1985-12-04

Hon. William Rompkey (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, in the economic statement of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) in November last there was a section on northern allowances which read as follows:
Employees in the North and in isolated posts receive certain tax exemption from employer benefits under two remission orders. The structure of these remission orders was announced by the previous Government but the orders were not formally put in place. The orders are now confirmed and will be in effect through 1985. During this period, the Government intends to review the issue of northern taxation in consultation with all interested parties.
I am not aware that any consultation has gone on. The people in the North are not aware that any consultation has gone on. On the other hand the people in the North are becoming very concerned that this issue which is very important to them has not been dealt with by the Government and that, by the end of 1985, there will be taxation of northern benefits.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) made a commitment in Yellowknife during the last campaign. I should like to quote from a press clipping from Yukon at that time:
Minutes after his chartered jet touched down, Mr. Mulroney said the federal Conservative Government would "absolutely not" tax northern benefits such as housing and travel allowances.
1 want an assurance from the Government, before the end of the year, that after the end of 1985 there will continue to be, into the indefinite future, no taxation of northern allowances.


PUBLIC OPINION POLLS
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, we learned today that a cabinet committee will probably decide to award the Government's super poll contract to that super pollster, Allan Gregg, at Decima Research. It seems that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) will be the first to read the results of this centralized monthly polling scheme. If nothing
else, it means that the Prime Minister can no longer claim that he does not know what is going on, at least in the minds of Canadians.
However, it also represents a very serious conflict for Decima Research and the Government. Decima should not be in a position to gather polling information for the Government of Canada when Mr. Gregg, by changing his hat, is the pollster for the federal Conservative Party and various provincial Conservative Governments.
Yesterday we were told about a study for the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) showing that most Canadians were unaware of the important issue of employment equity in the workplace. Regrettably, this $29,000 study shows that many Canadians are in the dark when it comes to understanding the many job barriers facing women, natives, the disabled and visible minorities. The Minister of Employment okayed $5.5 million to promote her Canadian Jobs Strategy program.
I call upon the Government to undertake a public information program to educate Canadians about affirmative action and to eliminate the confusion which surrounds the very important issue of job fairness.


CLOSING OF GULF REFINERY IN MONTREAL EAST
Mr. Vincent Della Noce (Duvernay):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I was very disappointed to hear about the sale and subsequent closing of the Gulf refinery in Montreal East. 1 am sure this deplorable state of affairs is due to the disastrous national energy policy set up by our predecessors in the Liberal Government. Personally, I have to admit 1 feel somewhat helpless and rather limited in what 1 can do, but 1 firmly believe that with the help of my colleagues, the Conservative Government will be able to find satisfactory alternatives. The days to come will prove we were right. Needless to say, my feelings of sympathy go out to the 450 workers at the Gulf refinery, and I shall continue to give them my wholehearted support.

December 4, 1985
9108__________________________


S O. 22 HEALTH NEED TO CONSIDER RISKS AND COST OF BREAST IMPLANTS
Mrs. Suzanne Duplessis (Louis-Hebert):: Mr. Speaker, 1 wish to raise an important question in the House today which concerns over 17,000 Canadian women, including 7,000 Quebec women, every year. I was made aware of the issue by an eminent researcher at Laval University, Dr. Robert Gui-doin. I am referring to a number of studies that were made on breast implant devices, studies the Department of National Health and Welfare does not seem to take very seriously. According to the analyses, the health of women who resort to this type of operation is at risk. However, no provision has been made by the Department to monitor the silicone implants being used. Research has shown that within two years after the operation, the implants break up or weep, thus causing considerable damage to the tissues of the patient, who then has to undergo a new operation.
In addition to the danger to the health of women who are obliged to resort to this kind of operation, we must realize that although the initial operation is not covered by provincial health insurance plans, the second operation that may be required owing to unsatisfactory implants costs the various provincial governments a lot of money. When the operation is redone, the patient's hospital costs are paid by provincial health insurance plans. Because this serious problem is costing Canadians money and especially because of the health risk to over 17,000 Canadian women every year, I consider this a very important issue and I feel it should be examined and regulated without delay.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin).


Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: God
bless you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise in my place today to raise the difficulties experienced in Newfoundland with the job-creation program of the federal Government. In response to the disastrous situation in the fishery this year in Newfoundland and Labrador, the federal Government quite properly-and I must say that we applauded this measure at the time-announced a $9.5 million fund to assist people who were suffering as a result of the natural disaster in the fishing industry. The problem is that while the fund was announced two months ago and was called an emergency response, those dollars are still not in place and the projects which the fund was designed to create are still not ongoing. Hence we have the frustrating spectacle in Newfoundland of people having to engage in hunger strikes in order to draw attention to the problem.
If that were not bad enough, under the regular stream of the fall Canada Works Programs, community groups are being told that they will receive no funding under the program for six weeks. The Government is going to set up a situation whereby people will be allowed to have the tools to do a good job and bring a benefit to the community, but they will only be employed in the midst of winter.
I beg the Government and the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) to get their act together and get the shop working. Get the lead out, cut the red tape, and let people who want to work, work now.

[ Translation]



Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the Government simply cannot blame the former Liberal administration for the current situation in Montreal East. Since the Conservative Government came into office in September 1984 some 2,000 Montreal East workers lost their jobs, and now 433 Gulf workers will also be laid off as a result of Ultramar's decision to buy the Gulf refinery and shut it down.
As you may recall, Mr. Speaker, this Government gave a $600 million tax remission to Olympia & York for acquiring the assets of Gulf Canada. The people of Quebec, the workers of Quebec and the workers of Montreal East had enough of the cynic approach of the Government which does not do anything for workers but keeps on making generous gifts to big business.
When most Quebecers voted for the Conservatives in the last election they were expecting real changes. Now they know that the Prime Minister's promise about jobs, jobs and more jobs was indeed a snow job, for he really meant jobs for big business.
Mr. Speaker, jobs are disappearing at an accelerated rate in Montreal East, and the survival committee people are seeking a constructive approach to create employment, fed up as they are with the Conservative Government's cynic attitude.


CROWN CORPORATIONS
Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to refer to an article published in La Presse of December 3, more specifically to an editorial of Mr. Frederic Wagniere on the disposal of de Havilland.

December 4, 1985

Mr. Wagniere's editorial is entitled "A new departure".
This company in which the Liberals had sunk close to $830 million in Canadian taxpayers' money and which required a further $85 million annual injection of public funds to stay in business has just been sold to private interests, in keeping with our Government's privatization policy and economic development program. The only opposition to our project comes from Members on the other side of the House, Mr. Speaker.
I might point out that the privatization process will continue. In answer to the attacks of the misguided Liberals, I would like to ask them what they did in the case of Canadair in 1982 when they doctored the books of that company to hide their incompetence.
Fortunately the Auditor General uncovered their insidious tactic. They should take stock of themselves instead of criticizing us!
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, our Government chose an outstanding management team, Boeing Aircraft, and made sure that the 4,500 workers in that industry will meet the Canadian challenge.


HISTORIC EVENTS
Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Mr. Speaker, 68 years ago this month, on December 6, 1917, an explosion occurred in Halifax Harbour which rocked all of Canada and all of the world. Over 2,000 people were killed when two ships collided in Halifax Harbour, and many thousands of others were injured and maimed for life. All Nova Scotians, and I think all Canadians, should remember this terrible event in the light of current events across the world of equal magnitude in terms of disaster.
This was not merely an event in past history. There are many survivors of that explosion in Canada today. I want to take the opportunity once again to remind the Canadian Pension Commission and the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Hees), who now administer the funds available to these people, to take another look at the situation to see whether we can increase the aid provided to the survivors of the Halifax explosion. Most of them are in their very late years, 80 and 90 years of age. The small settlements they received and the minor payments they receive on a monthly basis should be increased now that they are in their senior days. I ask all Members of the House to support that action.
Oral Questions INDIAN AFFAIRS


PROPOSED TRADE SUMMIT SHOW-REPORTED REQUEST FOR CANCELLATION
Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, the Ontario Indian leaders have asked the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Crombie) to cancel the proposed native business summit and trade show which is scheduled for next summer in Toronto.
The federal Government is going to spend up to $2 million on this event. One and one-half million of that is coming from the Department of Indian Affairs and is being taken away from a program meant for community development. Indian communities desperately need those dollars. This trade show will do nothing to benefit communities that do not even have such basic services as water and sewage systems.
The president of the Union of Ontario Indians called the trade show an extravagant expenditure. The Grand Chief of the Nishnawbe-Aski Nation has said that it is money not well spent. The chiefs are now going to express their opposition directly to the Prime Minister.
Last April the Prime Minister stressed that policies regarding aboriginal people will be made only after full consultation. I ask the Prime Minister and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to listen and respond to the concerns of the chiefs of Ontario with regard to this proposed trade show. I ask them to consider carefully the telex that was sent today by the Ontario regional chiefs.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Deputy Prime Minister. In Canada we have had a fine tradition of conducting our foreign policy in a relatively non-partisan fashion. That is why I cannot understand why the Government of Canada would treat Canadian parliamentarians from all three political Parties with such utter contempt. I refer, of course, to the fact that Canadian Members of Parliament have been attempting to elicit information on the current and prospective state of our treaties with the United States, particularly those relating to air defence and the protection of Canada from nuclear attack.
Why is it that Members of Parliament and members of the committee have to go to Washington to obtain from military experts information which they could have received from our own Government? Why is our Government not as forthcoming as our American allies?

December 4, 1985
Oral Questions


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I believe the question refers to press reports of the evidence of a private citizen in the United States and not to the United States Government. The right hon. gentleman knows as a member of a former Government, and indeed as a former Prime Minister, that there are classified documents in the service that go to the heart of the nation's security and that of our allies, the disclosure of which traditions prevent. Indeed, as he knows, an arrangement was signed by himself and the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney), as has been the case with former Prime Ministers on the change of office, prohibiting the release of classified information to Members of Parliament unless they are security cleared.


REQUEST FOR IN CAMERA COMMITTEE MEETING
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, that agreement between successive Prime Ministers relates to cabinet documents and documents relating thereto. Of course the Federal Court has had something to say about that particular situation.
If the Deputy Prime Minister is worried about national security, there is an option open to the Government, namely, treat Members of Parliament and those members of parliamentary committees to the information now available to U.S. Congressmen and Senators. Have the committee meet in camera and give the Members from all three political Parties who are trying to assess the present state of our air defence agreements with the United States a chance to get the information upon which they can make a judgment.
Would the Deputy Prime Minister take this matter up with the Prime Minister and his colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, to ensure that henceforth Members of Parliament and Senators get the same information on our mutual defence arrangements with the United States as U.S. Congressmen, Senators, and private experts get?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. gentleman knows that parliamentary committees have held in camera meetings both while he was a member of the Government and now. The suggestion just made by him is certainly one which is deserving of consideration. Indeed, it has been done, as I am reminded from behind me, I believe with respect to the recent visit by that particular committee to Colorado Springs and NORAD, the entire briefing was classified and in camera. The difficulty with respect to that particular meeting, and others like it, is that some Members of Parliament, such as the critic in this area for the New Democratic Party, will not go to those meetings because of the fear of being compromised by the very information they seek.


Ms. Jewett:: That is why they should not be classified.


NEED FOR CANADA TO RECEIVE INFORMATION IN ORDER TO MAKE JUDGMENT CONCERNING TREATIES WITH UNITED STATES
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, that is a pretty weak argument. The Deputy Prime Minister is not a very open or accessible man.
However, to repeat my question: 1 believe all Canadians want the Canadian Government to be open and very frank, especially in our defence relations with the United States. Could he reconsider his position and the Government's and ensure that Members from all three political parties and the Senators sitting with them on joint committees, as representatives of the Canadian people, be able to obtain the information they need to form a Canadian opinion on Canada's treaties with the United States?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, where that can be done it will be done; but I am sure the right hon. gentleman is not for a moment suggesting that this Government, or any Government of Canada, should be exposing for public examination information which goes to the heart of the security of this nation and that of our allies. He knows, as a former Prime Minister and as a former member of a Government, that there is that type of information which does exist that does go to the security of the country. If he is inviting me, or this Government, simply to override all caution and make all information, including classified information-


John Napier Turner: Give us return tickets to Washington so we can get the information, will you?


Erik Nielsen: -with respect to the country's security, then I for one have to reject that idea. He should not, Sir, try to leave the impression that any documents have been exposed in Washington that-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am afraid the answer is becoming a little long.


