a resolution that goes nowhere. Without that support, this is a debate in a vacuum and a waste of the time of the House.
I have read the letters which the Minister just tabled. A member of the Press Gallery gave them to me because I did not have them at the time the Minister made his speech. I have read with particular care the letters from the Premiers of western Canada who are very concerned about the regional aspects of the Senate but who take the Prime Minister's word that there will be a constitutional conference. I know the views of the Premier of British Columbia. I knew the views of the Premier's father when he was Premier. They want a stronger numerical representation in the Senate for British Columbia. I am aware of the resolution made in the Legislature of the Province of Alberta for an elected Senate. I know that Manitoba wants no Senate at all. Then we get to Frank Miller, the erstwhile Premier of Ontario. A letter was sent from Premier Miller to the Prime Minister on April 19, which was tabled in the House. It read:
-1 wish to indicate to you that the Government of Ontario is prepared to provide its concurrence.
For this purpose, we will introduce a resolution in the legislature of Ontario at an appropriate time.
Well, it is no longer Miller time in Ontario. I think the appropriate time has come and gone. I do not know what commitment the Minister has from Mr. Peterson or from Mr. Rae-


John Carnell Crosbie: They have to get there first.


John Napier Turner: That is so. Mr. Miller, after he found himself in the minority situation, was asked questions by the fourth estate-the Minister calls them the third House, but I still believe they are better known as the fourth estate. Mr. Miller said that in view of the new situation in Ontario, it was not on the top of his priority list. I bet it is not on the top of his priority list. He is getting hangnails trying to hold on to power. He has other things on his mind. Furthest from his mind, at the moment, is the resolution which is before the House.


John Carnell Crosbie: He outlasted you.


John Napier Turner: That is so. But I just outlasted Charlie Tupper. What does it prove? What it proves is that the Minister needs seven out of the ten provinces-


John Carnell Crosbie: We have got them.


John Napier Turner: -with 51 per cent of the Canadian population. Quebec will not participate because it is not part of the-


John Carnell Crosbie: It will before we are there.


John Napier Turner: -constitutional fabric. Frank Miller said that he would do it at an appropriate time. He will not be there. Manitoba is not in it, and 1 have a feeling that some of the other Premiers, when they have read what I have to say about what the Senate means to the constitutional fabric of the country, may have second thoughts. In any event, with Quebec and Ontario not there, he does not have the support. I do not want to trespass on the traditions of the House, but what he is really doing is wasting the time of the House with the resolution.
[ Translation]
Our position on Quebec is also very straightforward. We feel it is unacceptable that the Government of Canada should try to impose changes that would alter the constitutional structure of Canada, before Quebec has signed the constitutional accord. We object to the Government proceeding in this way. Since the Government of Quebec is not in a position to discuss or join in the process because Quebec is not part of our Constitution according to the Constitution Act, 1982.
We therefore consider this proposal by the Government of Canada and the Prime Minister to be an insult to the people of Quebec. The Government is saying to Quebecers that their position on the matter is irrelevant and that it does not want to hear the views of the men and women of Quebec.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
June 7, 1985


John Napier Turner: I think this should be a matter of considerable concern to Quebec Members like those protesting in front of us. 1 ask Hon. Members, why is the Government proceeding without the participation of Quebec?
It is an insult to the men and women of Quebec! In our view, if we really want to reform the Senate and if the Government decides to make this a priority, it should first call a full federal-provincial conference, as of now, immediately, this year, in 1985, and not in 1987, 1988 or 1989, but now, to ensure, first of all, that Quebec is part of our Constitution before amending any part thereof. But, as Hon. Members are aware-


An Hon. Member:: Go back to sleep!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, our colleagues are getting a little excited. I can easily understand why.
My Liberal colleagues and myself will demand an elected Senate. We are going to demand additional representation for the regions, the Atlantic Provinces and Western Canada. This country came into being as a result of two factors: first of all, the parliamentary system, since proportional representation at the time gave a special advantage to Upper Canada or Ontario; the second was the federal and territorial aspect. The debate that led to Confederation shows clearly that if there had not been some kind of Upper Chamber, a second Chamber like the Senate, to protect territorial interests within the Federation, neither Lower Canada, now Quebec, nor Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island would have become part of our country, because these provinces were unwilling to be submerged in the House of Commons by the flood of Members from Upper Canada. I would like to quote George Brown-he is not often quoted in French-who was not much in honour, but the French translation of his words on the subject of Ontario was as follows, and 1 am quoting from the Debates on Confederation, page 88:
The very essence of our agreement is that we shall have a federal and not a legislative union. Our friends in Lower Canada have agreed to proportional representation in the Lower Chamber, provided seats in the Upper Chamber are apportioned equally. We would have been unable to make any progress without that condition. I for one am fully prepared to agree to the principle of equal numbers.
Mr. Speaker, it is clear from this excerpt from the Debates preceding Confederation that the purpose of the Senate was to equalize territorial or federal representation and thus balance densely populated Ontario. The Senate made it possible to provide for balanced representation of the territories that agreed to join our Federation, and this requirement could be met thanks to a more or less equal division of seats among the four regions, namely, Western Canada, Ontario, Quebec and the Maritime Provinces. Six additional seats were subsequently attributed to Newfoundland.
The Constitution
We must consider this principle which forms the basis for our Confederation. We must also consider the role played by the Senate in protecting minorities, and especially French Canadians, because this aspect was also a major point in the minds of the Fathers of Confederation, and is mentioned several times in the Debates.
The resolution before the House today would deprive the Senate of any significant legislative role and reduce Parliament to a single Chamber. If the resolution is passed, the Senate's ability to defend the smaller provinces and minority rights will be seriously diminished if not eliminated altogether. [English]
The proposition which we will put before the House-and we will make the appropriate amendent-is that we believe an elected Senate, as recommended in the report of the Special Joint Committee on Senate Reform, which was released in January of 1984, would be a positive move in restoring the credibility of the Upper Chamber and in reinforcing our style of federalism. It is true that the current system of appointment, which is the sole preserve of the Prime Minister of the day, has increasingly been called into question. No matter how judicious, reasonable and fair the appointments may be, and no matter how qualified the individual may be, there is the perception that the Senate exists only for the appointment of the Prime Minister's friends of the day. That is the weakness with that method of appointment.
Other speakers on this side will have something to say about improving the method of appointment. Should the method be shared with the provinces? Should there be a term instead of the Senator being appointed until he reaches the maximum age of 75? Should there be a rebalancing of regional interests? My Province of British Columbia wants more seats in the Senate. I am sure the other provinces do as well. But that would be part of the reason that Premier Bennett would agree to and want a constitutional conference.
While I have a great deal of respect for Members of the Senate, I do believe they would agree with me-and they do- that the credibility of that institution would be greatly enhanced if they were elected Members. As the report of the special committee says, Your Honour, and I quote in the language of the report:
Only a politically strong second chamber can dispute, when necessary, the decisions taken by a Government that is supported by the House of Commons. Therefore only an elected Senate can satisfy the original intent of the Fathers of Confederation: The provision of a chamber that would balance judiciously the power of the Commons (which is based on representation by population) by safeguarding the legitimate interests of the people of the less populous provinces.
So what we are saying to you, Your Honour, and to the country, is that if Senate reform-and we do not believe this measure really touches it-is on the agenda of the Government, despite the economic and budgetary problems we should be discussing at this stage, then let us really reform the Senate. Let us reform it or abolish it. We would begin with an immediate constitutional conference on an elected Senate.

June 7, 1985
The Constitution
Failing that, we would want to look at the term of appointment, the style of appointment, the source of appointment, and we would want to look at a balancing of the roles of the two Houses. This measure does not approach reform. It is a sham. It is a little petty, political revenge for the Prime Minister and the Government against the members of another political Party.


John V. Nunziata: Shame on you!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Allan MacEachen will be proud of you.


John Carnell Crosbie: You will be all right in caucus next week. You have saved yourself-72 to 40. We know who has the power now.


John Napier Turner: I want to tell you, Your Honour, that the Members of the Senate in our caucus agree with an elected Senate, and if this matter ever gets out of this House, they will put an amendment and vote for an elected Senate in the Upper Chamber.


John Carnell Crosbie: Sure they will.


John Napier Turner: Yes, they will. Count on it. I have a feeling that the House will eventually come to the conclusion to which I have come, that this is a wasted exercise, the provincial consent not being there.


John Carnell Crosbie: Then why spend so much time on it?


John Napier Turner: I have not even approached the time taken by the Hon. Minister.


John Carnell Crosbie: You have been 40 minutes.


John Napier Turner: Well, you were an hour.


John Carnell Crosbie: I was an hour in sensible discussion.


John Napier Turner: The Hon. Minister was giving us a very inadequate Government of Canada 100 just like a first-year freshman at Memorial University. It was about that style and standard.


John Carnell Crosbie: I was filling in the background for Nunziata.


John Napier Turner: You gave us a lot of background.
We believe that the Senate could better represent the outlying regions of this country, including Newfoundland, through increased representation from these regions. The exact form of increased representation should be the focus of the constitutional conference. The special committee recommended doubling the representation in each of the western provinces and Newfoundland, and substantially increasing the number of seats in Atlantic Canada and the Territories, while leaving the same number for Quebec and Ontario. We believe that this is a good starting point for discussion.
There is no mention in the resolution by the Government on ways to improve the way the Senate works. What is really
critical is that this resolution is totally incompatible with a reformed Senate which could represent the regions of our country more effectively. Therefore, we cannot, nor will we, agree to strip the Senate of power now with the vague promise of real constitutional reform later. We will participate in a resolution which calls for an elected Senate. We may participate in an amended resolution which deals with the method of appointment or the term of appointment. But what does the Government have in mind for the Senate? We do not know. We did not learn from the Minister, and the resolution does not tell us. What has the Government promised the provincial Premiers which does not appear in the correspondence which was tabled this afternoon? We do not know and the Government will not tell us.


Mr. Prud'homme:: Wheeling and dealing.


John Napier Turner: We can accept the principle of establishing reasonable limits on the time the Senate can spend on government Bills. We can accept the 30-day time limit on money Bills. But we would suggest a time limit of at least 180 days, the constitutional time limit which is now in the Constitution Act, 1982, in order to give the Senate, on non-money Bills, the opportunity to consider the legislation adequately and provide us with its views. We can accept that.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: We also accept the principle that in situations where there is a conflict between the two Houses, the will of the elected Chamber, the House of Commons, prevails.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Well, that is a step forward for the Liberal Party.


John Napier Turner: None of the paltry rhetoric of the Minister and none of the irrelevant interjections of the House Leader will sway me from the position 1 have always held. We have never called into question the primacy of the House of Commons. What we are saying to the House is: abolish the Senate or reform it, and reform it in a meaningful way, and we believe in an elected Senate.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John V. Nunziata: You guys are gutless.


George Albert Proud: Crosbie is speechless.


John Napier Turner: We accept the principle that when the two Chambers are in conflict, the will of the House of Commons prevails.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: They only have 180 days.


John Napier Turner: The reality is that that situation of conflict will arise infrequently. It has only arisen a few times in the history of Parliament, and the nation has not been rent asunder. So why are we now in such a rush? That we accept the supremacy of this place, the House of Commons,
June 7, 1985

has never been in doubt. I have said that several times in this House and outside the House since I have had the honour to return to the House of Commons.


John Carnell Crosbie: Act on it.


John Napier Turner: We also believe, as at Westminster, that amendments proposed in the second Chamber should be given adequate consideration by this House when those amendments are sent back, that artificial and arbitrary limits should not be imposed on this House's consideration of legislation. We also believe that in those rare cases that the Senate rejects a Bill passed by the House of Commons, the opinion of the House of Commons should be sought again before that Bill is again submitted. There should not be automatic Royal Assent.
What I do not like particularly about this resolution is that the way it is drafted allows the House of Commons to legislate by default, either at the fiat of the House Leader when the House is not sitting by the passage of 15 days. Not only is the Senate being affected by this very inadequate resolution but the rights of Hon. Members of this House are also being truncated. The Government is attempting to make a fundamental change to the way this country is governed. This motion requires us to think and vote not as ordinary legislators but as reformers of the Constitution, which is again why 1 believe the Prime Minister should have had the carriage of this resolution before the House.
We are not playing a game here. We are not playing a political game. We are rewriting the fundamental rules of the game in this country. We take this initiative very seriously, indeed.
I listened to the Minister carefully this morning. The reason, he said, the Government is presenting this legislation is that, "We can't allow legislation to be held up by the old Liberal clique in the Senate".


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: The House Leader endorses that particular sentiment.
This motion expresses the Prime Minister's anger and his Irish frustration. With three-quarters of this House of Commons now under his control, he resents the independence of another Chamber.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Unelected.


John Napier Turner: He even resents the independence of Ministers. He has put political commissars and chiefs of staff in every ministerial office to try to convert the style of our Government into a presidential system. He wants to remove every obstacle to his power, and one of the obstacles he wants to get out of the way is the Senate of Canada.


John Carnell Crosbie: Where were you when Trudeau was in?
The Constitution


John Napier Turner: This is a massive power grab, Mr. Speaker, under a very simplistic constitutional resolution.
I would like to analyse for the House what the Senate really did to incur the Prime Minister's wrath.


Mr. Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: What does it do?


John Napier Turner: Well, that's a good question. I am not counted among the great admirers of the other place, and I have known the Hon. Member for a good long time. But what did the Senate do to incur the Minister's wrath and the Prime Minister's wish for revenge? What did the Senate do that was so heinous? What was so damaging to the fabric of our country that we must now amend the Constitution?


John Carnell Crosbie: It endangered our credit rating and everything else.


John Napier Turner: Quite simply, Mr. Speaker, and I see you sitting transfixed by what I have to say-


John V. Nunziata: Send him to the Senate.


John Napier Turner: I want to say to you, Mr. Speaker, as I said to Finlay MacDonald on his appointment, that I am the only one standing between you and abolition. So listen to me carefully.
Quite simply, this is what happened: the Senators upheld a constitutional principle, a principle which I believe all of us in this House share, namely, the principle which was offended by the appropriation Bill, that Parliament gives new authority- listen to me carefully-to a Government to raise money only after the Government has provided a full explanation of the purposes for which the money will be used, only after it has tabled the Estimates for a particular year or brought in a Budget.


John Carnell Crosbie: You are really an apologist.


John Napier Turner: The Minister does not like to hear a constitutional argument. Not that it bores him, he just cannot understand it.


John Carnell Crosbie: I can understand the fix you are in with Allan MacEachen on the hotline.


John Napier Turner: I will tell you what 1 will do. I will give this undertaking to the Minister, that later I will buy him a drink and get down to the type of conversation he really enjoys, indeed relishes.


John Carnell Crosbie: You are good in the locker-room; they tell me you are a bit of a jock.


Carlo Rossi: Go back to sleep, John.

June 7, 1985
5548_______________________________
The Constitution


John Napier Turner: Unlike the Hon. Minister, I haven't got a thing to hide.


John Carnell Crosbie: That is what they have all told me about you.


John Napier Turner: Let us look at what the Bill in question did, the Bill which prompted this whole phony resolution. It contained two parts. I am taking my time here, Mr. Speaker, because there has been a lot of hullabaloo about nothing. The media were seduced and inveigled into immediate reporting of what they thought the facts were, but let's go through the facts.
The Bill contained two parts. One part provided a borrowing authority for $7.3 billion for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1985. Part II was to provide authority to borrow $12 billion to be used in the fiscal year ending March 31, 1986, for which we had not been provided spending plans; the Estimates had not been produced. The Leader of the Government in the Senate, the former Premier of Manitoba, Duff Roblin, admitted as much when he said on February 21 in the other place, and I am reading from the Senate Hansard, that:
Parliament should not be asked to approve borrowing authority in the absence of published evidence that the authority is needed.
That is Senator Roblin, Government Leader in the Senate, speaking in the Senate on this particular Bill. He was not alone in that belief. On a similar piece of legislation, the former Prime Minister, now the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark), when in opposition said, and I am reading from Hansard of July 19, 1982:
-this House holds the opinion that the granting of an authority for the borrowing of a sum greater than that amount which is required to meet the government's needs to the end of the current fiscal year is objectionable in principle-
The next day the current Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) added his agreement, and I cite the debates of this House of July 20, 1982:
There is a well established principle that Parliament only provides sufficient borrowing authority to a government to allow it to finance its operations within the current fiscal year.
That is the same principle that the Senate upheld in this Bill. Not to be outdone, the current Deputy Prime Minister, the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), when he was in this seat as Leader of the Opposition during the Progressive Conservative leadership race, had the following to say about a request very similar to Bill C-11 from the then Minister of Finance, Marc Lalonde. On February 22, 1983 he said this:
It is a parliamentary first, sir, when you have a Minister who comes before Parliament and asks for authority to go to the public for $14 billion without the supporting and buttressing evidence of a budget.
The principle is clear: without a Budget or the Estimates, you do not get the money. That has been fundamental to Parliament ever since the early days of Westminster.


John Carnell Crosbie: How come you didn't observe it when you were in power?


John Napier Turner: Oh, I am going to get to it
right here. The Conservative Party always took that position.
When the Government was in opposition, when these ladies and gentlemen were on the opposition side of the House, they took the position that authority should not be granted until Parliament has received not only the Main Estimates, but a Budget as well. The current Minister of Finance, when in opposition, said about not doing this, and I use his words of February 22, 1983, as recorded in Hansard:
The utter contempt that this Government is showing Parliament and Canadians is unprecedented.
What happened to this principle for which the Government when in opposition spoke so eloquently and forcefully in support of? Power corrupts, and I have never seen power corrupt so absolutely or so quickly as when it affects this particular Government.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: That principle, for which the Minister of Finance and the Deputy Prime Minister fought in opposition-


John Carnell Crosbie: The new Lord Acton! No wonder you want to retain the House of Lords.


John Napier Turner: I do not blame the Minister for not being attentive; he is having trouble following this argument. In any event, what happened? At the first opportunity they rejected that principle. They presented Bill C-11, the borrowing Bill, and this whole tempest in a teapot arose out of that Bill. Some $12 billion in additional spending for the next year-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: And $15 million is a tempest in a teapot to you.


John Napier Turner: -with no estimates. That is why on November 28 in this House my friend and colleague, the Hon. Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount (Mr. Johnston)-


Carlo Rossi: Where are you going, John?


John Napier Turner: -moved the following-I seem to have-


Carlo Rossi: This is too much for you. Listen and learn, stick around.


John Carnell Crosbie: Can I be excused?


Carlo Rossi: Stick around.


John Napier Turner: I am not-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. We do have to leave the room once in a while. Order, please. The right hon. gentleman has the floor.