CROWN CORPORATIONS
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. Yesterday, in defending the sale of de Havilland, as reported at page 9072 of Hansard, he said that the main reason was to save money. Specifically, he said:
The best estimate for next year was that de Havilland would lose $200 million. That is taxpayers' money, and that is what we are going to save the taxpayers.
The memorandum of understanding has not been made public. Is it not a fact that in that memorandum the loss for that period is estimated not at $200 million but at only $14
December 4, 1985

million, and that the memorandum states that in the following year de Havilland will make a profit? To whom is the Government giving the truth, this House or Boeing?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, this Government is obviously giving the truth to this House.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert René de Cotret: I would like to answer the hon. gentleman opposite by saying that the main reason for the sale-and I think I made this point repeatedly yesterday-is to give this very vital industry in the country a new momentum, a new future, new growth and new jobs.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Broadbent:: We*want the truth.


REQUEST FOR REVIEW
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, the media in Seattle are celebrating this deal as an extraordinary bargain for Boeing, noting that there are no job guarantees for Canadians and that the price is far below value. If the Government is so proud of this deal, then before it is final why can the deal not be reviewed by the Government of Ontario, by the United Auto Workers-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Phillip Kaplan: -and, above all, by the Members of this House? Does the Government not realize that a little advance thinking outside the tight circle which has looked into it so far might save the country the kind of losses which are involved now in the bank bail-out?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[DOT] (U25)


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say that I am happy that Boeing is celebrating the deal. It is a good deal. I would like the Opposition to be celebrating the deal as well. A good deal is a deal whereby both parties can celebrate the deal, and it is a good deal for employees and a good deal for Canada.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Minister is sure right that Boeing is celebrating. Because of the incompetence of this Government it is getting two or three times the price of what it is paying for.


TAX CONCESSIONS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the same Minister. We estimated yesterday that because of tax concessions and other benefits given by the Conservative Government, Boeing is actually going to get two or three times the amount of money it is going to pay for the
Oral Questions
company, from Canadian taxpayers. Will the Minister provide us with the Government's own estimates tabled for the House to see, of tax concessions and other financial benefits which the Government is going to provide to Boeing?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I think I already answered that question yesterday.


John Edward Broadbent: No, you didn't.


Robert René de Cotret: But I will answer it again for the Hon. Member. First, in terms of any tax concessions, the company will be treated as any other Canadian corporation. There is nothing in the understanding which gives it preferred treatment. There is one thing, however, which has to be underlined, and that has to do with the tax losses carried forward, whereby the company has agreed to use those tax losses carried forward only as it relates to financing schemes for sales to Canadian purchasers. In other words, it is a break for our Canadian airline industry. That is the only understanding.


John Edward Broadbent: Yes, and what that means in other language is that the Government is going to give Boeing $400 million in tax benefits to make sales on which it is already going to obtain profits. It still amounts to a $400 million gift any way the Government wants to look at it, and Boeing understands that very well.


REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely contradictory evidence, flatly contradictory evidence, about how much profit or loss de Havilland is supposed to produce next year. I understand that the documents which were produced have the company saying one thing, and an expert from New York last night said something contradicting the Minister. I would ask the Minister, given the contradiction, will he ensure that all relevant documents are brought before a committee of this House before another silly financial decision is made by the Government?


Robert René de Cotret: Again, Mr. Speaker, the premise is false. How can there be another silly financial decision when there was never a first one made?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert René de Cotret: 1 would like to assure the Hon. Member that the estimates I gave to this House yesterday were based on the best available information that we possess in terms of the projected operations of de Havilland for the coming year, which is a loss in the neighbourhood of $200 million.


REQUEST FOR PARLIAMENTARY EXAMINATION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Government is not only content to shift the decision-making for

December 4, 1985
Oral Questions
this firm from Canada to Seattle-and they are going to decide which kind of aircraft is going to be produced for this country in the future-the Minister is nodding his agreement.


Mr. Epp (Provencher):: No, he is not.


John Edward Broadbent: That's the truth. They are going to make the headquarters in Seattle.
Will the Minister tell the House when the final date is for the agreement? Has the Government made its mind up on that? And given the importance to the whole aerospace industry of this key firm, and given the importance that the people of Canada know what it is going to cost, will he ensure that the Parliament of Canada will be able to see all of these details before the Government signs on the dotted line?


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: I suppose you want General Motors to leave Oshawa?


Robert René de Cotret: First, Mr. Speaker, I would like to emphasize, in answer to the preamble to the Hon. Member's question, that through the world product mandate we are maintaining and retaining all of our technology in this country, we are expanding our world markets, we are providing jobs, and we are improving, through the marketing ability of Boeing, the ability of this industry to continue.


John Edward Broadbent: There are no guarantees.


Mr. Deans:: Who is going to make the decisions?


Robert René de Cotret: The Hon. Member's second question was answered yesterday by the Right Hon. Prime Minister who said:
Mr. Speaker, those procedures which are in place and which would apply by the normal course of events will apply.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up on the very common sense questions that were posed by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I am glad you identified the questioner.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: My question is directed to the Minister of National Defence and is with regard to information which the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence was presented with in Washington yesterday. The committee was informed that a list of agreements provided to it by the Minister's Department was sanitized by leaving out a number of critically sensitive Canadian-American agreements.
Why is this information deliberately withheld from the MPs on that committee at a time when the Committee on External Affairs and National Defence is expected to make informed recommendations and sound judgments about the renewal of the North American Air Defence agreement?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Order, please! Order, please! The question is becoming quite long.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. gentleman, who is the critic for his Party on defence matters, should know, there are virtually hundreds of agreements in existence between Canada and the United States touching upon the defence of the country. As the hon. gentleman would expect, some of those are classified. I do not intend to discuss documents of a classified nature which touch upon the security of the country or that of our allies. The news reports indicate that the titles of certain agreements which were in possession of the committee were discussed in Washington.


NORAD-ROLE OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. Would he explain to the House how he expects the committee to carry out its mandate pertaining to NORAD and future defence co-operation with the United States when the Government is systematically withholding information needed by the committee to deliberate seriously about these important issues? Is this committee merely a public relations ploy by the Government? Would the Minister like to explain to the committee in particular, and to his own Members of Parliament-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Order, please!


Erik Nielsen: I emphatically reject the accusation that the Government is withholding information from the committee which the committee is entitled to have. This committee, and all other standing committees of the House, have had far more information before them than ever before in the history of committees in the House of Commons.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Don't you trust your own MPs!


Erik Nielsen: As the hon. gentleman has attended in camera sessions of that committee, he knows the kind of information that is made available to him. He knows perfectly well that sensitive information which goes to the fundamental security of the country and that of our allies should not be responsibly discussed in the public domain and I do not intend to do so. I only wish that his-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. In fairness I think I must go on to the next Member.
December 4, 1985


CROWN CORPORATIONS
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. Since the value of the land owned by de Havilland could well be, depending on the circumstances, between $10 million and $50 million rather than the $10,000 listed in the annual report to Parliament, will the President of the Treasury Board table in the House today the Royal Lepage property evaluation document which he has in his possession?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the value of the land, I would like to emphasize one very important element in the understanding we have reached with the purchaser. That is, should any excess land ever come to market the Government of Canada retains the right of first refusal-


Ian Deans: At what price?


Robert René de Cotret: -at the price set by A. E. Lepage.


John Napier Turner: At what time?


Ian Deans: At the price set by A. E. Lepage at what time?


John Napier Turner: At the time of the offer.


REQUEST FOR TABLING OF DOCUMENTS
Ian Deans: In addition to the document for which 1 have asked, will the Minister table in the House the product liability document prepared by Reed Sten-house, the valuation of de Havilland asset document prepared by Arthur Andersen, and the all encompassing document prepared by Burns Fry which determines all of the values and potential values of the de Havilland properties?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I would like to emphasize once again that the various elements of the transaction were reviewed by experts in the field. We received from those experts assurances that the deal was indeed a good deal-


Ms. Copps:: Just like the bank deal.


Robert René de Cotret: -a great deal for Canadians, and Members should be rejoicing.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


STOCK HELD IN BRYMON AIRWAYS
Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board, de Havilland has approximately 70 per cent
Oral Questions
of the stock in a British company known as Brymon Airways. This company has received approval from London City Council to construct an air strip near the Thames only 10 minutes from downtown London. It will be used as a landing point between London and the continent and will also be using the Dash-7 and Dash-8. Will the Minister tell the House whether this financial bonanza was added into the value of de Havilland prior to its sale to Boeing?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, not to the best of my knowledge.


REQUEST FOR PARLIAMENTARY REVIEW
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, in view of that response, in view of the concessions of $590 million which have been given to Boeing, and in view of the fact that the Prime Minister made a promise on April 11, 1984, when he said: "I don't think Canadian taxpayers should ante up any more cash until such time-"


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Order! As the Hon. Member knows, this is becoming a long preamble. What is his question?


David Charles Dingwall: Will the President of the Treasury Board live up to the promise of his Prime Minister and have Parliament review this deal so that we can get answers to the questions I have posed, or is this another broken promise by a broken Government?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An Hon. Member:: He's a broken record.


Mr.   de Jong@: Table the document.


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, the Government is maintaining a commitment to return to the private sector commercial corporations-


Some Hon. Members:: Answer the question.


David Charles Dingwall: It's a rip-off.


Robert René de Cotret: -that no longer serve-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Order, please! Order, please.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: He's skating.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Santa Clause came early for Boeing.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Rodriguez:: It's called Tory ideology.


Mr. Speaker:: Order!


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, the Government is maintaining its commitment to Canadians for economic renewal. It is maintaining the commitment for new jobs across the country.

December 4, 1985
Oral Questions


David Charles Dingwall: Answer the question.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Answer the question.


Robert René de Cotret: We are maintaining our commitment and getting the country back on the road.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PROPOSAL TO MERGE DE HAVILLAND AND CANADA1R
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the President of the Treasury Board and is with regard to a commitment made by the Progressive Conservatives during the election campaign last year. The Government promised to join de Havilland and Canadair into a single Canadian aerospace corporation, to make it profitable, and to ensure that the shares of that corporation would be put into the hands of Canadians.
Why is it that the Government abandoned that particular commitment which, among other things, would have come before Parliament for ratification? Why is it now selling out de Havilland to Americans without parliamentary approval?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, we mentioned during the election campaign-


Some Hon. Members:: Mentioned?


Mr.   de Jong@: He doesn't even blush.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please! Surely it is reasonable to let questions and answers be heard by the whole House.


Mr. Skelly:: We are waiting for an answer.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the Member have a supplementary question?


COST OF TRANSACTION
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, the Minister seems to have forgotten what the Government mentioned during the course of its campaign. I have pointed it out. 1 remind the Minister that the Government also promised openness, civility in Parliament, and accountability. Where is parliamentary accountability if Parliament will have no opportunity to review a transaction which will cost the taxpayers $.5 billion and lose us a leader in international technological development?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, this will not cost the taxpayers anything.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert René de Cotret: You don't like that. You don't like that kind of answer.


An Hon. Member:: How about the truth?


Robert René de Cotret: Making de Havilland a profitable company in the aerospace industry in this country will be a net gain to Canadians as a result of eliminating the losses that de Havilland has been incurring year after year. It will be a net gain to Canadian taxpayers. The whole deal will be good for Canada, for employees, and for the Government.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. I hope that we can get a clear commitment from him this time.
In view of the fact that the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence thought it had a serious mandate to study the NORAD renewal and Canada-U.S. defence agreements, is he prepared now to restore to the list of Canada-U.S. defence agreements drawn up by his Department those items which were deleted? Is he prepared to do that so that the committee, including Members from his side of the House, can have at its disposal all possible information?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the degree of information that has been supplied to this and other committees of the House is unprecedented in our parliamentary history. The committee is examining the NORAD question exactly as it has in the past, with much greater assistance in the way of information than ever before.
If the hon. gentleman is reiterating the question put by his Leader with respect to giving consideration to further in camera hearings, certainly that suggestion will be taken into consideration.


UNITED STATES STRATEGIC DEFENCE INITIATIVE
Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, apart from the issue of the NORAD agreement, I want to ask the Minister about Canada-U.S. defence agreements with regard to the Strategic Defence Initiative. Is he prepared to assure the House and all Canadians that there are no arrangements for direct Canadian participation in the Strategic Defence Initiative?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the position of the Government on that question is very clear. There is no government-to-government participation on the SDI research initiative of the United States.


Ian Deans: Everywhere else but.