John Napier Turner: That might be the only place where the Hon. Minister really knows what he is doing, Mr. Speaker, so I will not object.
June 7, 1985


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: As 1 was saying, that is why my colleague, the Hon. Member for Saint-Henri-West-mount put the following amendment to that Bill:
-"this House will not proceed with a Bill to provide borrowing authority for a fiscal year for which the Government has not provided complete details of spending requirements or revenue projections".
That was November 28, 1984. It has been said by the media and the Government that we did not take the same position in the House as our colleagues took in the Senate. That is absolutely untrue. We took the same position in the House that was later taken in the Senate, and the same position taken by the Conservatives when they were in opposition. It is a principle which I accept fully. The NDP also proposed a motion opposing Bill C-ll and used identical wording to that presented by the now Secretary of State for External Affairs in July of 1982. Realizing that the Government with its huge majority intended to proceed anyway, and wanting a debate on universality before the House rose at Christmas, the NDP and the Official Opposition, in order to get that debate, agreed, after putting our objections to the Bill, to allow it to go through.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, fiction prevails.


John Napier Turner: No.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Oh, Mr. Speaker!


John Napier Turner: We agreed in order to get the debate on universality. There was no mention of the Senate in that agreement. Obviously an order of this House cannot bind the Senate just as an order of the Senate would not bind this House. There is also a long standing principle, one which the Government has chosen to ignore in its condemnation of the Senate's response to the borrowing Bill.
Let us examine what happened when the Bill arrived in the Senate on January 22. It could not get there any earlier because the Government Leader had adjourned the Senate until January 22. That was not our responsibility on the Liberal side of the Senate. That responsibility lay with the Government House Leader. The Bill was then referred immediately to the Standing Committee on National Finance.
The Senators had no problem with the first part of the Bill relating to the current fiscal year, but it objected, as we had here, to having $12 billion tacked on for spending for which there was no Budget and no Estimates. The Senate asked that the Bill be split since the Government did not need the second part until April 1, 1985. They would pass the first part and then pass the second when the Estimates were provided. This was a constitutional position buttressed by precedent and citations, and in no way unreasonable and out of the ordinary. In other words, the Senators said stick to the principle that borrowing authority not be given until the Estimates are provided. Conservatives have always taken that position, we took that position and the NDP took that position, but suddenly there was an eruption; righteous indignation poured forth
The Constitution
from the Government, reinforced by the media, the likes of which we have not seen in many years. The Senate was hijacking Parliament.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The Liberals in the Senate.


John Napier Turner: They were thwarting the will of the people. They were being high-handed and destructive to democracy in upholding the same principle this House of Commons has upheld for the last 50 to 100 years. The Government seized the opportunity to denounce what the Prime Minister called the old Liberal clique, a clique of Senators who were somehow purposely subverting the will of the people. The press picked it up, there were great stories and headlines like "Old Gang of Liberal Senators Thumb Nose at Tory Majority".


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Right on.


John Napier Turner: Let us look at the old
gang for a minute. I want to talk about this old gang. In spite of all the rhetoric and hysteria from the Government on the issue, what were the facts? Who were in the old Liberal cliques which so frightened, angered, and enraged the Prime Minister by demanding that this principle of long standing of no money before the Estimates or Budget be adhered to? The report on the Bill from the standing Senate committee said:
The Committee recommends that the Senate remain reluctant to approve any request for borrowing authority if such a request is not supported by a Budget or by Main Estimates for the period for which the borrowing authority is being requested.
That is nothing unusual. It is fully in accordance with principle. That resolution passed the committee without a single negative vote. Who were among that old Liberal clique? There was Senator Kelly, co-chairman of the committee, past chairman of the Progressive Conservaitve Ontario fund and close buddy of William Grenville Davis. There was Senator Doody, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate, and a former Minister of Finance of the Newfoundland Government of Conservative Premier Frank Moores who was appointed to the Senate by the Secretary of State for External Affairs when he was Prime Minister. There was one of our newest Senators, the still pure and uncorrupted Finlay MacDonald. He was a member of that committee and endorsed that unanimous report.
That was the old Liberal clique. They agreed to the report of the committee which states very clearly that by not splitting Bill C-ll, the Government was violating a long-standing principle. Conservative Senators wanted to uphold that principle too, as 1 am sure everyone in the House wants to. That was a unanimous report. It was not a Liberal clique. Every Conservative Member agreed to it and voted for it. Let us not hear any more talk about Liberal cliques in the Senate trying to subvert the House. It was not true then and is not true now.
Then we had the great bravado of the Prime Minister in the House. On March 5 he challenged me, saying, "If you agree to

June 7, 1985
The Constitution
abolish it, let's do it today". What consitutional nonsense. He does not need my approval to begin with. He has a majority here. However, he certainly needs provincial approval and he knew that nothing 1 would say could elicit that approval. He was more interested in scoring political points when he should have been carrying this resolution in the House. He provided a few hearty laughs and a few flips of the fins of the trained seals on the Conservative benches. That was the only purpose of it.
Some Hon. [Members: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: We thought he was joking, but this resolution shows that he was not. He fully intends to abolish the Senate indirectly, through the back door, by making it nothing more than a reading club. His only concern is that it be converted from a Liberal reading club to a Tory reading club. Then he had the audacity to hold out the promise of Senate reform to the Premiers in exchange for this little amendment now. I will be very interested to hear what the Premiers think they are going to get in return.
There has been a new style of Senate appointment introduced recently, Mr. Speaker. The provincial Member for Madawaska-Victoria announced the appointment of Jean Maurice Simard, the Minister of Public Service Reform in the Government of Premier Hatfield of New Brunswick. The Prime Minister's office had to issue a confirming statement that Mr. Simard will be appointed "at a later date". That is a new style of appointment to the Senate. It is on the instalment plan. Mr. Simard wanted that appointment because he does not know what will happen to Premier Hatfield. However, the time is not right because things are a little dicey in the legislature. When I was being introduced to the legislature of New Brunswick on Tuesday, the Premier was not present. He had not shown up since the report of the RCMP commissioner was introduced.
When will Mr. Simard be appointed? What is the delay? Who is choosing the date? Are we now awaiting the pleasure of Premier Hatfield? We know his Government is in trouble, but it is pushing it to be guaranteeing his Minister jobs in the Senate even before a provincial election is called. The people of Charlotte county are very pleased to know that Jean Maurice Simard is going to be their representative in the Senate because southern New Brunswick does not have a representative at the moment. However, that is another matter.
This resolution is not real reform of the Senate. It is nothing but a blatant power grab by the Government. It is an attempt to remove all impediments in the way of the Prime Minister and his office to have their own way. This is the new presidential style of the Prime Minister, replete with the seal. He is soon going to have a helicopter pad at 24 Sussex. This Government is going to go in style. It is really the Prime Minister's office and the bureaucracy who are setting the legislative agenda. I have great respect for the House Leader (Mr. Hnatyshyn), but we know where he gets his marching orders.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Yes, but my wife is in Saskatoon.


John Napier Turner: They are coming from this highly centralized and manipulative Government. The Prime Minister wants to control his own Ministers, the media, and anyone else who dares stand in his way. The current target is the Senate under the flimsy excuse of Bill C-l 1. Giving our consent to this constitutional amendment would be tantamount to abandoning our responsibilities as elected Members of Parliament and turning that responsibility over to the Prime Minister's office. We intend to present further amendments to this motion in the event that the Governmment chooses to use its majority to override our proposal and that of the joint special committee of the Senate and House of Commons.
We also believe very strongly that constitutional amendments should properly be studied in committee before being presented to the House. Only in committee can there be the careful scrutiny and painstaking clause by clause analysis which is necessary. The Members of the Party I have the honour to represent in the House are in favour of reform. However, we do not agree with the style of resolution brought before the House. The constitutional conference should come first and now, if that is the agenda of the Government. These could then be a proposal and public discussion. There could then be consideration of views and a consensus reached. Meaningful and workable reform of the way this Parliament carries out the business of this country can and should be considered. We reject this fly-by-night meaningless resolution on constitutional questions.
For this reason I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan):
That the motion be amended by deleting the words "before the end of 1987" in paragraph one, and by inserting the following paragraph immediately after paragraph one:
"And whereas it is desirable that the proposal of the Special Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on Senate Reform set forth in its
report of January 1984, that Senators be selected by election, be considered by
a constitutional conference before the end of 1985;"


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: 1 have received the amendment of the right hon. gentleman. I would like to reserve my decision on it and carry on with debate.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn) on a point of order.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Under Standing Order 35(1), I think it is appropriate to have a brief question and comment period at the end of the remarks of the right hon. gentleman. I wonder whether it would be possible for me to question the right hon. Member?


John Napier Turner: 1 have no objection to that, but I think the understanding was that I would not question the Minister. That was the deal, unless you want to bring him back in.

June 7, 1985


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. I regret that under Standing Order 35(1) the first three speakers have unlimited time-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Maybe l can clarify. If there has been an arrangement, although I was not aware-


George Albert Proud: Bring Crosbie back.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: May I just have the floor for a minute? The first three speakers have unlimited time and I believe those who have unlimited time do not have a question or comment period, in accordance with Standing Order 35(1). After that, there are 20 minute speeches plus the question and comment period.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I would certainly be willing to waive the rule because I find that the Minister's questions are very instructive and revealing.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: We have standing orders. Perhaps we could do something like that after the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) proposes new rules and regulations.


George Albert Proud: Mr. Speaker, of course, we have rules and we must follow rules. However, your Honour also knows that we can do anything we want with unanimous consent. If you succeed in bringing back the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie), I would like to seek unanimous consent under the condition that you ask the Minister of Justice to come back to the House. We would like to ask him questions as well.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I appreciate the Hon. Member's comments, but under these particular rules, I regret that we will not be able to do so. Therefore, I would like to recognize the next Hon. Member for debate.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Friesen:: It will be a short speech-abolish the Senate.


Rodney Edward Murphy: It will be a short speech because, unlike the first two speakers, I do not have unlimited time.


John Napier Turner: We will give it to you.


Rodney Edward Murphy: However, I am in a position to be asked questions which will help educate Hon. Members, in any event. As a former teacher, I always believed that it was good for the class to learn by asking questions of the teacher.
In many ways I regret that we are dealing with this resolution at this time. It is interesting to note that the first resolution introduced by the Government after its Budget is one concerning the Senate. We were led to believe by the Government that it had an economic package which would create jobs for young Canadians. We were led to believe that it had an economic vision for the nation. Therefore, I suggest it would be logical that two weeks after its Budget, the Govern-
The Constitution
ment would come forward with its legislative package in order for the Opposition and Canadians as a whole to know exactly what the Government wishes to do. Instead, we are dealing with what I believe is quite accurately called a diversionary tactic. We are dealing with a resolution restricting the legislative role of the second House. This was a policy that the Conservatives never espoused during the election campaign.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order. I simply want to remind the Hon. Member that he does have 20 minutes, followed by a question and answer period. It is only the first two speakers who have unlimited time. He can govern himself accordingly.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I said that as an aside earlier, but I did not want to challenge your ruling at that time.
Since I do have a brief period in which to speak, let me point out that by taking away the legislative role of the second Chamber, it is challenging the very reason for having a second Chamber. By limiting it to a 30 day review of monetary bills and a 45 day review of non-monetary bills, the Government is really saying that we do not need a second chamber in this land. Of course, that is something that I can accept.
Incidentally, I was disturbed by a report in the news media last night and today that the Liberal House Leader has suggested using the second Chamber to prevent any legislation which would deindex the old age pension. I do not know if the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) supports that, but it was certainly reported as a statement made by the House Leader of his Party.


John Napier Turner: That is not what he said, apparently.


Rodney Edward Murphy: That was the interpretation. If that was the idea of the Liberal Party or any party that had control of the Senate, it would be a stupid and very dangerous move. While I believe we should do what we can within this Chamber and in the nation as a whole to protect the indexation of the old age pension, I do not believe we could ever use an undemocratically appointed, non responsible Chamber for that purpose. It would mix a good cause with the murky reputation of the Senate and Canadians would become confused about whether we were fighting for the rights of the Senate or for the ordinary pensioners of this land. The real cause is the fight for the pensioners and the Senate should not be used in that cause.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: But you will do it here.


Rodney Edward Murphy: We will do it here, Mr. Minister. I believe it would be dangerous to use the Senate for any such purpose. Although many Canadians would support the use of the Senate in defence of pensioners, it would be very easy for a Senate majority or any group of Senators to take up their own noble cause in the future which may not be acceptable to a majority of others.
Our main disagreement with this resolution is that the Government is trying to reform the Senate while maintaining

June 7, 1985
The Constitution
its existence. It has not found a new role for the Senate or indicated that it serves a legitimate purpose. It simply wants to keep the Senate while restricting its role in reviewing Government legislation and giving it less time to review economic matters. We will be left with a political body that is neutered in terms of dealing with many matters. However, it will remain a body of patronage so that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and others can place their friends in the Senate.
I was a representative of my Party on the joint committee studying Senate reform. We travelled throughout the country and found that there was not one acceptable solution to Canadians. Many would like to abolish the Senate, many would like an elected Senate and others wanted one which was appointed in part by the provinces. Others would have the Senate play a special role in deciding constitutional matters or political appointments.
While there is no consensus on the purpose of the Senate, Canadians do agree that patronage must stop. I suggest that the Government House Leader convey the message to the Prime Minister that all Canadians want to stop patronage. The Government should put forward its proposals for Senate appointments and what its purpose should be rather than simply presenting a resolution to reduce the power of the Senate while allowing the Conservatives to make appointments just as the Liberals did in the past. That is not the purpose of the Senate and it is not an acceptable proposal to Canadians in a democratic age.
Our Party has long opposed the Senate, not only because of the patronage issue which we abhor, but also because we do not believe that there is any rationale for having a second Chamber, at least as outlined at the present time. Even after sitting on the joint committee on the reform of the Senate, I do not believe that we have found any purpose for the Senate. We have not found an acceptable way to reform the Senate.
Let me deal with some of the reasons we are told that we must maintain a Senate, whether elected or appointed. A principle reason is that we need regional representation because of the nature of this country, with large populations in Quebec and in Ontario and the smaller populations in other provinces. It is suggested that the Senate represents and protects the interest of the regions. That is blatantly false. It is recognized throughout the land that the provincial Governments, their premiers and their legislative assemblies are doing the best job of protecting, working for and speaking on behalf of the interests of the provinces and the regions of this land. No other body, no other second Chamber, will ever have the legitimacy of an elected provincial Government and the elected assembly to which that Government is responsible.
Often we are told the reason we need a second Chamber is to protect the rights of minorities, for example, the minority in terms of a linguistic group in the Province of Quebec. That is not how the Senate is functioning at this time. The Premier of the Province of Quebec is quite able, as was the case with his predecessors, of speaking on behalf of the people of that
province. Also it is interesting to note that a very large proportion of the Members of this House have come from the Province of Quebec and that no Government, with the exception of the one headed by the Right Hon. Member for Yellow-head (Mr. Clark), in the last 20 years survived without the support of a majority of seats from Quebec, and this Government is no different. Obviously the House of Commons, through its elected Members, has had a very strong influence in protecting the interests of Quebec. They have a very strong voice in this Chamber and they usually have a very strong voice in Cabinet. Very seldom do we hear a voice in the Senate speaking out as a regional representative from western Canada, from Quebec or from Atlantic Canada. A good test of that would be for people across the land, who might be listening to this debate, to think of the name of the Senators from their regions. Most Canadians cannot name one Senator from their own provinces. Obviously Senators are not protecting or representing regional interests in an effective manner.
Other Members have indicated that we need the Senate because of its committee work. Probably that was a true statement 15 or 20 years ago when Senator Croll was well known for the work he did on poverty and other Senators were well known for their useful, investigative work on behalf of various concerns. The House of Commons itself has now undertaken that role. We have set up many task forces over the past few years to look into federal-provincial funding, various aspects of transportation, the Canadian role in Central America, the Canadian role in international affairs, interregional development, the whole issue of pensions and the specific concerns of the disabled. In other words, we have taken on a role which used to be identified as a role of the Senate, and we have said that elected Members should be involved in that process.
By having elected Members on a task force for the disabled or a task force looking into federal-provincial equalization payments or established programs financing, not only can they do the job very effectively, but when they return to the House they help to educate and to explain to the rest of us exactly what people across the land think about the issues which they were investigating. This is something which does not happen when a Senate committee goes out. The Senate does not report to us. We do not have the kind of communications system with the Senate to know what it has studied or learned across the land. From time to time committees are necessary because, despite that we all have fairly large egos, we do not know it all. Certainly there are people out there who can explain better the problems they face and the solutions they have, which benefits all of us in the House. That is something which can be done and should properly be done by the House.
Two other reasons have been given for having a second Chamber, and they come from the constitutional debates which took place prior to 1867. One was that it would help to prevent mob rule. Basically mob rule has come to be known as democracy. It means that the people elect their representatives, and that those representatives are supposed to come here to speak and work on behalf of those people. Just as important,
June 7, 1985