Erik Nielsen: However, the Government feels that that research initiative on the part of the United States is prudent.
December 4, 1985


BREAST IMPLANTS-REQUEST FOR STRICTER CONTROL AND ADDITIONAL RESEARCH FUNDS
Suzanne Fortin-Duplessis: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare and is further to a meeting I had with the Minister a few weeks ago about breast implant devices.
1 would like the Minister to give me a progress report, including measures that have been taken to monitor and, especially, regulate the quality of implants used by surgeons, and also the question whether funds have been released to promote research in an area where the health of 17,000 Canadian women are at risk every year and which generates considerable expenditures for provincial governments.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, this is a serious matter that the Hon. Member has raised with me privately. She has done a lot of work in an area that is very important to society and women in particular. I want to advise her that breast implant devices are the subject of premarket review, and fall under the control of the Health Protection Branch. With respect to further research, I want to inform her as well that there are requests for funding for that type of research and that is being actively pursued by the Department.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. We are not asking for an in camera meeting. The Liberals may want to proceed in a secretive fashion but that is not what we are asking.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pauline Jewett: Will the Deputy Prime Minister confirm now that citizens and parliamentarians of Canada will have access to the same information that citizens and Congressmen have in the United States under the Freedom of Information Act and their own Department of Defense?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, obviously the two systems are different and the legislation with respect to freedom of information is quite different than it is in the United States.
I do not know why the hon. lady refuses to be informed-


Margaret Anne Mitchell: The Hon. Member.


Erik Nielsen: -on security matters affecting the national security in in camera meetings held for the purpose of keeping
Oral Questions
Members of Parliament informed. She refused in 1979, refused in 1980, refused in 1984, and she has refused again to participate with her colleagues in the House of Commons on that committee in order to inform themselves with respect to NORAD and other defence matters.


Pauline Jewett: This information should not be given in camera. It is open in the United States. Why is it not open in Canada?


SUPPLEMENTS TO AGREEMENTS
Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, will the Deputy Prime Minister, while he is now making this information that was whited out available to the committee, also make available to us the secret-although they are available in the United States-supplements both to the 1981 NORAD renewal and the North Warning System?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the assertion by the hon. lady is simply not true. I do not believe, as she apparently does, that we should bare our entire soul to potential adversaries in this country.


Pauline Jewett: Just a little.


Erik Nielsen: If the Government of Canada were to publish everything that went to the heart of the security of this country there would be no need for any foreign intelligence services to operate in this country because they could buy it from the book stands.


Pauline Jewett: You could get more support from Canadians.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, I would like to know whether there is a Minister in this Government who is frank enough to give us an answer. So whoever feels he fits the bill may rise.
I am referring to the sale of the Gulf refinery in Montreal East, a matter where Conservative Members deceived refinery employees by supporting Gaz Metropolitan which was supposed to buy the refinery and keep it running.
I would like to know first of all why the Government allowed these Members to kindle false hopes among these workers, when they knew perfectly well the transaction was doomed. Second, why did you wait until after the election in Quebec to make the announcement?

December 4, 1985
Oral Questions


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the assertions made in the hon. gentleman's question are absolutely false. Rather than rising in his place and posing questions on this matter, he should be ashamed of himself for supporting a Party that was in office during the closure of three refineries in the Montreal area, and which imposed the national energy policy on this country which led to the circumstances calling for the decision that was made between two private sector corporations.
Instead of throwing accusations across the floor, he should be reflecting in his own shame for supporting a Party that has had those results.


ROLE OF INVESTMENT CANADA
Jean-Claude Malépart: have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The Deputy Prime Minister may not have noticed, but the other day in Quebec, we swept all the "blues" from the map. You are next.
My supplementary is directed to the Minister of State (Small Businesses). Considering the fact that Ultramar's decision to buy the Gulf refinery in Montreal East has to be approved by Investment Canada, could the Minister give the House the assurance that they will refuse to approve the purchase of this refinery and allow Gaz Metropolitan to acquire the refinery, so it will not be just another S-31 for Quebec?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I believe that I should respond to that question because, in the absence of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources who is unavoidably absent today, I am, on behalf of the Government, answering questions in the House today with respect to that transaction.
The answer to the hon. gentleman's question is no, the transaction that took place was a transaction between two private sector corporations and had nothing to do with the Government.
I point out again that, unlike the Government which he supported when he was in office which did nothing for the workers when three refineries closed in the area, we are addressing ourselves to the problem that this private sector decision has caused. He should follow the Minister's activities very carefully in Montreal next Friday with respect to an announcement-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Lapierre:: How about Investment Canada?


NATIONAL PARKS
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Hon. Minister of the Environment. Despite the fact that a wildlife poaching ring operating in the Banff National Park has been brought to justice through the coordinated efforts of the RCMP, Parks Canada, and wildlife officers, there is still much poaching going on. What steps is the Minister taking to deal with this problem?


Hon. Tom McMillan (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is absolutely right. Poaching, especially underground organized poaching, is becoming a serious problem in our national parks right across the country. Dozens of our big game species are being slaughtered, largely by non-Canadians, for trophy purposes. For example, a bighorn sheep head will command about $50,000 on the black market. To meet the problem head on, we intend to change the fine, which is now only $500 and as such is not a deterrent but a licence, to $150,000 maximum. An we intend to include six-month jail sentences as a further deterrent.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FOOTWEAR INDUSTRY
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, 1 wish to direct a question to the Minister for International Trade. The president of the Association des manufacturers de chaussures told us this morning that a Montreal shoe manufacturer is the first to announce a shutdown after the decision concerning quotas. How many shutdowns and how many lost jobs will it take to convince the Government that it must correct the mistake it made last week?


Hon. James Kelleher (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, the Government followed the judgment handed down by the tribunal after an extensive investigation of over one year. In those areas where the industries were found vulnerable, we protected those industries. We are keeping our tariffs on for another three years. In those areas where they are not vulnerable and can compete, we have set them free. Is the Hon. Member suggesting that in those areas where they do not need protection, we should continue to have a cost against Canadian consumers of a half billion dollars per year?


SITUATION IN UNITED STATES
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, the manufacturers contradicted each statement of the Minister in their meeting with us this morning. Why does the Canadian
December 4, 1985

Government believe that it makes sense to eliminate shoe quotas when the U.S. Congress, after trying that experiment and seeing a huge loss of jobs, just yesterday, by a huge margin, voted to put shoe quotas back into force?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, the situation in Canada is different from the situation in the United States, in that its tribunal found injury and our tribunal in Canada did not find injury in certain areas.


Mr.   de Corneille@: Wrong.


John R. Rodriguez: Dead wrong.


James Francis Kelleher: In those areas we removed the quotas, and in those areas where they found that there was injury and that they were vulnerable, the quotas remained in force.


John R. Rodriguez: Tell us about the textiles.


James Francis Kelleher: We must also think of the consumers of the country too, and I am surprised that my hon. friend is not concerned about them.
[ Translation]


MEASURES TO HELP LAID-OFF EMPLOYEES-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Alain Tardif (Richmond-Wolfe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister for International Trade. When he announced the removal of quotas, the Minister told us he had made plans to help the thousands of workers who were to be laid off. However, Mr. Hetu of the CSD told us this morning that enquiries to the department revealed that no new program has been created to help those men and women who will lose their jobs. Would the Minister tell the House what those special programs will be, when they will be available, and how much money has been earmarked for that purpose?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, as usual the Hon. Member is indulging in false premises. I never said that there would be thousands of workers losing their jobs. Indeed, the tribunal found that such would not be the case. However, in the event that there might be some minimal job loss, I quite carefully detailed at that time the available government programs which were set up by my colleague, the Hon. Minister of Employment and Immigration, such as the Industrial and Labour Adjustment Program, the Skill Investment and Skill Shortages Program, and the Labour Adjustment Benefits Program.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, 100,000 jobs have been lost in the United States, and now we are following Pied Piper Reagan down the same route. My question is directed to the Minister for International Trade. He has
Oral Questions
had a chance, during his tenure, to travel to Japan, Korea, West Germany, Stockholm, Paris, Moscow, Washington, New Zealand and Australia. Could he tell the workers in my riding-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Just a question, please.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Could he tell the workers in my riding at Susan Shoes, many of whom are facing job loss, why he has not had a chance to visit a single shoe factory in Canada?


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the Hon. Member recognizes that I have been out doing my job as Minister for International Trade.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Francis Kelleher: I thank her for that recognition. In addition, 1 want to advise her that I have, as have my officials, been meeting with representatives of the shoe industry. I have personnally met with them and the members of my Department have met with them on a number of occasions. Indeed, a further meeting has been set up next week with representatives of the shoe manufacturing industry.


RAILWAYS
Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. The Minister is aware that Toronto schools near railway tracks have now started chemical spill evacuation drills. Will he take steps to relocate, reroute, or possibly even ban trains carrying dangerous commodities through high density areas of Toronto, bearing in mind that a recent announcement indicated that such would be the case in Vancouver and Victoria starting at the beginning of next year?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to take this opportunity to express my appreciation to the Hon. Member for his ongoing concern and interest in this very important matter. 1 would hope to establish a task force to look at the possibilities of relocating the rail system in the greater Toronto area. However, I should also advise him that I believe most of the recommendations emanating from the Grange report have indeed been implemented. We are currently looking at ways and means to handle the issue of tank cars carrying dangerous goods. The matter is one of ongoing concern on the part of the Department and my officials. We will continue to co-operate with the Hon. Member and his usual fine-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.

December 4, 1985
Petitions


FISHERIES
Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. It concerns the Conservative election promise to fund a $200 million Salmonid Enhancement Program over five years. Would the Deputy Prime Minister admit to the House that he was the one who broke that promise, and that it was he who in fact shut down that program just prior to the appointment of the present Minister of Fisheries?


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, there has been no breaking of a promise. In fact submissions to Cabinet are in preparation which will ensure that the Salmonid Enhancement Program continues to develop as envisaged and to bring the important economic and social benefits to British Columbia that both the Hon. Member and I recognize. Indeed, if there has been any misunderstanding on the question of whether or to what extent this program will be funded, it was merely because I stated a day or two ago that I thought it presumptuous to bring to Cabinet within the first two weeks of my responsibility a proposal to spend $200 million. That is all that has been said.


DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my supplementary question to the Deputy Prime Minister. For the benefit of this House and to understand how this Government works, will the Deputy Prime Minister admit that in days prior to the appointment of the present Minister he rejected the current proposal in the area of $200 million to fund the Salmonid Enhancement Program on the West Coast? Will he admit that to this House?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, typical of the hon. gentleman, in his preamble he has so distorted the facts as to come close to going over the precipice of the lip of truth.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: The fact of the matter is that he and most Members of the House know-certainly everyone in British Columbia knows-that the Hon. Member for Vancouver South has always had this program close to his heart. It is an initiative which I pursued as Acting Minister, and which the present Minister is now pursuing to the everlasting benefit of the country.


CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORTS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions, with the exception of two, presented by Hon.
Members on Tuesday, December 3, 1985, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.
One of the petitions presented by the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell) and the petition presented by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper) do not meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Pursuant to Standing Order 87(2), it is my duty to lay upon the Table of the House extracts from the proceedings of the Board of Internal Economy approving the budgets of certain standing committees.


PRIVILEGE
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to raise a question of privilege. The archaic expression "honourable lady", which was twice used this afternoon by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Nielsen), is I think offensive to most Members of this House who happen to be women. I would ask, Mr. Speaker, if you would ensure that this practice is discontinued and that all Members use the non-sexist term "honourable members" to refer equally to all Members of this House.


An Hon. Member:: What's the difference? You're not a lady
anyway.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: That is exactly what we mean. That is exactly the point.


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. I take the point the Hon. Member has made. I am not sure that it is a question of privilege, but I take it as a strong representation. I am sure that all House Leaders here have heard the Hon. Member's point.
December 4, 1985


PETITIONS
Hon. Douglas C. Frith (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to take up the time of the House this afternoon. People in a number of ridings have signed the petition under Operation Justice. They petition the Government of Canada to withdraw the plans for the deindexation of the family allowance. These petitions have been signed by people in ridings as far away as British Columbia, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Cardigan in Prince Edward Island and Drummondville in the Province of Quebec. I wish to submit those petitions to the House and have them so noted, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty to present to the House a few petitions, the first in a series that will be presented to the House voicing the concerns of workers of the Moncton area, in particular the workers at the CN shops. The petitioners pray-we are all praying-and call upon Parliament to stop any moves to downgrade in any way the CN shops in Moncton which would mean a loss of jobs.