they are responsible to those people and will face them in any upcoming election. This indicates that an elected House is essential. No appointed Chamber can ever represent people of the land.
One difficulty with the present Senate is that it represents the opposite of mob rule. Senators are not responsible, they are not elected, they never have to face the public and, as was noted in the Clarke-Campbell report, many Senators are engaged in outside occupations. Basically they are lawyers and directors; they represent other interests in the land than that of the electorate. They are completely unanswerable. We have no idea what they do on behalf of their corporations, law firms or advertising firms. We have no idea what they do on behalf of their other occupations. We pay them a full-time salary, yet it was recognized by the committee, headed by a former Liberal Member of Parliament and a former Conservative Member of Parliament, that many of them, indeed most of them, were engaged in outside occupations.
Obviously those on boards of directors of various firms who sit in the Conservative caucus, now that that Party is in Government-and the same was true for those who sat in the Liberal caucus when that Party was in Government-have a strong influence on policies, directions, legislation and regulations coming from Government. We never know what is being said. We know that a certain Senator sits on the board of Inco and that a certain Senator sits on the board of directors of the Bank of Montreal. We know that Senators sit on the boards of this corporation or that corporation, but we have no idea what they say to their friends in Cabinet or how they use their voice and vote in caucus. This means that the Senate works against mob rule, democracy and openness in Government.
1 recognize that I have very little time remaining, but I should like to deal with the real role of the Senate as perceived by many people, that is, to give sober second thought to legislation which we may rush through the House of Commons. It is obvious to anyone who has studied the role, function and performance of the Senate that it does not do that. The average Bill is in the Senate for less than three days. The Clarke-Campbell report indicated that on average the Senate, over the last six years, sat for 66 per cent of the number of days the House of Commons sat. Most of us in the House will remember situations such as the following one: a controversial piece of legislation is debated in the House for weeks, if not for months; it is sent to a special or standing committee before which witnesses from all across the land appear. In some cases the committee will actually travel across country. After hearing the evidence and studying the Bill on a clause by clause basis, sometimes it makes amendments, sometimes it improves the Bill, and then it is brought back to the House of Commons for further debate. Thereafter it is rushed over to the Senate where it passes all stages in two hours. That is sober second thought! Obviously it is not.
I propose the abolition of the Senate. 1 will not move a resolution to that affect. Everyone knows where the New Democratic Party stands. However, we really do not have a Senate at the present time. It has not really existed in the
The Constitution
minds of Canadians for the last hundred years. It does not exist in terms of any effective role or in terms of legislative overview, with or without the amendments the Government is putting before us at this time. Let me indicate how I know this to be true.
I would like to read into the record the length of time that the Senate has sat in the five-week period between April 23 and May 30, 1985. As all Members know, the Senate only sits three days a week. On April 23, the Senate sat for one hour and 10 minutes. On April 24, it sat for one hour and 40 minutes; one hour and five minutes on April 25; two hours and five minutes on April 30; 20 minutes on May 1; one hour and 20 minutes on May 2; one hour and 20 minutes on May 7; one hour and 15 minutes on May 8; one hour and 45 minutes on May 9; one hour and 20 minutes on May 14; one hour and 40 minutes on May 15; one hour and 40 minutes on May 16; 50 minutes on May 28; one hour on May 29 and 30, respectively.
These are the figures for five consecutive weeks in which the Senate sat. They are certainly not construed figures. The total comes to 20 hours. We have been told that we have to spend $30,000 and hour to keep the people in the Senate. They do not even believe themselves that there is any need for them to review legislation. They do not believe that they have any real purpose. They can barely get through their prayers before they adjourn for the day. They do not serve as a Chamber of sober second thought. They do not serve any real legislative purpose; and they have not done so for a long time. Let us rid ourselves of the house of patronage. Let us clean up our democratic system and put in place one House which is elected by and responsible to the people of Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Valcourt:: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague of the New Democratic Party. Considering the remarks he has just made and the fact the the other House sat only 20 hours during five consecutive weeks; considering that, by his own logic, the Canadian Senate is of no practical use to this country and yet has an absolute right of veto on any piece of legislation passed by the House of Commons, could he explain how he can logically be against this resolution aimed at vesting the Senate with only a suspensive veto? The Hon. Member ought to know that if we want to abolish the Senate, as the New Democratic Party would have it, we need a consensus in this country, and any reasonable person-even a Member of the New Democratic Party-would realize there is now way to achieve such a consensus.
So how can he be against that, at least if the Senate had only a suspensive veto it could not thwart the will of the elected Commons.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the Hon. Member asked that particular question. It gives me a chance to go on

June 7, 1985
5554	_______________________________
The Constitution
with the problems of the Senate. What the Government is suggesting is not much of a change at all. It is not suggesting much of a reform.
As was mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner), even the great filibuster-as perceived by the Government-with respect to the borrowing authority legislation lasted for only 37 days. In other words, the reform proposed in the Bill before us would not change that much. For that matter, it would somehow rationalize the idea that the Senate could actually drag out each money Bill for 30 days without criticism, since that will be acceptable if the Bill before us passes. By setting what might be called maximum hours, or days, the Senate is being told that it has a legitimate right to spend 30 days on each money Bill and 45 days on each other piece of legislation. In the Senate, one hour quite often equals one day. That is one reason I object to the so-called reform.
The real reason I object to the so-called reform is that it is not reform at all. We are keeping a house of patronage. It is very much like another type of house. We are not saying that it is needed. We are saying it exists, therefore, we will put up with it. If it gets in our way, then we will bash through a constitutional amendment to deal with it. However, there is no attempt being made to reform it.
The Hon. Member has said there is no chance of abolition. Just five or six years ago people were saying there was no chance of our having our own Charter of Rights. At one time, people were saying there was no chance of us ever having an amending formula in this country. The only chance we have to abolish the Senate is for the Government to say that it is not doing anything, it is aware of that and it is not needed for a place of patronage. The Government must decide to bring a resolution to the House which will set out the fact that we do not need a Senate. If the Government has the courage to do something like that, then watch the provinces. Most of the Premiers in Canada are Conservatives. Watch them try to go to their people and defend the Senate.


Mr. Nickerson:: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has put great store in democracy. I do not blame him for doing this. However, great thinkers on constitutional affairs have always maintained that the democratic element should be balanced within a constitution, in line with other elements. Not only should we listen to the mob, as the Hon. Member has described them, but there should also be an element in Government filled by those most skilled at Government. There should exist an element which can be provided by those wo have expertise in statesmanship. A monarchial element should also be part of a constitution. Does the Hon. Member put his whole store in the democratic element within a constitution; or does he agree with Socrates, Sir Robert Walpole and Dave Nickerson that there ought to be other elements, too?


Rodney Edward Murphy: I can certainly not support the views of the last person mentioned by the Hon. Member. The other two persons he mentioned lived quite a long time ago. Perhaps the Hon. Member is also thinking in the past.
There is not a second Chamber in the Province of Ontario, nor is there one in the Province of Manitoba. There are not second Chambers in any of the provinces in the land. I do not feel that the people are any worse off because of the fact that there is not some type of unappointed group, be they statesmen or political hacks. We can survive quite well with democratic rule. We can survive with people who have been elected by the population and who are responsible to it. My reference to mob rule was in connection with John A. Macdonald's phrase "mob rule". My phrase would be "democratically-elected representation".


Mr. Jardine:: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to enter into the debate but, rather, to sit and listen to the comments of my learned colleague. However, I really must comment when he brings into question and casts a dark pall on the reputation and integrity of literally all members of the Upper Chamber. These are distinguished Canadians of whom he is speaking. I would particularly like to mention one of note, and that is the Senator from Riverview, New Brunswick, who was recently appointed. She has contributed to the province through 13 years of public service and is more than prepared and willing to continue that kind of contribution to the rest of Canada. I would have to ask the Hon. Member if he really believes that through the years the Senate has existed, it has made no contribution whatsoever to Canada.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, in my speech, I mentioned that in the past, some of the committees of the Senate have provided some useful information and have done some useful studies. I also went on to point out that that role by and large has been taken over by the House of Commons with the number of task forces that we have set up over the last few years to look into things such as the problems of the disabled and pensioners and federal-provincial relations and the like.
In my speech and in response to the two Hon. Members who asked questions of me, I was very careful not to impugn the dignity of any one Senator. I am arguing that a body that sat on May 1 for 20 minutes and on April 30 for two hours and five minutes, the longest it sat in a five-week period, despite the credentials of the individuals within it, no longer has a place in the Canadian democratic system.
Those individuals, including the one to whom the Hon. Member made mention, could do a much better job for their own personal reputation and for Canada if we found other roles for them to play within our system. They have made a great contribution in the past and they could do so in the future, but the other House is not the place for that contribution.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I am a bit concerned about the arguments that the Hon. Member is making. He went to great lengths to describe the amount of time that Senators spend sitting in the Senate considering legislation. I would submit that the Hon. Member is being intellectually dishonest by
June 7, 1985

arguing that because the Senators spend so little time in the actual Chamber the Senate is not worth keeping.
How many hours has the Hon. Member spent in this Chamber this week? Indeed, how many hours has he spent in this Chamber since the House reconvened? Is it fair to argue that if one divides his salary by the number of hours that he has actually sat in this Chamber, he is not worth that amount of money? Will the Hon. Member agree with me that a considerable amount of work done by a Member of Parliament and indeed by a Senator is not done in this Chamber or the Upper Chamber but in committee and in individual offices?


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I am not quite prepared to go through my index to tell the House what I have done since September 4-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I hope not.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Yes, I recognize that it would probably take more than 20 hours to read through the list. However, today I suspect that I have spoken longer than the Senate has sat. In fact, the Senate did not sit today. I made a statement, I asked a question, I tabled petitions, I made a speech and in a few moments I will be speaking on Private Members' Hour. The point is-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. 1 am afraid the Hon. Member's time has expired. The time for questions and comments has now expired.


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, the constitutional resolution introduced by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) has two objectives: first, through a constitutional amendment, of course, to limit the powers of the Senate so as to prevent it from exercising its absolute right of veto on Bills adopted by the House of Commons; two, to commit the Government to convene a conference of First Ministers before the end of 1987 with a view to examining in depth the various options available with respect to the future of the Senate.
Mr. Speaker, earlier today I listened to the speech of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) in reply to the Minister of Justice and the resolution introduced in the House. I am a rather inexperienced parliamentarian compared to the Leader of the Opposition, but I must say I was surprised-


An Hon. Member:: He did not impress you?