Mr. Dennis H. Cochrane (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present to this House a petition signed by a number of constituents in the federal constituency of Moncton and other ridings as well expressing their concern for the future employment at the CN shops in Moncton. Whereas the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to stop any move to downgrade in any way the CN shops in Moncton.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I have the responsibility and duty to present to this House two sets of petitions. One set of petitions with 50 signatures, comes from the United Food & Commercial Workers Ontario Retail Council No. 30261.
I have another petition from the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Labour with some 56 signatures. Both these petitions call upon the federal Government to reverse its intended decision to change the Unemployment Insurance Act so that pension income will be considered earned income for unemployment insurance purposes.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present two petitions, only two of many that continue to come to my office every day. In this case, they are from two neighbourhoods in my riding of Vancouver East, calling on the House of Commons to reinstate full indexation
Introduction of Bills
of the universal family allowance and to rescind unfair tax increases which will be so hard on Canadian families.


Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by residents of the communities of Ingersoll and Tillsonburg in Ontario. Those petitioners state that the deindexation of the universal family allowance is an unfair attack on women and families. They further state that this attack will not be offset by changes to the child tax credit and that other tax increases in the May Budget will place an unfair burden on low and middle-income earners.


Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions. The first petition deals with the question of family allowances. It asks the Government to retreat from its intention to deindex the family allowance because of its negative impact on low and middle-income earners.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, my second petition deals with the sales tax on pet food. A number of individuals from the City of Winnipeg call upon the Government to rescind this tax as it affects blind individuals and their use of guide-dogs.


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: 

CANADIAN ARSENALS LIMITED DIVESTITURE AUTHORIZATION ACT


Hon. Stewart Mclnnes (Minister of Supply and Services) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-87, an Act to authorize the divestiture of Canadian Arsenals Limited and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
[Stage Direction]
December 4, 1985
Business of the House


[Stage Direction]
On the order: Government Notices of Motions:
December 2, 1985-The Minister of Finance:
That, in relation to Bill C-84, an Act to amend the Income Tax Act and related statutes and to amend the Canada Pension Plan, the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, the Financial Administration Act and the Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax Act, one sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the second reading stage of the said Bill; and That 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for the consideration of Government business on the above-mentioned sitting day, any proceedings then before the House shall be interrupted, if necessary, for the purpose of this Order and, in turn, every question necessary to dispose of the said stage of the said Bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Section (2) of Standing Order 26, the notice of motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of the Minister of Finance is transferred to and ordered for consideration under Government Orders later this day or at the next sitting of the House.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: 
Mr. Speaker:: It would be easier for the Table Officers if we dealt with these motions one at a time. Does the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn) have the unanimous consent of the House necessary to introduce his motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, this motion deals with the intent of the Minister of Finance to make a statement under Statements by Ministers today. The Order is as follows:
That, notwithstanding any Standing or Special Order of this House, at 4.30 o'clock p.m., this day, the House shall revert to "Statements by Ministers" for the purpose of considering a statement by the Minister of Finance;
Provided that for the purposes of this Order, the provisions of Standing Order 19(4) shall be deemed to be in force; and
Provided that when proceedings in relation to this Order have been concluded, the House shall resume consideration of the business before it, when it reverted to "Statements by Ministers", until the hour of adjournment as provided pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 19(4).


Mr. Speaker:: Does the President of the Privy Council have the unanimous consent of the House necessary to introduce the motion?


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, there is, of course, unanimous consent. I would just like to clarify that in the unlikely event that each of the three principal speakers for the Parties have not concluded their initial remarks on the western grain transportation motion, the third speaker, whether it be the Minister or a member of my own Party, may be allowed to conclude before the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) commences his financial statement.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Three times twenty equals sixty. If we get going, we will be able to get it done. However, I think that is quite fair.


Mr. Speaker:: Therefore, there being unanimous consent, is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, the following is another Order which reads as follows:
That, notwithstanding any Standing or Special Order of this House, when Bill C-84, an Act to amend the Income Tax Act and related statutes and to amend the Canada Pension Plan, the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, the Financial Administration Act and the Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax Act, has been read a second time, it shall stand referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
This is as opposed, Sir, to referring the Bill to the legislative committee as is presently indicated in the second reading motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the President of the Privy Council have the unanimous consent of the House to introduce the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: There being unanimous consent, is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
December 4, 1985
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, the final Order is as follows:
That, notwithstanding any Standing or Special Order of this House, when the House reaches the hour of adjournment on this day, it shall not adjourn but small immediately proceed to the consideration of a motion to be moved by a Minister of the Crown, as follows:
"That this House take note of the matter of reform of the House of
Commons".
Provided that during consideration of any such motion, no Member shall speak more than once and, except for the first speaker for each Party who may speak for 20 minutes, no Member may speak for more than 10 minutes and, that when the speaker is satisfied that the debate has concluded on the said motion, but in any case not later than at 12 o'clock p.m. midnight, this day, the proceedings in relation thereto shall expire and the speaker shall adjourn the House until the next sitting day.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the President of the Privy Council have the unanimous consent of the House to introduce the motion?


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask for a point of clarification. Will questions to the speakers be allowed after they have made their speeches?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The arrangement that has been entered into is to allow as many Members as possible to participate in this special debate so that as many Members as possible can give the benefit of their views with respect to reform of the House for consideration by the Government. I believe this is an acceptable way to operate so that we can maximize the participation.


Mr. Speaker:: I take it that it would be possible for further conversations to take place during the day. However, I think the President of the Privy Council wishes this motion to be adopted now. Therefore, is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to advise that the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 476 and 478.


Mr. Angus: 1.	In the past 10 years, did the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority core or caused to be cored the walls of Lock 7 of the Welland Canal and, if so (a) in what years (A) what were the specific locations cored (c) what depths were cored to Id) what were the results of the compression testing?
2.	For the same years, did the authority conduct or caused to be conducted salt scaling of the walls of Lock 7 and, if so (a) in what years (A) what were the specific locations studied (c) what depths were studied id) what were the results of the tests on the samples?
Order Paper Questions
3.	For the same years, did the authority conduct or caused to be conducted an examination of aggregate stability of the walls of Lock 7 and, if so (a) in what years (A) what were the specific locations sampled (c) what depths were sampled (d) what were the results of the tests on the samples?
4.	Was a "sink-hole" discovered adjacent to Lock 7 within the past 12 months and, if so (a) where was it located in relation to the collapsed section of the wall of Lock 7 (A) what analysis of the cause of the "sink-hole" were conducted (c) what methods and materials were used to fill the hole?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The St.
Lawrence Seaway Authority advises as follows:
The St. Lawrence Seaway Authority has regularly examined and maintained the walls of Lock 7 of the Welland Canal but has been advised by its solicitors not to reveal specific details of its programs as they may be reviewed in the course of litigation with which the authority has been threatened.


Mr. Angus: 1.	Are there pressure monitoring devices on the "penstocks" of the Welland Canal and, if so, what was the pressure recorded on each penstock for each recorded period during the 30 days up to and including October 14, 1985?
2.	Are there water volume measurement devices on the penstocks and, if so, what was the volume recorded on each penstock for each recorded period during the 30 days up to and including October 14, 1985?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The St.
Lawrence Seaway Authority advises as follows:
The St. Lawrence Seaway Authority has been advised by its solicitors not to discuss these matters publicly as they may be reviewed by the courts in suits with which the authority has been threatened.


Mr. Speaker:: The questions as enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Boudria:: Mr. Speaker, again I am forced to ask the Parliamentary Secretary why the Government does not reply to my questions, some of which have been on the Order Paper for in excess of six months. They are very simple questions like questions about the cost of redecorating cabinet Ministers' offices, the cost of the gala in Quebec City, and the cost of other Government extravaganzas like that.
Further, I would like to bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, my Questions Nos. 450, 451, 452 and 453 which were supposed to be answered in the House on November 5 when the House was advised by the Parliamentary Secretary that a reply would be forthcoming that day. At the last minute, the Government changed its mind because of a technicality and asked me to reword my questions, promising to answer them the next day. That was on November 5. The Government still refuses to answer questions about the trips taken by the Hon. Member for Rosemont (Mrs. Blais-Grenier). I recognize that it is a terrible embarrassment to the Government but the

December 4, 1985
Order Paper Questions
House needs and has a right to know about that kind of nonsense.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the House will know that the Government is far ahead of the last Government in answering questions. I am sure that the Hon. Member did not do this intentionally, but to correct him let me say that the questions were in fact ruled out of order by the Table Officers. The Clerk at the Table noticed that the ruling the Speaker applied under Citation 359(6) regarding Oral Questions should be applied to those questions, and so that is what happened. The Hon. Member has resubmitted his questions and we are doing the best we can to answer them.


Mr. Marchi:: Mr. Speaker, I too must rise. We have every confidence in the abilities of the new Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Lewis), but 1 have on the Order Paper Questions Nos. 372, 373 and 374 which pertain to the Minister of State for Multiculturalism (Mr. Jelinek). They have been on the Order Paper for six months and the questions refer to the First Minister's Conference and the appointments and the policies of the Government. It is factual information that I am seeking on behalf of a national constituency. I would like to hear from the Parliamentary Secretary whether or not these questions have been brought to the attention of the Minister of State for Multiculturalism and when the constituency through this Member can obtain some satisfactory answers.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I hear scattered applause. I will certainly take those numbers up with the Department and get back to the Hon. Member.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I, too, have a question which has been on the Order Paper for more than one year.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


Sheila Maureen Copps: It was placed on the Order Paper almost as soon as the mandate of this Government began. I am sure the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary will not want to blame that on the previous Government, as he tries to blame every other error, folly and chaos committed by his Government.


Some Hon. Members:: Shush!


Sheila Maureen Copps: I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary specifically why he and his Government have refused to table documents relating to the Economic Statement made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) last November 8 in the House of Commons. At the very least, if the Government is not prepared to table the documents related to the Economic Statement, will it give us a reason for not being prepared to table these documents?


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, blaming the Department would be tantamount to blaming the Hon. Member for the Liberals'
failure to win in the Province of Ontario for 42 years. I notice that when she left they won. So there is no relevancy in that respect. If the Hon. Member will be as kind as her colleague and give me the question number, I will seek out the answer.


Mr. Nunziata:: Mr. Speaker, on March 15, 1985, I placed Question No. 296 on the Order Paper. This question refers to the Premier Hatfield marijuana case in the Province of New Brunswick and the involvement of the former Solicitor General in that particular case.
I have risen on a number of occasions requesting the Government to answer this particular question. The Government continues to say that the question will be answered soon. It would appear that the Government does not intend to answer my question. It appears that the Government is stonewalling and that the answer to the question will cause considerable embarrassment. Therefore, I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary why his Government is refusing to answer a question which was put on the Order Paper over nine months ago. Can he explain to the House the reason and whether or not he intends to answer this question?


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the Government has definitely not refused to answer the question-


An Hon. Member:: Of course it has.


Philip Derek Lewis: -we have just not answered it. I assure the Hon. Member that his question will be answered soon.


Mr. Nickerson:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Parliamentary Secretary if it would be possible, as was previously the custom, to have published, possibly in a Wednesday edition of Hansard, a list of first and second Acting Ministers.


Sheila Maureen Copps: They are all acting.


Dave Nickerson: Also, would it be possible to have a list showing the membership of various cabinet committees?


Philip Derek Lewis: We will take that under advisement, Mr. Speaker.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary if I may have an answer to a question which I placed on the Order Paper six years ago. I did not get the Liberals to answer it. Would it be possible to receive an answer?


Philip Derek Lewis: That question will go to the head of the list.


Sheila Maureen Copps: They die with Parliament. I'm surprised you old-timers don't know that.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
December 4, 1985


Mr. Speaker:: Shall all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



STATUTORY ORDERS


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry) moved:: That this House take note of the Report of the Committee of Inquiry on Crow Benefit Payment.
He said: Mr. Speaker, if I had thought some two years ago that 1 would be initiating a further discussion in Parliament with respect to the Western Grain Transportation Act, I probably would have shrieked in horror. Having spent several months of delightful time in the House-


Mr. Benjamin:: It was your Bill.


Lloyd Axworthy: -putting the Bill through, and having had to entertain the delightful questions of the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) and a host of Conservative Members, one might have thought we had left that interesting piece of legislation behind us. However, I want to say, once again, that this shows the incredible foresight of the legislation. We built into the Act a requirement, an opportunity, for Members of Parliament on the moving of a motion to use a parliamentary day to examine the progress of the Act, and, in particular, to look at some of the outstanding issues which still give rise to debate and which are still of interest to members of the western Canadian farming community, as well as those in other parts of Canada.
I think it should be pointed out that it was our caucus which initiated this debate. It was our caucus which organized the gathering of sufficient signatures to ensure that Parliament would have an opportunity to bring this review, this re-examination, if you will, forward. We did this because we feel that it is one of the most important and significant pieces of legislation which we passed during our time in office. We feel that it has established the groundwork, the framework, for the major development and new direction in constructing modern transportation facilities for the movement of our major commodities.
Since the present Parliament is very much seized day by day with questions of international trade, I wish to remind Hon. Members that in western Canada we do not trade internationally if we do not have an effective transportation system. If we cannot move our grain, our potash, our cattle, our coal or our lumber to market then we do not trade. The question which
Crow Benefit Payment
faced our Government at the time was: How can we provide the insurance in order that we can have the most up-to-date, modern and effective transportation system so that there will never again be questions about disruptions, stalemates or any form of dislocation of the transportation system when it comes to convincing foreign customers that we can deliver on time?
It is worth noting that the type of commitments which were made during that period of time are now being fulfilled. In looking at the statistics which are at least made available to us publicly, one sees that they point out that the two railroad companies will be spending close to $1.3 billion, or perhaps even $1.4 billion, between them on the modernization of the rail system. In terms of my best estimate, that will create close to 4,000 jobs-


An Hon. Member:: No way.


Lloyd Axworthy: Those are the figures. There are a large number of construction projects taking place across western Canada.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Ten thousand were laid off.


Lloyd Axworthy: There are a number of new purchases being made from suppliers throughout Canada as a result of this commitment. Traffic is down, and the Hon. Member for Regina West should know enough about the railway business to know that when we go down from the shipping of 30 million tons to 23 million tons, due to weather and lack of cargo, it obviously takes fewer people to do it. I presume that is within the grasp of his knowledge.
The fact of the matter is that in terms of the basic objective, which was to unleash the type of capital expenditures which would bring the railway system into a modern, contemporary format, it is being fulfilled. It is providing a lead in terms of establishing a number of new transportation technologies as well. We would like to hear from the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) with respect to whether or not it is being fulfilled and whether or not the types of powers which are within the Act to provide for enforcement of those requirements are being applied.
From the ostensible public evidence which we have been able to gather-and I refer to two reports published in 1985- the Canadian Pacific Railway will be spending something in the order of $600 million, as well as going ahead with its commitment on the Rogers Pass. According to the figures we have, the CNR will be spending $600 million this year in capital expenditures and it will be making purchases of more than $400 million. The jobs created will be something in the order of 2,000 in construction and 2,500 for suppliers. We are speaking in terms of 4,000 or 5,000 additional jobs being created by these major expenditures.
Because I can recall quite vividly the derision with which certain members of the Conservative Party treated the other side of our western grain proposal with respect to the encouragement of new investment on the part of western businesses through the Western Industrial Development Fund as a way of

December 4, 1985
Crow Benefit Payment
diversifying the western economy, I would like to remind the House that these Members said that it would never work. They said that it would be nothing but a wasteful spending of money. I read with a great deal of bemusement, interest and, of course, happiness, the glowing public relations statements and releases put out by the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Mayer), the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) and various Ministers from the western provinces announcing how, under their generous program called the Western Industrial Development Fund, they are now giving grants to groups of Hutterites to start pork-producing plants and money to this factory or that group of farm organizations. In other words, all of a sudden the Government has found out that that program has produced a very helpful and useful set of incentives to provide assistance to western businesses, farm organizations and farmers so they can begin to develop capital value and added value processing of agricultural products. I have some of the press releases and I will not take the time of the House to read them. For the life of me I do not see what it has to do with agriculture, but that Department is now administering that fund, and that is its business.
I know there is a great fondness among Hon. Members opposite to claim, of course, that everything the Grits did was terrible, but if that was the case, why do they take such delight and satisfaction in utilizing those kinds of programs which we had the foresight to put in place to help western farm organizations? I think it only worth noting-because I am sure we will hear from those Hon. Members in the course of debate about what a terrible thing this was-and I want to make sure we have it on the record, that the Government is sure taking full advantage of all of the expenditures and programs initiated by the Liberal Government.
I was quite amused the other day when we heard the Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board speak in the House. The Hon. Member for Portage-Marquette stood in his place and bragged about all the assistance which was going to western farmers. But what did he point to? He pointed to the Western Grain Transportation Act, the Western Crop Insurance Program and the Western Stabilization Program. These were all programs which had been introduced and passed by the previous Liberal administration. That was his record of assistance and it was all being delivered under legislation and allocations of money which had been brought forward by previous Governments. I do not mind his bragging. However, he was not quite charitable enough to mention that those programs had nothing to do with his Government, that those were all previous initiatives and pieces of legislation. But I suppose we can forgive the Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board for having certain lapses of memory from time to time. I believe it is useful to have this kind of debate so that we can at least set the record straight. We can say that, because of the foundation which was laid by the previous Government, the construction and development of a new system is in place.
This debate is far more important, however, than taking note of what has happened. I feel it is also time that the Conservatives in this House stood up and be counted. The time has finally come for Hon. Members of Parliament from Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and British Columbia to get their act together. I went back with some degree of historical interest to read the debates which took place in this House. During those debates there were at least 14 or 15 different positions taken. I give some credit to Hon. Members opposite, they were very skillful in never making a decision as to where they stood on crucial questions such as methods of payment.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Where did you stand?


Lloyd Axworthy: We brought in the legislation. It is already in the Bill. The Minister of Transport should read the legislation. He knows where we stood. We put it in the legislation and there it is.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: What is the debate all about, then?


Lloyd Axworthy: The Minister of Transport is, once again wallowing in his own self humour.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Not wallowing as much as you are.


Lloyd Axworthy: I simply point out that when the present Minister of Transport addressed the Western Grain Transportation Act, he had no less than 14 changes he wanted to have made. But when he became Minister of Transport, he made only two of them. It seems to me that somewhere between the fall of 1983 and the fall of 1984, 12 crucial changes and amendments to the Act were once again somehow forgotten. I look forward with great interest to see what the Minister of Transport and his colleagues will decide. They have a number of very important decisions to make. The reason we built a review into the legislation was to ensure that a piece of important public policy such as the Western Grain Transportation Act could come back to Parliament to be properly debated and examined by all Hon. Members of this House. We are now seeing that our legacy to the new Government is that it will now have an opportunity to come clean and to tell us where it stands on this. I could not be more delighted, Mr. Speaker, that Hon. Members of the Government finally have the opportunity to show us what they really believe.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Why don't you take up acting?


Mr. Shields:: Even he can't help smiling.


Lloyd Axworthy: We had at least five or six months of debate in this House, but we could never find that out. Those Hon. Members were behind the curtains, behind the chairs, changing positions. From day to day it was a new story, a new theory, a new position. One of the responsibilities of Government is having to make choices, having to make tough decisions at times. That is something we know has not been practised to any great extent to this point in Conservative history when it comes to transportation systems in western Canada. The Conservatives have almost left everything we did
December 4, 1985

functioning and I say "almost" because many of those things they are covertly and subvertly changing.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Make up your mind.


Lloyd Axworthy: But the onus is now on the Government to decide what it is going to do. It is trying to prolong that day of decision. Once it had the Hall Commission Report, it formed another committee, the Horner Committee, to go back and study it all over again.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Look at the legislation.


Lloyd Axworthy: The Government is simply back once again trying to delay the day of judgment. It is trying to ensure that somehow or other manana will apply, that the Armageddon will not come. In the meantime, some very serious problems have occurred. While the Minister of Transport was whittling his time away, the Government of Alberta was bringing in a major top-up subsidy for its livestock producers in order to provide compensation, and that has created a very major distortion for livestock producers in Saskatchewan and Manitoba. That is a program which is creating very serious dislocations for the livestock producers. It is subverting what I believe those who are concerned about agriculture would try to achieve, and that is, to establish some basic national standard in these programs so that the benefits in the agricultural field do not just go to the wealthy provinces which have full treasuries and can afford additional top-up subsidies. That is what the Minister of Transport is allowing to happen at the present time. The Alberta program is creating a serious disparity in the livestock markets in western Canada. No one has seen any form of action, response or indication of how this Government intends to deal with that major change and dislocation in the livestock market.
Yet the answers are at hand, Mr. Speaker. The Minister could make changes at any time. He does not have to slough it off to another committee. He does not have to wait, as he said, and extend and prolong the period in which the reviews will take place and new legislation will be passed. He knows that there is a very serious problem. It is the kind of problem we saw two weeks ago when the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster), I and other Hon. Members spent two weeks of our time in western Canada talking to farmers about the agricultural crisis. We spent two weeks travelling to every small community throughout the prairie Provinces and British Columbia. We discovered that those farmers see a number of serious transportation problems which are not being addressed.
In addition to the livestock problems produced by the Alberta subsidy program, there are major problems now being faced on the branch line rehabilitation program. The senior officials of the Saskatchewan pools are saying that the indecision of the Government of Canada on the branch lines is causing major uncertainty and, therefore, forestalling major investments by the pools in new facilities. I want to remind Hon. Members of this House that while we were still in Government, we established a totally and complete rehabilitation program for all branch lines which were in the system. We had signed agree-
Crow Benefit Payment
ments with the railroads, the money had been allocated, and every branch line had a formula applied to it by which it would be upgraded. The new Minister came along and said: "We are going to freeze that program". The Government froze it all right and has since added a number of new lines to the system. But what has not happened is the rehabilitation. Members of the largest Wheat Growers Association in Western Canada are saying that the future of the branch lines is uncertain and unsure and that this is causing a major detraction. In other words, the Government, through its inaction on the branch line program, is in fact causing a reduction of economic growth and a reduction of jobs because it is creating a level of uncertainty for capital investment programs by the wheat pool. After the Government said it was dedicated to economic renewal and made all those bright promises and major commitments, why is nothing happening? What is the reason for the inaction in this area?
Let us look at the commitments made with regard to the ports of Canada which we use to provide an effective system for moving our grain. It is now December 4. The last statement we had from the Minister's office indicated that the issue of the Port of Churchill would be totally resolved by the end of November. That was only one among many, many statements made during the past year saying that the Government would come to grips with the Port of Churchill. There was a firm agreement signed and commitments have been made for major up-grading of that port. To this date only one of a number of measures have been implemented, that is, the commitment to build a tug. The Canadian Ports Corporation has not yet allocated a single cent of capital for the refurbishing of the elevator system or the dredging of the port. That is the key to the up-grading of the Churchill system.
It has been over a year ago, as I recall, when the new Government was elected, that the Minister responsible for the Wheat Board appeared before the Committee on Agriculture and said that the Government was firmly committed to the Churchill agreement. One year later there has been no work done. The Minister's deadline has once again passed. Perhaps he will use this debate to answer for that because there are a lot of people waiting. A number of other capital investments and initiatives are depending upon those proposals.
Look at the confusion which exists. A couple of weeks ago the Commissioner for the Wheat Board said that a new formula must be applied to the payment of transportation costs and that the equation was going to be switched from Thunder Bay to the lower ports in the St. Lawrence. It was immediately pointed out that that would cost the farmers of Manitoba and eastern Saskatchewan almost double what they are paying now. The Commissioner of the Wheat Board very explicitly said that he had made that proposal with the understanding and agreement of the Minister responsible for the Wheat Board. A few days later the Minister responsible for the Wheat Board said that he had changed his mind again and that he would reconsider it.
9126

December 4, 1985
Crow Benefit Payment
Once again we are faced with an act of indecision and the inability to come to grips with a key issue. That, Mr. Speaker, is what this debate is all about. It is now the responsibility of the Government to make its decision. The legislation is there and the Government will have to tell us today whether it is prepared to continue with it under the present formula and accept the method of payment which is in the legislation, or whether it is considering a change. Is the Government prepared to say that the proposals in the Hall Commission are worth considering and that it is carefully considering the application of an alternative method of payment? That is all we want to hear from the Minister.
Actually, we would like to hear a few other things. We would like to know why the other opportunities which existed in the transportation system that were given some momentum and direction have been allowed to lie fallow and in limbo. Those responsible have simply thrown up their hands and said: "Gee, we don't know. Who is responsible for that?" That is the question that must be answered by the Government in this debate.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Tell us about the method of payment.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: He forgot what the debate was all about.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: He hasn't gotten to that yet.


Lloyd Axworthy: I want to thank the Member for Regina West for considering that it is still my responsibility to make that commitment. I suggest to him that he throw off old habits and realize that the decision-maker is across from him rather than beside him and that the decisions on this issue must be made by the Government.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I just want to know where you stand.