Bernard Valcourt: No, he did not impress me, but what did impress me is the fact that he completely failed to speak to the main issue inherent in this resolution. As far as I and, I am sure, many of my colleagues are concerned, that is the crux of the matter. We are talking about a principle whereby the respective powers of the two Houses must be balanced so that the mandate of those who are directly elected not be unduly restricted or that the principles inherent in responsible govern-
The Constitution
ment not be destroyed. Well, Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what can happen with the powers now enjoyed by the Senate. They have an absolute right of veto and with that alone they can frustrate the will of all elected Members of the House of Commons.
Earlier when he explained why he is against this resolution, the Leader of the Opposition had the gall to say that he would not be party to this because Quebec did not subscribe to the constitutional agreement and therefore will not take position either way. I have no idea what logical principle can prompt the Leader of the Opposition to rise in this House today and tell the Government: We are against resolution because Quebec will not have anything to do with it. Yet it is no secret that Quebec was left out of the constitutional agreement by the federal Liberal Party in the first place. That is history now, yet they use that as an argument to say they object because Quebec is not included. Mr. Levesque's position is clear, for he told our Prime Minister: We are not against restricting the powers of the Senate, in keeping with democratic principles, but we will not even discuss the matter until we become party to the constitutional agreement. That is a fair proposition, Mr. Speaker.
The question of the Canadian Senate has been the subject of numerous propositions and criticisms in recent years, Mr. Speaker, and again a moment ago the Leader of the Opposition said they would seek to amend the resolution and ask that a federal-provincial conference be covened in 1985. Yet he had hardly finished saying that he just did not understand why this resolution was on the Order Paper. Why would the Government want to have a constitutional resolution on the Order Paper at this time? First he blames us for proposing that a conference be held in 1987-a commitment of our Prime Minister-then in the same breath he asks: What is this resolution doing on the Order Paper?
Mr. Speaker, it is all very simple. This draft resolution is before the House because the Senate abused its powers under the Constitution in dealing with Bill C-ll. The Senate's attitude to the subject matter of Bill C-l 1 served as a clear warning. It reminded us of something that is an anachronism, something I am sure does not exist in any democracy, which is that the Parliament of Canada, the elected Members of this House, can adopt a Bill, and if the majority of the Senate does not agree with the legislation passed by the House of Commons, it can say no, on the basis of its absolute veto right.


Carlo Rossi: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Bourassa, on a point of order.


Carlo Rossi: Mr. Speaker, I would not like to encroach on the Hon. Member's time, but just the same, I would like to check the speech by the Leader of the Opposition, because the Hon. Member has just said that in his speech, the Leader of the

June 7, 1985
Freshwater Fish Marketing Act Opposition said he would not participate because Quebec was not participating. I think we should look at the speech by the Leader of the Opposition before allowing this kind of statement.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will look at the "blues" next week.
[ Translation]


Carlo Rossi: The House is being misled, perhaps not deliberately, Mr. Speaker, and I do not think that is the case, considering the Hon. Member.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Valcourt) will have the floor when debate resumes on this particular piece of legislation.
[ Translation]
It being four o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-PUBLIC BILLS

["I believe there is disposition to call it five o'clock.", "It being five o'clock, this House stands adjourned until next Monday at eleven o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 2(1)."]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is there unanimous consent for the House to proceed to Item No. 193?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



Dave Nickerson: that Bill C-235, an Act to amend the Freshwater Fish Marketing Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry.
He said: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-235 has as its objective the removal of the monopoly on the sale of freshwater fish which is presently enjoyed by the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation in much of western and northern Canada. I want to emphasize that it is not an attempt to remove the FFMC. I have spoken on this subject before on many occasions and people have criticized the idea because they think that it will remove the FFMC, that plants will close down and that there will be nothing to replace them in certain areas. That is not the
intent of the Bill. FFMC would continue to exist as long as it could in a competitive market-place.
As well as making some small amendments, we want to repeal Part III of the Act which gives to the FFMC a complete monopoly on the sale of most species of freshwater fish. That part also contains penalty clauses. Canadian citizens who commit the heinous crime of selling fish, to someone other than the Crown corporation can be fined or sent to jail. Can we imagine Canadian citizens being sent to jail for selling fish to someone other than the federal Government agency?
1 have spoken on this matter for 10 years, in many fora. I have spoken about it in the House of Commons on many occasions and previously as a Member of the Legislature. I have waxed eloquent on many occasions. 1 have been forceful. I have cajoled and threatened. 1 have been reasonable and logical. 1 have tried every knack of argument in debate which I know. It seems that after 15 years, we are making some headway. Today I will be rather cool, calm and collected, because I suspect that there is a certain amount of agreement among the Parties. 1 will even be nice to my socialist friends. I suspect they might help me, just this once. I want to retain the goodwill of the other Parties at least until five o'clock.
The other Parties may disagree with what I see as a resolution to a very difficult question which faces the freshwater industry. They should realize that the FFMC has not been particularly successful and that fishermen are not obtaining a fair return for the amount of effort which they put into the business in which they are engaged.
Marekting, in my opinion, in the opinion of many Members of the House, and certainly the people who are engaged in the fishery, has not been performed efficiently and effectively. That problem is not restricted to the freshwater section of the industry, it also affects the salt water fishery on the East Coast and on the West Coast.
I would like to compliment Senator Jack Marshall, of the other place, and his committee. That committee is engaged in an over-all study of fish marketing throughout Canada. 1 hope the committee will be able to present to the Senate, and to Canadian people in general, valid recommendations as to how we might improve the fishery within Canada. The committee is looking at FFMC and its practices. Of course, that will be only a very small part of the over-all effort. The committee is concerned with matters which have a national priority and importance on the East and West Coasts.
In my opinion the FFMC is a social experiment which has failed. In the Northwest Territories-and I believe the situation is very similar in the prairie provinces-before FFMC got into the business with its monopoly, there was a very active and viable fishery. The fishermen were not rich, but at least they were working and could make a decent living. After several years of government monopoly, the industry lives and relies on government subsidies and hand-outs. The provincial and territorial Governments have been obliged to subsidize a federal Crown corporation. Evidently, there is something very wrong in that situation. If the provincial and territorial subsidies were removed, the industry would fail completely, it
June 7, 1985

would have declining numbers of fishermen, catches and markets.
The FFMC is possessed of a crushing debt. The interest payments on the debt, according to the last annual report which was published in 1984, amounted to approximately $1.25 million, which the fishermen must pay. The fishermen are paying the interest on the debt which has accumulated to a great extent by reason of past mismanagement within the corporation. Some improvements have been made in the operation of the corporation, but there is still a long way to go.
Fishermen do not want hand-outs. I have spoken with the fishermen in my riding and they do not like the idea that someone else is paying subsidies to keep them in business. They know the business. They are good fishermen. They know how to catch top quality fish, which would command premium prices if the marketing opportunities existed. Fishermen want the chance to sell the fish at a fair price. They do not want subsidies to keep them in business. 1 agree whole-heartedly with them.
If we are successful and the monopoly is removed, the FFMC will remain, but it will have to become competitive. There will be something by which to judge it. Other people will be in the market-place. If they do a better job, we will be able to see that the FFMC is not working. If my submissions are right, that is what will happen. I might be wrong, but there is no harm in trying.
Fishermen's co-operatives could be formed. Several fishermen could get together and hire a salesman. They would then be working directly for the fishermen instead of for some Crown Corporation with a board of directors which no one ever sees. Private enterprise could get back into the fisheries business. Individuals would no longer be restricted by the law of Canada from entering into the business and earning a living buying and selling fish. I can see no reason why Canadian citizens should be prevented by the law from doing just that. It seems to me it is an elementary freedom which we have taken away from Canadians.
I see specialized marketing arising. For instance, in the area I come from, there is a very premium quality fish. It is a lot better than some of the fish caught in Alberta, for instance, with no disrespect to the Hon. Member sitting in front of me. We like to think that our fish is just a little better than his, and markets in the past have proven that. Markets have been prepared to pay a little extra for Slave Lake fish and that has not happened with FFMC. The fishermen there do not get that extra little bit.
Local processing by way of smoking and canning might very well be developed. Individuals could go into that field and we could get things going. That would bring about local job creation as well. There could be direct fishermen to retailer sales. I know fish companies in Ottawa which have tried to make deals with fishermen in freshwater country to buy their fish directly thereby cutting out the middle man, in this case, the Crown corporation. They could pay the fishermen better
Freshwater Fish Marketing Act
prices and the citizens of Ottawa would be able to buy fresher fish at lower prices and everyone would benefit, if we were able to do that under the law which, of course, with the present monopoly, is not possible.
I would like to review very briefly, Sir, the fisheries policy which was enunciated prior to September 4 by the Party of which I am a supporter. A very comprehensive fisheries platform was put together and this was presented to fishermen in the fishing ridings at the time of the election campaign. A lot of support was forthcoming on account of these policies.
Specifically, with respect to freshwater, there were two elements of the Conservative plank at that time: first, comprehensive review of the activities of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation in close consultation with fishermen and Governments of the western provinces and Northwest Territories and the second element in the policy was that western Canadians would be granted greater control over their fishery, especially the marketing of its products. The Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation will not be allowed to retain a monopoly on this activity.
Fishermen who were well aware of that policy are now demanding that action take place. They have waited long enough. We have been in office long enough and they are expecting us to make some headway. I know there are problems faced by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Fraser). In my opinion, he is certainly doing a very good job. He is one of the best Fisheries Ministers we have had for some time. And he is gradually resolving some of the outstanding problems. Of course, he has to face the East Coast and West Coast national priorities.
As well, when we talk about freshwater, we have to deal with the Governments of Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and the Northwest Territories and try to work out some form of consensus. That is a difficult job for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. I have an understanding that the subject matter of the Bill might well be referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. If that takes place what we will be doing is fulfilling to some extent a promise to the fishermen in freshwater country. It certainly is an important first step in carrying out these promises. 1 hope that after the committee has given its full deliberations to the element of this Bill, the ramifications of the monopoly, it will become the policy of the Government of Canada supported by both opposition parties.


Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, the subject matter of this Bill is certainly not new to the House of Commons. It is certainly not new in the Hansards of the House of Commons since the Hon. Member who introduced it has spoken on the subject many times. I suppose, Mr. Speaker, of all of the subjects we have listened to with respect to doing away with the powers of Crown corporations, this is one of the corporations which has been talked about more than any other in the House of Commons over the last few years.
To set the record straight, Mr. Speaker, two Crown corporations were created by past Governments primarily to market

June 7, 1985
Freshwater Fish Marketing Act
fish. One Crown corporation was on the East Coast of Canada and the other was in western Canada. One had to do with saltfish and the other had to do with fresh fish. The difficulty that the Ministers of Fisheries and Oceans have had with the repeated suggestion of the Hon. Member for the Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson), is that each Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has always looked at it with the idea that the corporation was for the general good of the area concerned. It is the same argument which is used in eastern Canada and in western Canada as it relates to this particular corporation.
I have wondered, Mr. Speaker, over the years if perhaps the Hon. Member for Western Arctic did not represent the one area covered by the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation which perhaps had a very accessible and probably very marketable product and there was, perhaps, a great demand for that product in Canada and the United States. Perhaps the marketing corporation was using that profitable section of its control to balance out the least profitable areas of its jurisdiction, I rather suspect that that is the truth of the matter and that the hon. gentleman can see no other solution to this problem but to do away with the monopoly of this particular Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, there is a down side to this argument. When you do away with the corporation in effect, with that type of a monopoly, then of course the more profitable elements of its jurisdiction will themselves do their own marketing and thereby raise the costs and economic viability of the remainder of that jurisdiction, probably to the point where the Government would not be able to finance that particular corporation. However, the hon. gentleman has a point. I think that the Party he represents listened to him very carefully over the years. In fact, it listened to him to the point of putting in the Party platform that it would end the monopoly of the Canadian Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation. That was in party policy. Of course, Mr. Speaker, you have to understand that when you end that monopoly, in effect you end the corporation, unless the Government is prepared then to turn around and provide greater per unit subsidization of that operation than it did in the past.
It is unfortunate that the hon. gentleman's Bill is before us at this point in time for the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Fraser) because of all the times in Canadian history over the past 10 or 12 years, as far as fisheries is concerned, this is perhaps the most difficult time for a federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. He has had the courts in western Canada and British Columbia come up with decisions which really said that the federal Fisheries Act had no teeth and that it could not allocate licences by gear types. Recently the court in New Brunswick passed down a judgment which said the Government cannot control where people go to fish. As long as they have a licence, they are allowed under the mobility provisions of the Constitution to go wherever they want to go and fish. The Minister was also confronted with all of these problems which were created because of budgetary cuts. Then he was presented with the problem of overfishing.
I would say, Mr. Speaker, that if you polled the Members of the House of Commons who have been here for several years, they would have to say that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney) probably made the best choice possible for the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. I think it generally agreed, Mr. Speaker, that he made the best choice possible with what he had to choose from. The gentleman knows his business. He knows the Fishery inside out and he knows the environment inside out as well, but he is being presented with all these problems.
We have a Bill before the House for second reading and we have the federal Minister trying to figure how he can weasel out of a campaign promise, a Party position, to end this monopoly. Add to that the fact that the Hon. Member for Western Arctic is still sitting in the House. That presents an additional problem for the Minister. The Minister knew that the first thing the Hon. Member would do when he came back in the Chamber was put a Bill on the Order Paper asking for the demise of the Canadian Frewshwater Fish Marketing Corporation.
I think that his concluding remarks, where he said this matter could be referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry, could be a way out. I certainly would support that proposition if it were proposed by the Parliamentary Secretary. I suppose we have to challenge him to do that. We have to ask him what is wrong with referring it to the committee. Is he afraid to have it discussed? I am sure the Hon. Member for the Western Arctic would agree that it should be discussed openly and examined by Members of the House of Commons, especially since the Conservatives put it in their Party platform. The speaker for the NDP should make sure that he does not go on too long so the Parliamentary Secretary can stand in his place, own up to a promise made by a Conservative Government, try to half satisfy the Hon. Member for Western Arctic and do what he should do by referring this entire subject matter to the standing committee.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I am not used to getting up in the House today. It is unfortunate that we are not allowed to mention the presence or absence of a Member, but I cannot ask a question of the Liberal Member who asked me about what I had been doing in the House because he is not here. Neither will I take advantage of this time to continue the debate on the uselessness of the Senate, so I will speak about the matter before us.
It will be no surprise to you, Mr. Speaker, that there have been discussions among the three Parties and that there is a willingness to accept that the subject matter of the Bill before us should go to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry for further study. I find that acceptable. I have entered into debate with the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) as to his intentions, which is basically to dissolve the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation or make sure that it competes with private buyers. I disagreed for many years with that supposition of the Hon. Member. Having said
June 7, 1985

that, let me tell you that I agree in principle with what 1 believe the Parliamentary Secretary will be doing in a few minutes, referring the matter to the Standing Committee.
I represent a riding which covers two thirds of the Province of Manitoba and which has many commercial fishermen. By virtue of the fact they all fish in fresh water, they sell their products through the FFMC. In the main they are very satisfied with that corporation. When there was an attempt by a previous Conservative Government in the Province of Manitoba to look at ways of changing the system, trying to bow out of the FFMC system, the fishermen in northern Manitoba, about 95 per cent of which are native, said no. That was done during the 1980 federal election and I stood with the fishermen in my riding and said "if I am elected, I will be there supporting the FFMC". I also said and I say now that the corporation is far from perfect.
I believe there are some officials from the Department upstairs listening at this time and they will be aware that there have been many complaints about the system. There are problems with it, just as there are problems with any system of marketing fish in this and other nations. The Hon. Member who spoke on behalf of the Liberal Party will recognize, being from Atlantic Canada, that there are many problems in the fishing industry there. There are many problems in the industry in western Canada. This is so even in some parts of this nation the marketing is done by private enterprise. So, it is not a matter of public versus private enterprise. Some people would like it to be an ideological debate, but it is not. It is not a matter of the FFMC having the monopoly and some people object to monopolies.
One of the problems we face is that regardless of where you fish, the prices are not high and costs are increasing. The increase in the cost of gas resulting from the recent Budget is not going to make life much easier for fishermen. It will make it more difficult for fishermen, especially in remote communities. As the price of gas goes up, obviously it is more expensive to operate. As well, it means that all goods shipped in to the fishermen are going to be that much more expensive.
I welcome the idea that this whole matter will be referred to committee and I hope to have a chance to participate on behalf of our caucus on that committee. I would also hope that in doing a thorough study, the committee will look at ways of travelling to where the fishermen live and work so we can see firsthand what the problems are. As I said in debate yesterday on northern transportation, the Hon. Member for Nunatsiaq (Mr. Suluk) put forward a motion that the Standing Committee on Transport should travel and look at the problems that people of the north face regarding transportation.
I believe that the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry should do the same thing and listen to the people actually engaged in fishing. We should listen to the type of problems they face and the suggestions they may make concerning improving their situation. I recognize that fishermen will not speak with one voice. Like farmers, miners, labourers and businessmen, they do not always agree on what is the most perfect solution for their industry, but I think if we as Mem-
Freshwater Fish Marketing Act
bers of Parliament travel to those areas, we will hear for ourselves what people are saying. We will have some understanding of what the problems are.
We will not have this just by reading a report. We will not understand it by just listening to the FFMC officials testify in the standing committee once a year as they do at the present time. It is better for us to be out there and talk about the problems resulting from the high cost of transportation, from the fact we do not have processing stations in northern Manitoba and other parts of the north. We can talk about the problems they have with the fact that much of the fish they catch cannot be sold, whether through the FFMC or any other organization, because there is no market. Perhaps, after going through that process, we can come up with some changes to the FFMC which would satisfy the people involved.
One suggestion I would like to make at this time, and hopefully the committee would consider it, is that we make sure the fishermen themselves are actually on the board of directors in some numbers in order to have some effect on the direction and decisions made by the board. Right now the board of directors are not involved in the fishing industry themselves, basically. There is an advisory body representing the fishermen which gives advice to the board of directors, but that is not the same as having representatives of the fishermen on the board. If we made that one change so that fishermen felt they had some stake in the decision making, it would satisfy a lot of the fishermen in my area. They would be able to help determine price and the assistance the corporation gives to fishermen. They would be able to help plan the marketing and processing strategy, and deal with initial and final prices paid to the fishermen. That is not a new concept. We accepted that concept in the Wheat Board. We allow representatives of the farmers to be elected to the Wheat Board to help determine the decisions of that institution. I think that fishermen of freshwater fish would appreciate having that same input into their future and industry.
I could go on at some length talking about specific problems. I could spend a lot of time talking about the problems in my own riding, the fact that we do not have processing there, and the fact that most of the lakes are not connected to highways. I could talk about the disastrous effect of the last Budget on the fishermen in my riding because of the increase in the cost of fuel. However, I do not think that would serve any particular purpose at this time. I am going to sit down, but as I said at the outset, I would like to indicate my support for the proposal, which I believe we will be hearing in the next few minutes, to send this whole subject matter to the standing committee for further review and, hopefully, to travel across the country to allow the people who are actually fishing to speak to the Members of Parliament.