Lloyd Axworthy: I suggest that the Hon. Member read the legislation. However, we want to know what the Government is going to propose. We want to know where the present Government is going.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: What a joke!


Lloyd Axworthy: Isn't this interesting, Mr. Speaker? Of course, the joke is across from me.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Go to Hollywood.


Lloyd Axworthy: The Minister is really saying that the Government is not prepared to make a decision, and that is going to be the ultimate joke of all time. At some point the Government is going to have to deliver the goods, because we are saying that it is now on notice. We want to know what the Government is going to propose, what kind of recommendation it is prepared to make, and what direction it is going to take with the Western Grain Transportation Act in order to show western farmers that it is prepared to act like a Government, which has not been shown up to this time.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, in my opening comments in this debate I must say that the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) is not only caught in his own legislative backwash but is literally wallowing in it. Quite frankly, we are dealing with a product of his own legislation which, unfortunately, was not able to be dealt with in the thorough manner in which it should have been because of the invocation of closure at about Clause 33.
We find it rather strange that the bulk of his remarks this afternoon was not about the issue at hand, the method of payment. He talked about Churchill, about railway investment, about the Canadian Wheat Board, and the plight of the western prairie farmer. It was the most convoluted and distorted contribution that I have ever heard from this Member in the House of Commons. He is pretty good on his feet, but he certainly missed the point completely today.
He says that the legislation had "incredible foresight". I want to put the debate into perspective. I think there is a fair amount of confusion as to why this debate is going on at this particular time. It is important to put the debate into its proper perspective. There is confusion in the agricultural community as to the formation of the Hall Commission to make an inquiry into the method of payment and with regard to the legislative requirement to conduct the review. It is obvious that the confusion exists not only in the farm circles, but in the mind of the Member who was the architect of this debate and of this legislation. We must go back to basics and talk about that which has triggered this debate.
The Western Grain Transportation Act is an Act to facilitate the transportation, shipping and handling of western grain and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof. In Section 62 there is a requirement for a review. Section 62.(1) reads:
The Minister shall-
It does not say "may" but "shall". It continues:
-during the 1985-86 crop year, in consultation with such system participants and other persons as the Minister deems appropriate, carry out a comprehensive review of the operation of this Act and its effects on the transportation, shipping and handling of grain, including an evaluation of-
This is not willy-nilly. This is a statutory requirement. It continues:
(a)	the appropriateness of the provisions of this Act respecting the apportionment of cost increases between the Government of Canada and the shippers of grain in respect of the period beyond the 1985-86 crop year, having regard to trends in the incomes of the producers, the relationship between transportation costs borne by the producers and the price of grain and the economic position of the producers relative to other major sectors of the national economy and to any other factors that the Minister considers relevant;
We now come to the pertinent paragraph which reads:
(b)	recommendations referred to in subsection (5);
Subsection (5) refers to the Hall Commission report. Subsection (2) says:
The Governor in Council shall, on or before April 1, 1984, appoint a committee consisting of not less than three and not more than five persons who have expertise in matters affected by this Act and represent various regional interests.
December 4, 1985

Subsection (3) reads:
The committee shall examine all matters that, in its opinion, pertain to the method of payment in respect to grain transportation that would be the most conducive to agricultural development in Canada.
Section 62(4) goes on to outline the powers of the commission under Part I of the Inquiries Act.
We come to Section 62(5) which states:
The committee shall, on or before March 31, 1985, make a report to the Minister containing its recommendations pertaining to the method referred to in subsection (3) and the Minister shall cause a copy of the report to be laid before Parliament on any of the first 15 days that either House of Parliament sits after the report has been made to the Minister.
Section 62(6) provides the opportunity to trigger the debate on the recommendations of the Hall Report. However, here we have a situation where the Hon. Member has triggered a debate on the Hall Report while the mandatory review process is going on. There are many deficiencies in this piece of legislation and the Hon. Member has referred to them. This is clearly one of those deficiencies.
The Government, in its haste to pass the Bill, has drawn Parliament into this very difficult web. The slammer was laid on us on November 3, 1983. There were some 75 clauses in the Bill. During the report stage Parliament did not have a chance to consider Clause 33. So everything beyond Clause 33 was not debated by this Parliament.
I should also say for the benefit of the House that the Government moved closure after two days of debate at second reading and moved the Bill to committee. It was in a serious haste to ram the Bill through at all cost, without due consideration. Essentially, we are caught up in a process created by the legislative edict that was not clearly thought out. I am quite surprised that the Hon. Member would tread into this kind of debate given the fact that it is complicated by his own legislative measure. I must say that it really is a bit of a joke. The joke is on the Member who claims credit for this piece of legislation. He is also taking credit for triggering the debate.
The elements of the debate are enshrined in Section 62. That brings us to where we are today. Section 62(6) states:
Where, within sixty sitting days after a report has been laid before a House of Parliament under subsection (5), fifteen Senators or thirty Members of the House of Commons, as the case may be, by notice in writing addressed to the Speaker, request that the report be debated, the Speaker shall, as soon as possible thereafter, assign a sitting day of the House that is not later than sixty sitting days after the request is made, for the report to be debated and on the assigned day the subject-matter of the report shall be subject to debate without interruption . . .
That brings us to where we are today. It is quite obvious that the Hon. Member must feel very uncomfortable about it because he touched on the recommendations of the Hall Report in a very superficial way. I do not know whether he has read the report, but he did not even as much as tell the House what the major recommendations of the Hall Report were. I thought he would have done that.


Lloyd Axworthy: We can read them.
Crow Benefit Payment


Donald Frank Mazankowski: For the benefit of the viewing public I thought it might be worth his while.
We have a report before us that recommends that the Crow benefit be paid to the producers in the form of a grain transportation refund, based on net grain sales. I believe the Hon. Member knows that some people in the agricultural community agree with it and others do not.
Members of the Hall Commission went out across the country to debate and obtain further views on their report. I had a discussion with them the other day. There are some major concerns about this proposal and some major concerns have been expressed about the workings of the legislation. Of course, this is compounded by the review process which is also currently taking place under the provisions of Section 62(1), which must consider, among other things, the recommendations of the Hall Report. That is a statutory requirement. It must consider the advisability of inadvisability, and whether these particular recommendations will work. It must consider what effect it will have on grain producers, what effect it will have to the value added, what effect it will have on agriculture across the country. It must consider Quebec's views and Ontario's views. That process is taking place now. How can we realistically engage in an enlightened debate when that review process is taking place and we are caught up in the mandatory legislative review process? The answer is that we cannot.
It is so typical of the Liberal half-baked scheme. It is due to this sort of half-baked philosophy that the Liberals are not in office today. The people of Canada became sick and tired of it. That is why they were kicked out of office. The Liberals are trying to recover some political losses through a political manoeuvre here today.
The ongoing review which I am talking about must be carried out. It is not discretionary but clearly mandatory as enshrined in the Bill. It must be carried out in the crop year 1985-1986.
The Hon. Member says that I am dragging out that process. I detect some negativism about the review by the Grain Transportation Administrator, and it is rather strange because we have engaged an appointee of the Hon. Member's Government to do the job. In any event, we have asked that the report be forthcoming as quickly as possible, hopefully in February or March and surely before the end of the crop year.
On August 2 we requested the Grain Transportation Administrator to conduct this review. The terms of reference include the provisions outlined in Section 62 of the Act. It includes the method of payment. It was stated in a letter transmitted to Mr. Horner that: "Section 62(1 )(b) requires that the review re-evaluate the recommendations of the Hall Commission of Inquiry into the method of payment of the Crow benefit". The letter goes on to state: "As you are aware, the Hall Committee established by my predecessor in 1984 submited its report to me in April and has recommended a pay the producer option". I asked that, in the context of the review of the WGTA and the possible future amendments, he evaluate its recommendations, guided by the need for the development of payment that is conducive to agricultural development

December 4, 1985
Crow Benefit Payment
across Canada. A number of additional items were included which emanated from various producers and producer groups about the deficiencies in the provisions of this piece of legislation.
Therefore, consistent with the legislation, we are not only exercising the mandatory authority, but some discretionary authority as well. A very important fact that the review Committee is discovering is that this is the first time that a review is being conducted in a public way. Invitations are sent out to individual producers. We are not dealing only with producer organizations and we are not dealing behind closed doors.
As a matter of fact, in the letter of reference, 1 indicated: "I want to advise you that I attach significant importance to providing adequate opportunity for public meetings and hearings, as well as informal discussions". Many farmers are surprised by this because they were shut out of the process during the Gilson and Hall committees. They said that it is the first time that they, as individual producers, have been able to come forth in the public way and talk to anyone about this legislation which has a very major bearing on their economic welfare.
Quite clearly they were left out of this process. The Hon. Member for Regina West is aware of the difficulty we had in extending the committee hearings to allow producers to come forth. The Government even put time limits on the committee hearings. Therefore, we are doing some of the dirty work that should have been done by that administration when it was taking the Bill through its stages.
Quite frankly, I believe that this process is not only needed but is very healthy because neither Gilson nor Hall provided this opportunity to allow individual producers to express their concerns and feelings about what this legislation should be doing.
Ten meetings have been held: two in Manitoba, four in Saskatchewan, three in Alberta and one in the Peace River bloc. Three public meetings have been held in each of the prairie provinces at Winnipeg, Calgary, Regina and Saskatoon. In British Columbia, there were private meetings with 11 organizations, including the Government of British Columbia, longshoremen, the Grain Workers Union, the Port of Vancouver, terminal operators, the Chamber of Shipping and B.C. Rail.
In Alberta, there were two public meetings, at which the Government of Alberta, the Alberta Wheat Pool and Unifarm appeared. Unifarm is one of the major farm organizations in Alberta. It held 46 meetings throughout Alberta to talk about the workability of this particular piece of legislation, and it reported to the ongoing review process. Also the NFU appeared. It was the first time that the NFU ever appeared before a body which was talking about the Western Grain Transportation Act. Also the Christian Farmers Federation, the Alberta Cattle Feeders Association, the Alberta Feed Grain Users Association, the Western Barley Growers Association, the Alberta Soft Wheat Growers Association, the Alberta Cattle Commission and the Alberta Grain Commission appeared.
The following appeared before the Manitoba public meeting: the Government of Manitoba, the CNR, Manitoba Pool Elevators, Manitoba Cattle Feeders Association, Dominion Malt, Canada Malt and the UGG.
They not only confined their meetings to western Canada. They held meetings on November 28 and November 29 in Toronto and have set a meeting for December 11 in Montreal. They are getting some excellent feedback from the grass roots as to what is wrong with the legislation and what needs to be done. There are many inequities and many anomalies. The Hon. Member outlined a number of the issues to which we took exception in 1983. We corrected some, and we will correct more. However, we dealt with a volume cap, with improved producer representation, with a freight rate ceiling and with the inclusion of B.C. Rail. All those things were not done when the former Government was in power. We are making progress. There is no question about that.
It is fair to say that more needs to be done. There still are anomalies. As I said, at the present time there is no clear consensus with respect to the method of payment. There is no clear consensus in western Canada. Certainly there is no clear consensus across the country.
The following organizations support payments to railways: Manitoba Pool Elevators, Alberta Wheat Pool, Saskatchewan Wheat Pool. Coop Federee, L'Union des Producteurs Agricoles, Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities, Canadian Dehydrators Association and the National Farmers Union.
The following organizations support the grain transportation refund: United Grain Growers, Alberta Grain Commission, Alberta Grain Commission, Alberta Cattle Commission, The Grain Rate Reform Committee, Manitoba Farm Business Association, Government of British Columbia, agricultural industry groups in British Columbia, the Government of Alberta, the Government of Ontario, various Ontario industry groups and the Maritime Farmers Council. A number of organizations clearly support the producer option, whatever it might be. It has not been clearly defined, but there is no question that more needs to be done. There is discrimination in the way in which the Act is working now.
For example, to move grain into Vancouver for export, it costs producers $5.75 per tonne to ship it. However, if that same grain is going into the interior of British Columbia for the purpose of feeding livestock it costs $32.79 per tonne. That is a clear inequity and anomaly if we want to improve our ability to value add and to process more of those products in Canada.
There is concern about the level of the safety net, about inflation, about variable rates, about what improvements must be made to improve the system, and whether we should rationalize and consolidate more. We must control costs.
December 4, 1985

We are looking at a number of pilot projects in which we can experiment and innovate with regard to branch line operations, those branch lines destined for abandonment. Shortly we will be announcing a number of pilot projects such as off-line trucking, straight trucking, short-line railway options and road-rail option.
I am pleased to note that those people who are knowledgeable and part of the grain handling, producing and transporting industry recognize that we must take steps to improve the efficiency of the system and to bring down the over-all cost. Mr. Ted Turner was quoted in the November 21 edition of the Western Producer. When speaking to his delegate body, he said:
The many economic forces bearing on our present structure simply dictate that further consolidation is necessary if we are to maintain an economically viable operation and keep charges at reasonable levels.
Wally Madill, Chief Excecutive Officer of the Alberta Wheat Pool, is credited with stating the following to that delegate body on November 16:
It will be necessary for it to offer leaner and more variable services to its roughly 60,000 members to survive in the more competitive industry.
Of course he was referring to the Alberta Wheat Pool. I could not agree with those people more. The long-term future of the industry will depend upon a reliable and efficient grain handling and transportation operation. Of course, many people wonder whether the payment to railways option is the best way to go in terms of improving that efficiency.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: What do you think? Which way are you going?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I hear the Hon. Member. I know what we can do. We will serve the best interest of producers, the best interest of Canada and provide the most effective and reliable transportation system. This is something which I will support right down the wire.
Many improvements have to be made. We are looking at them. The review process is ongoing. I assure all Hon. Members, contrary to what was said by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry, that the Government is taking action and will continue to take action. We will have a darn good grain handling and transportation system at the end of this four-year period, one of which even the Hon. Member will be proud.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to take part in this debate. It provides me with an opportunity to illustrate and to repeat again the traitorous behaviour and the betrayal of grain producers in western Canada which started under a Minister of Transport in a Liberal Government in 1975 and was continued by two of his successors, including the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy).
Today the House is debating this piece of legislation. Hopefully motions and amendments will be moved and we will have
Crow Benefit Payment
a vote on the review of the Western Grain Transportation Act. In fact, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry had an opportunity to move a motion which stated his position and the position of his Party. However, he moved that the House should take note of the report.