Mr. Mel Gass (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague for introducing this Bill. It gives us a rare opportunity to address the freshwater fishery and the problems

June 7, 1985
Freshwater Fish Marketing Act
of its fishermen, a group which we tend to ignore, given our preoccupation with the East and West Coast fisheries.
We are not the first to be concerned about these matters. For many years people with the best interests of the fishermen at heart debated the problems of fish marketing on the Prairies. It was a major question in terms of people, of profits, and of political will. When six governments finally joined to set up the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation, they knew they were making a fundamental change.
What brought them to that point? Perhaps we should look back for a moment to see what was on the minds of the federal, provincial, and territorial Governments at the time. Why did they want this corporation and how has it worked out? Their decision to set up the corporation followed many years of discontent and recommendations for change. For example, the 1933 Commission of Inquiry into Manitoba fisheries concluded that fishermen were in a most unfavourable position. American capital largely controlled the fish distributing agencies and it was said that racketeers had entered the business. The uneconomic competition between distributors for fish and markets was hurting the fishermen rather than helping them.
The 1933 commission called for collective action on behalf of the fishermen. It called for better co-ordination of the industry, better quality, better inspection, and for a fish-clearing house, another way of saying single-desk selling. The idea, of course, is that single-desk selling can give the producers more power in the market and can give the buyers a better availability of supply.
In 1938 the Manitoba Government again commissioned a thorough report. The author, H. C. Grant, said that "the most apt description of the fisherman in Manitoba is that he is a labourer working for a piece rate wage. For all practical purposes, the local packer or exporter provides the only source of credit available to the Fisherman". The author linked the fisherman's lack of independence and his inability to sell his own fish with his discontent and suspicion about the whole marketing set up.
After the war, similar complaints persisted about market weakness, the strength of American buyers, and dirty deals. The Saskatchewan Government found it desirable to set up a fish marketing board and then a system of co-operatives. This helped, but American importers still had the upper hand and, by and large, exporters and dealers passed the risks and losses back to the fishermen.
A national conference on Fisheries in 1964 brought matters to a head. The Manitoba Government presented a brief that said in part:
Disorderly marketing is a central problem in the inland fishing industry. Local packers and shippers, apparently unable to bypass the American broker, force rapid changing prices f.o.b. the packing shed, and must therefore broaden their margin to offset losses caused by sudden devaluation of inventory. Consequently, the fishermen receive a lean share of constantly fluctuating prices. The packingshipping firms tend to concentrate on shrewd marketing to earn occasional windfall profits rather than industrial engineering to economize on collection and handling costs . .. Handling and packing facilities are characterized by poor equipment and low quality control facilities-
The brief continued:
At this time the Province of Manitoba knows of no better alternative than the establishment of a regional marketing board to meet the marketing problems of the industry.
Out of that conference a federal-provincial committee on Prairie fisheries recommended an export monopoly with monopoly single-desk selling. This recommendation lead to another and very thorough study by Commissioner George Mclvor in 1965. Mr. Mclvor talked to the various Governments. Among Prairies provinces Manitoba produces the most fish. Manitoba's Minister of Mines and Natural Resources, the Hon. Sterling Lyon, repeated the same arguments the province had made to the 1964 conference about the need for a marketing board. All the Prairie provinces and the Government of the Northwest Territories favoured an export monopoly.
Exporters and dealers had most to lose from a marketing board. However, even among them, Commissioner Mclvor found an awareness that marketing of Prairie fish needed some from of re-organization and rationalization. In his travels and hearings, he found that the fishermen urgently wanted a changed system of marketing. The Mclvor report said that prices were weak because of too many exporters selling to a few American importers. Some exporters only amounted to agents of U.S. importers. If the importer suffered a market setback, or took some risk that backFired, he had the power to pass the losses back to the Canadian exporter and the exporter passed the loss back to the dealers who passed it back to the fishermen.
Mclvor discovered once again what previous studies had stated; the weakness of exporters linked up with a series of underlying weaknesses in the industry. The 35 or so exporters-too many-did business with 200 or so dealers-far too many for the amount of fish handled. There was no standardization of brands and no co-ordination of supply. The system created losses in efFiciency, quality, and proFits. All of this weakened market prices. Even when the export market took an upturn and exporters raised prices to their dealers, Mclvor found that the dealers failed to pass the increase back to the fishermen. He investigated the sales of the two major products, white fish and pickerel, in 1965 and found that fishermen got less than half the export price. For Prairie fish in general, depending on the specific fishery, they got only 45 to 60 per cent of the price. However, the fishermen never knew what the market price was. Often they never even knew what price they would receive from their own local dealer from day to day.
Many of the fishermen worked on credit with the dealers and never got out of debt. Fully 25 per cent of them were completely dependent on the dealers credit, totally under the dealers' control. The commissioner's report said that "under these circumstances, the fisherman is essentially an indentured labourer for the fish companies. It is self evident that fishermen in this situation do not negotiate a price. There is no bargaining. The Fisherman's prime concern is existing".
In short, if the exporters were weak, so was the whole system and especially the fisherman. Mclvor added that "in
June 7, 1985

general, this commission is not aware of a worse pocket of poverty in Canada than the northern segments of the inland fishery". Fishermen in general were dissatisfied. "They are not happy, are not content, but are very discouraged".
Mclvor concluded that clearing up the situation would take an export monopoly and more. With a single-desk exporting agency and no other change, any gains would disappear in the network of dealers and bring no help to the fisherman who should come first. He said, in effect, that the Government should take over marketing lock, stock, and barrel. It should buy the fish from the fishermen through its own agents, process the fish, and market it.
The six governments agreed, but only after taking another long look. They did economic studies, found that it would work, and finally in 1969 passed complementary legislation to set up the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation. They all did this even though it went against the grain of a free enterprise society. Like many other governments in many countries, they finally decided that this fishery was a special situation which needed special action. They saw a chance for progress in terms of people and profits and they had the political will to work together to make it happen.
In addressing this bill, Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to raise a question of process. Process is important in this matter, because, as I have said before, the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation involves five other provincial partners; Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, Northwestern Ontario, and the Northwest Territories. The legislation which established this corporation is effective because of companion legislation passed by those five jurisdictions. In addition, the federal Government entered into formal agreements respecting the operations of the corporation with the five Governments.
The House is already aware that the Government is deeply committed to improving the climate of federal-provincial relations. I would be concerned if we were to proceed on this matter in a unilateral fashion. In fact, the introduction of this Bill has already provoked reactions from four of the five governments. All four have expressed strong opposition to the intent of the Bill.
I move, seconded by the Members for Madawaska-Victoria (Mr. Valcourt):
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "that" and substituting the following therefor:
"Bill C-235, an Act to amend the Freshwater Fish Marketing Act, be not
now read a second time but that the order be discharged, the Bill withdrawn
and the subject matter thereof referred to the Standing Committee on
Fisheries and Forestry."


Mr. Suluk:: Mr. Speaker, I do not understand how the amendment will affect my remarks. My instincts tell me to support my hon. colleague for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) and support the amendment. However, considering that I am a new Member, perhaps you may be able to instruct me as to the procedural matter involved.
Freshwater Fish Marketing Act


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Chair cannot guide the Hon. Member and cannot participate in the debate. I will recognize the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker) on a point of order, then the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, if I heard the Hon. Member correctly, he was rising on a point of order and was not addressing the subject matter of the resolution. That means that he can still address the subject matter of the resolution and the amendment that is before the House.
With respect to his point of order, the Hon. Member, who represents the eastern riding next to the Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson), has probably had time to confer with the Member for Western Arctic and understand his position.


Melbourne Alexander Gass: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I appreciate the position of the Hon. Member for Nunatsiaq (Mr. Suluk). I would advise him that there was agreement between the Parties to refer the subject matter to committee so that we could discuss in more detail some of the concerns of Members of the House. Possibly at that time he will be able to raise his concerns about this Bill.


Thomas Suluk: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make some comments concerning the Bill proposed by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson).
There have been a number of objections raised by residents in my riding because the people in my riding have become more politically aware of the intrusion of federal and territorial governments into every aspect of their lives. This corporation is another example of that because it was originally designed to assist fishermen 50 years ago and may no longer be relevant today.
Some months ago I received a resolution from the annual meeting of the Keewatin Wildlife Federation, which is directly north of the Province of Manitoba. The Federation was requesting that I present on their behalf a resolution calling for the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation to get out of the business of marketing fish in our region.
As the Hon. Member for Western Arctic said, perhaps more eloquently than I can, the Board has too much of a monopoly. People in the North want land claims to be settled and aboriginal rights to be entrenched in the Constitution because they believe that Governments are beginning to intrude too much into the everyday aspect of their lives.
While Inuit may have been considered not knowledgeable of Government matters and unable to govern their own affairs 15 years ago, many are now saying that they are able to address these issues themselves. This is just another example of a corporation that is perhaps designed more to help fishermen in the provinces and is no longer really relevant to the people in the North.
The resolution by the Federation asks the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Fraser) to rescind the provisions of the Board so that they no longer affect, them. They would like to

June 7, 1985
Freshwater Fish Marketing Act
keep it in the provinces where it might still do some good, but we do not want it in our region because we do much of our marketing today. It is delaying another attempt by them to do their own business with whom they want.
I am reminded of a case in Ottawa in which a businessman inquired whether he could import Arctic char from the Baffin regions, which is east of the Keewatin region. I told him that he could not do so because the regulations require him to go through the Freshwater Fish Marketing Board.
In conclusion, I am sure that the committee would be more than able to look into many of these concerns in greater detail.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It has been moved by Mr. Gass, seconded by Mr. Valcourt:
That Bill C-235, an Act to amend the Freshwater Fish Marketing Act, be not now read a second time but that the order be discharged, the Bill withdrawn and the subject matter thereof referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment to the main motion?


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


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Accordingly, the order is discharged, the Bill withdrawn and the subject matter thereof referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry.
Order discharged and Bill withdrawn.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I believe there is disposition to call it five o'clock.

It being five o'clock, this House stands adjourned until next Monday at eleven o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 4:49 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, June 10, 1985