Lloyd Axworthy: What did your Party do?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) did the same thing. However, the ball was not in his court; he did not have to move anything. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry could have and should have moved


Lloyd Axworthy: What is wrong with your caucus?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I will be moving an amendment in a few minutes. He could have and should have moved a motion concerning the report, which is the object of this debate. The number one recommendation in the report was that the $658.6 million of Government contributions under the safety net provisions of the Western Grain Transportation Act should be paid directly to producers in the Canadian Wheat Board designated area. However, the legislation seen through Parliament by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry indicates that the payments should go to the railroads. I would have thought that he would have moved a motion today indicating that the legislation which he brought before Parliament would continue to say that the payments should go to the railroads. That is not what he did. He, as was the case with the Minister of Transport, talked about everything else but the method of payment and what was in the report which is under debate. Mr. Speaker, if you are going to be something, be something, and if you are something, say so. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry is running away from deeds of his own doing. I cannot say a heck of a lot more for the Progressive Conservative Party. It was all for keeping the Crow rate. My goodness, they were so good about keeping the Crow rate in 1982, 1983 and even in 1984 until the election was over. They were for keeping the Crow, restoring the Crow, freezing the Crow, et cetera, ad nauseam. Both these outfits are like the girls at Jarvis and Queen. They work both sides of the street.
The issue is the Hall Report and the method of payment. There is a Hall number one and a Hall number two. He really is in second place. Hall number one states and I quote:
If once tampering with the statutory rate is accepted or condoned or as an item on the bargaining table, all will be lost. For once the subject is on the bargaining table, it will be only a matter of time until it is lost step by step. There is no position to take except to adhere through thick and thin that the Crow Rate is not bargainable.
That is Mr. Justice Emmett Hall, who can hardly be called a raving socialist. We have agreed with that from day one. We stick to it to this day and will do so for many more days to come.
If there is any change in the method of payment to the producers instead of the railroads, the complete undoing in transportation costs to western grain producers will have been accomplished. I listened to the spokesman for the Liberal

December 4, 1985
Crow Benefit Payment
Party today. About the only major thing on which we agreed with him in the legislation in 1983 was the method of payment. The Hon. Member knows that we supported him on that. It was about the only major item. He had an opportunity today to say so and he had an opportunity to move a motion to that effect. However, he failed to do so. Me thinks he is chickening out.
Let us take a look at the pros and cons of the method of payment. I want to say something for the benefit of my livestock producing friends in Alberta. Because of all the difficulties they are having with regard to the price of their product, they continue to take it out on their neighbours, the grain producers. There is something about those who would beggar thy neighbour. The difficulty of the livestock producers does not lie with the grain producers. It never did lie with the Crow rate. However, it did lie with a lot of liars who were trying to blame somebody else for their own difficulties.
Cheap grain means cheap livestock. When you have cheap grain, you have more livestock producers. Livestock prices then go down even more. One would think that the Cattlemen's Association and the Alberta Livestock Commission would learn a little from history. Every time our grain producers have been in trouble and increased their livestock production, livestock prices fell. They were all in trouble together. It has happened repeatedly. I am sick and tired of those who say: "Leave us the tree and open market. Leave us to the market-place and market forces".
As soon as they are in trouble, as soon as market forces kick them in the head and the so-called free enterprise system lets them down, who is first to Ottawa looking for a hand-out? I remember the feedlot operators and the Cattlemen's Association coming here in 1969 and 1970. Who were the first with their hands out? They were the ones who wanted the free and open market. As soon as they got it in spades, who was the first to ask Parliament to bail them out?
The Crow rate was a part of the bargain for western Canada. It has little if anything to do with the price of hogs or cattle. It never has. It had to do with a bargain between the people of Canada and the railroads of Canada. It had to do with Canada and Canadian grain producers being able to export their grain and provide for their own needs. It took into account our geography and costs of transportation so that we could compete in export markets without transportation being a handicap and so that we could provide each other anywhere in this country with grain requirements, whether for human beings or animals, at a reasonable cost. The very essence of the statutory grain rates was to try to treat one another reasonably well and equitably, no matter whether you are a farmer or a livestock producer anywhere in Canada. Paying the producer instead of the railroads the $658 million means lower feed grain prices for our grain producers in western Canada. That might be nice in the minds of those on the Alberta Livestock Commission. However, it is not nice in the minds of the grain producers of the three prairie provinces. It might be nice for some big wheel ranchers in southern Alberta and southern Saskatchewan, but they are not that many in number.
What we have here in support of payment to the railroads and not the producers are the overwhelming majority of the grain producers in western Canada. The Minister of Transport recognizes that. It is not only the three prairie pools, but the Government of Manitoba, the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities, and the cow-calf operators in Saskatchewan. Something in the area of 80 per cent or more of the grain producers have decided and have said repeatedly how they want these payments to be made. Instead, we get a whole bunch of other outfits.
There is the Government of British Columbia, the coal association, the mining association, B.C. Forest Products and the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. There is a list as long as your arm. They demanded an end to the Crow rate and not a damn one of of them grows a bushel of wheat. They were great with their advice about what should be done to the other guy. The overwhelming amount of evidence in support for retaining the Crow rate and maintaining the payments to the railroads so that we would have some control over the operations and efficiency of the railways is endorsed in overwhelming numbers by those who produce the product, the grain producers of the three prairie provinces.
I appreciate that the Minister of Transport will be reluctant today to say whether he supports continuing the payments to the railroads or charging it to the farmers. I understand that. There is a terrible inequity in the price per tonne of export grain and feed grain in British Columbia. However, the Minister has the tools to cure that. There is no use getting up here and crying about it. I know that his problem is money. He needs the support of all his back-bench colleagues when dealing with the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson). We will back him up on that. He will have no problem with us. His problem is with his own guys. If he really wants to do something and if he wants to adhere to what he and his Party said prior to September of 1984, he will, during the next session of Parliament or sometime early in the new year, bring in legislation to repeal the whole damn Bill and restore the statutory grain rates. At the very minimum, he will give us a new statutory grain rate, which is the rate that is in effect for the current crop year. If he wants to do that, we will support him.
The method of payment is the crucial issue before us today. How much time do I have left, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Until 4.30.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Are you running out of stuff to say? I'll give you some.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: No, I am not running out of stuff to say. I am going to deal with some more stuff. I do wish to move an amendment, Mr. Speaker, and I would like to do that in the last minute of my remarks. I would appreciate it if you warned me of that, Mr. Speaker.
December 4, 1985

I would like to hear from the next member of the Liberal Party who speaks if the Party's position is the same now as it was in 1983 regarding the method of payment. I can assure the House that my position and the position of my Party is the same now as it was then and will remain the same however often this matter comes before the House. It will stay the same not because of some kind of paranoia but because we believe the evidence is in. We believe the evidence is overwhelming and indicates that in order for grain producers in western Canada to have a reasonable chance in the world markets and in order for those who require feed grains in other parts of Canada to be able to receive them at a price that is not outrageously enhanced by higher transportation costs, a statutory grain rate must remain in place.
There will be penalties in changing the method of payment. If the Minister believes for one moment that feeders from Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Quebec, and I have spoken to some of them, will hold still if they have to pay $10 to $30 more per tonne for feed grain, he is wrong because they will not. If he thinks for one moment that the hog and dairy producers in Quebec whose production is as great as that of the three prairie provinces put together-


Donald Frank Mazankowski: What production?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Hog and dairy production. If he thinks that they are going to hold still without buying more U.S. or Ontario corn or without raising more of their own feed grain, he has another thing coming. He is dreaming in technicolor. They are not going to hold still for that. Changing the method of payment is a self-defeating exercise for the grain producers of western Canada. Even the feeders from British Columbia will not hold still for that. I suspect that they could probably buy feed grain from Washington for a lot less than they are paying now.
The payment to the railways exists for one main reason. It is a payment which has existed since 1983 to provide for the most efficient and best transportation system possible in Canada. That transportation system is not only for grain. To hear all the arguments against the Crow rate and all the arguments against payments to the railways, one would think that this is some kind of a hand-out, gift, subsidy, charity or welfare payment to the grain producers of western Canada. It is nothing more than a continuation of what was begun in 1881. It is a transportation subsidy, not a grain subsidy.
That transportation subsidy is not only for the movement of grain, it is for the movement of coal, potash, sulphur, lumber products, automobiles from Japan, automobiles from Oshawa and all the general commodities. We did not build a railway simply to move grain. We did not rebuild it, reduce grades and put in tunnels just on account of the grain producers.
Why are the grain producers being picked on and pointed out as being the villains in the piece? It is a transportation subsidy. Therefore the payments must continue to go to the railways. If they do, we have muscle to make the railways not only rebuild but perform. Sending the payment to the grain farmers leaves the railways with other choices. We could lose
Crow Benefit Payment
another 2,000 miles of branch lines. The producers have to buy bigger trucks. In fact, within a matter of weeks after the passage of this legislation, Canadian Pacific bought four trucking companies in northwestern Saskatchewan in order to truck grain.
Changing the method of payment means higher costs for western provincial Governments. It means higher costs for municipalities. It means higher taxes for grain producers. There should not be any question about this. The Government does not need to wait to hear any more from Mr. Hall or from the late unlamented Mr. Horner. There should be no question about it.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: We are governed by the legislation, though, Ben. We've got the legislation.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The Minister is perfectly right. He is governed by the legislation. He did bring in a few amendments with which we agreed earlier this year. Now he should bring in more amendments. He is the man who has the hammer. He is the fellow who can do it if he believes what he told us in 1983. If he believes it, he will do it, but we are still waiting.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: You haven't lost faith in me yet, have you?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I have lost faith because the Minister should not be putting up with this any longer. He should bring in a Bill tomorrow providing that the method of payment shall continue as it is. He should put an end to more hearings. He should put an end to hearing from everyone but farmers-


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The review is more than that, Ben. Now, let's not mislead.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Let us hope we get another day's debate on this matter so we can deal with other items. At least I got on to the matter under discussion, the Hall Commission Report. I sure hope the next Liberal speaker gets onto it just for a damn change. They are both trying to run and hide, but we are not going to let them stay hidden.
What we said in 1983 we are saying now and will continue to say. I would like to move an amendment. I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. Angus):
That the motion by Mr. Axworthy be amended by deleting the period at the end and adding the following thereto:
"and rejects the transfer of Crow benefits payments from the railroads to
producers as recommended in the Report."
I now challenge Government Members and members of the Liberal Party to cease speaking on this matter so that it may come to a vote. I am interested to see whether Liberal and Conservative Members will talk this out to the end of the time allotted or whether they will allow it to come to a vote. I am anxious to find out how that goes because there are a lot of people on the Prairies waiting to see how these birds perform on this particular matter.

December 4, 1985
Statements by Ministers


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being 4.30 p.m., pursuant to Order made earlier this day, the House will now proceed to Statements by Ministers. The Hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson).


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian tax system rests on a foundation of self-assessment and voluntary compliance. It depends crucially on the respect of all our citizens. The continued provision of a high level of public services depends on an efficient, effective and fair system of taxation.
Over the past few years there has been growing public concern about the numbers of high income Canadians who pay little or no personal income tax in any one year through the use of various tax deductions and incentives. As Hon. Members will recall, my Budget of May 23 proposed a number of measures to improve the fairness of the tax system. I also announced that the Government would implement a minimum personal income tax to take effect January 1, 1986. [Translation]
With the Budget, I tabled a discussion paper outlining three different types of minimum tax. And I invited comments to assist in meeting the challenge of designing and implementing an appropriate minimum tax.
Today I want to inform the House of the Government's decision on the minimum tax which will take effect for the 1986 tax year. In addition, I will be announcing other important measures to improve tax fairness.

Today, I wish to inform the House of the Government's decision on the minimum tax which will take place for the 1986 tax year. In addition, I will be announcing other important measures to improve tax fairness.
In choosing an appropriate minimum tax design, the Government has balanced a number of important objectives. First, an effective minimum tax must ensure that high income Canadians will pay a fair share of taxes in each year.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Second, a minimum tax imposed in the name of fairness must itself be fair. It must also be consistent with the valid social and economic goals for
which tax exemptions and deductions have been created over the years. Third, a minimum tax should, as far as possible, complement the existing tax system and use familiar tax concepts. Finally, to limit the complexity inherent in any such measure, an appropriate minimum tax should minimize uncertainty by having as clear as possible a cut-off between those who are potentially affected and those who are not.
The Government has concluded that the minimum tax design which best meets these objectives is the option described in our discussion paper as the alternative minimum tax. I wish to take a few minutes to describe some of the key features of the chosen design.
All high income Canadians are potentially subject to the proposed alternative minimum tax, and it will significantly reduce the number who would otherwise pay little or no tax. In practice, however, the minimum tax will affect a rather small group of individuals, estimated at fewer than 100,000 of the more than 15 million Canadians who file tax returns. The vast majority of Canadians will not be affected by my announcement today. The minimum tax calculation can be ignored by almost all tax filers with earnings and other income of less than about $45,000 to $50,000, according to the number of dependants that person has. Likewise, for most individuals with incomes above $50,000 the minimum tax calculation will not be necessary because of the amount of regular income tax which they are already paying.

For those who are affected, the minimum tax calculation is straightforward. An adjusted income figure will be calculated for which some items will be deductible and others not. The taxpayer will then claim his annual minimum tax exemption of about $45,000 to $50,000.

Amounts exceeding the minimum tax exemption will be taxed at an effective federal-provincial-territorial rate ranging from 24 per cent to 27 per cent, depending on the province or Territory of residence. This is based on a federal minimum tax rate of 17 per cent, which is one-half of the top federal statutory rate. The taxpayer will always pay the higher of the alternative minimum tax or the regular tax.
This minimum tax will prevent high income individuals from using one or more tax incentives to pay little or no tax in any one year. I underline the words "in any one year" because available data suggests that very high income individuals have been able to avoid paying taxes for any number of years.
The Government is also aware that existing tax incentives were put in place for valid economic and social reasons. The benefits of these incentives should not be undermined by a minimum tax. Accordingly, the minimum tax will have a carry-forward mechanism to ensure that the value of tax incentive deductions and credits is not lost. Taxpayers will be able, in effect, to apply unused deductions and tax credits against their regular tax liability in future years. But in each and every year high income tax payers will never pay less than
December 4, 1985

the minimum tax based on a federal-provincial-Territorial rate ranging from 24 per cent to 27 per cent.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I stated earlier that the Government is concerned that any tax imposed in the name of fairness must itself be fair. Accordingly, a limited number of deductions and tax credits will continue to be eligible in computing the minimum tax. This will mean that certain Canadians whose incomes exceed $50,000 may still pay no tax in any one year, but only in a strictly limited range of situations. These include some items allowed in order to preserve fairness to individuals in extenuating circumstances, such as those with disabilities or medical expenses under the Income Tax Act. Alimony and maintenance payments will be deductible since they are already taxed in the hands of the recipient. As well, contributions to charitable organizations will remain deductible in computing the minimum tax. Also deductible will be the actual costs incurred to earn income. Examples include employment expenses, including union and professional dues, moving costs, premiums for unemployment insurance and the Canada and Quebec Pension Plans and interest expenses of business persons, farmers and investors. Business losses will also be deductible. Aside from this limited number of deductions and tax credits of the type which I have just mentioned, no other amounts will be deductible in computing the minimum tax.
Non-deductible items include tax shelter losses created by claiming capital cost allowances on films and multiple-unit residential buildings, so-called MURBs, or by claiming exploration and development expenses, either directly or by way of flow-through share or similar arrangements. Dividend tax credits and contributions to Registered Retirement Savings Plans and registered pension plans will also be non-deductible for minimum tax purposes.
In the May Budget the Government proposed a $500,000 lifetime capital gains exemption. As I said in the Budget, that tax measure is an important incentive to assist in promoting investment, risk taking and job creation. The minimum tax does not remove this incentive. It will ensure that capital gains eligible for the lifetime exemption will receive favourable treatment.

What the minimum tax does is to prevent high-income taxpayers from using the capital gains exemption, alone or in combination with other tax incentives, to avoid paying tax in any one year. The result is a balance between preserving the value of incentives that contribute to productive investment and reinforcing tax fairness.
Special transitional reserve provisions will be available for qualifying farm property in order to assist farmers realizing large one-time capital gains.
Statements by Ministers
The minimum tax will have a substantial yield. Although there is much uncertainty about such forecasts, I estimate that it will raise on additional $300 million in federal revenues in the 1986 taxation year. When provincial revenues are added, the total will be about $450 million. The new minimum tax should be viewed as part of a broad and continuing effort to improve the fairness and the effectiveness of the tax system. I want to speak briefly about this broader context of tax fairness.
There are some who have argued that a minimum tax ignores the real problem, the existence of significant tax preferences. I want to emphasize that I do not regard the minimum tax as a substitute for continuing efforts to re-examine the preferences which now exist in our tax system and, wherever appropriate, removing them. My record has been clear in that regard.
One of my first acts as Minister of Finance, together with the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. MacKay), was to suspend rulings on limited partnerships and similar financing arrangements which had the potential for major tax avoidance. Many of these arrangements involved a sale of deductions or tax credits from one taxpayer to another. They created benefit for only a small circle of taxpayers and they jeopardized the integrity of the tax system in the eyes of many others. [Translation]
In October of last year, in response to concern about abuses of the Scientific Research Tax Credit, I announced a moratorium on quick flips under this measure and ordered a full review. As a result, in my May budget I eliminated this particular tax credit and introduced more effective, better targeted provisions to support research and development. [English]
In addition, the Budget eliminated tax shelter financing of properties such as yachts, recreational vehicles and hotels. It also ended the long-standing advantages of splitting income between family members through low interest or interest-free loans, a practice primarily of benefit to upper income families.
The Government also acted to improve the fairness of tax administration. Limits to the powers of the tax authorities in the area of search and seizure, audits and demands for tax information, were clearly defined. Changes were made to ensure that taxpayers are not required to pay taxes in dispute until after a court rules on their appeal.
More recently, I moved to put an end to the so-called "carve-out" transactions whereby profitable oil and gas companies were temporarily transferring property to companies with losses in order to reduce their tax.
I am taking action to terminate the use of partnerships in corporate takeovers to increase tax deductions through so-called "partnership step-up" rules. I will be clarifying the law to ensure that the limits imposed on foreign property investments by pension funds cannot be circumvented by inter-

December 4, 1985
Statements by Ministers
posing a Canadian company between the fund and the foreign property investment.
I am tabling a Ways and Means motion with respect to the minimum tax and the two measures I have just mentioned. I am also making available detailed information for Parliament, taxpayers and their advisers, and for all Canadians. The legislation to implement the necessary changes will be brought forward as soon as possible.
In conclusion, I want to emphasize the Government's commitment to measures which will make the tax system not only fairer but more effective in encouraging productive economic activity.

In just over one year, this Government has brought forward a wide range of measures to strengthen the fairness and effectiveness of the tax system as an essential part of a comprehensive program of economic renewal designed to benefit all Canadians.

The minimum tax is an integral part of this continuing initiative. In a careful, balanced and effective way, it gives real meaning to the broad principle of fairness which underlies our efforts to build a stronger economy and a better life for all Canadians.
Pursuant to Standing Order 65(1) I wish to lay upon the Table, in both official languages, copies of a notice of Ways and Means motion to amend the Income Tax Act. And pursuant to Standing Order 65(2), I ask that an Order of the Day be designated for the consideration of said motion.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, this is another remarkable day in the life of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson).

If success were to be measured by incoherence, confusion and complexity, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) would be seen as moving from triumph to triumph. We on this side of the House are perplexed, as Hon. Members opposite are clearly perplexed. Even the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen) is blushing.


Erik Nielsen: Never.


Donald James Johnston: We are confused, we are bemused, but we certainly are not amused at what the Minister has brought us today. It is more tinkering by the greater tinkerer. He tinkered with the old age security indexation and, fortunately, we were able to convince him to back off on that. He has tinkered with the sales taxes. He has tinkered a little with the fuel taxes. He has tinkered with surtaxes. He has done all of this, I might say, at a cost of billions of dollars to Canadian taxpayers. But his greatest tinkering has been with the income tax system. The incoherence, the woolly thinking, and the lack of any
sense of direction, seems to grow daily with respect to the budget measures brought in by the Minister of Finance last May. The Minister knows. I know that he knows. We all know that he knows how ridiculous the position of the Government is by the juxtaposition of this minimum tax with the capital gains tax exemption which was introduced in his Budget.
The Right Hon. Leader of our Party recommended a minimum tax during the election campaign in August of 1984. In a speech he made in Chatham he recommended an alternative minimum tax of 13 per cent on upper income Canadians who pay less than that or nothing at all. Let us compare that particular recommendation with what the Minister of Finance of the Tory Government is presenting us.
The Budget proposed a $500,000 lifetime exemption on capital gains. We thought-and I think most Canadians who reflected upon it thought-that that provision would not see the light of day in a motion of Ways and Means in this House. However, unfortunately, it has. It has been tabled. In addition to that, the Budget proposed that a minimum tax of some form would be introduced in 1986. Of course, that is the intention of the provision introduced today by the Minister of Finance. Everyone in the country, except members of the Government, saw the dilemma that was created, a capital gains tax exemption to a very small percentage of wealthy Canadians on the one hand, and a minimum tax proposal intended to target those same wealthy Canadians on the other hand. One would have thought that having taken nine months to bring in a Budget, the Government might have identified the paradox in that situation. Indeed, it may very well be because of this dilemma that a further six months, or slightly over six months, has been taken before we are actually seeing the minimum tax proposal.
We know that the Government is inordinately sensitive to criticism although, unfortunately, not to that which it receives in the House. If the Government accepted some of the advice it gets in the House, it would avoid a lot of pitfalls with the public. However, it chooses not to do so. I need only remind Members of the great debate on the deindexation of Old Age Security. We were told by the Government that we were all wrong, we insisted that we were correct, and finally the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Minister of Finance had the good sense to admit that we were correct all along. It was not sufficient that Members in the Chamber made that point and it was not even sufficient that Members on the Government's back-benches made it. It had to be made by the public. The people affected had to march on Ottawa to make that point.
We told the Government that the capital gains exemption was wrong as well. Of course, it has now been told that elsewhere as well. Undoubtedly, the Minister of Finance has seen the comments in the November 30 edition of The Financial Post. Some of the comments with respect to the capital gains tax exemption describe the dilemma in which he finds himself today. One article reads in part:
December 4, 1985

The exemption runs directly counter to the spirit and intent of another Mulroney government proposal, the minimum income tax. This, to be launched in 1986, will reduce the impact of various tax shelter deductions claimed by well-off individuals.
All of which creates a no-win situation for Wilson. If the minimum tax is applied to the capital gains sheltered by the exemption, it will negate the beneficial impact from the exemption. But if the new tax doesn't go after exempt capital gains, it will be seen as a joke.
Donald Huggett, national tax partner, publications, with Coopers & Lybrand, sees the introduction of these self-cancelling measures as "an exercise in futility and stupidity".
Huggett suggests the Government write off the experience as "a terrible mistake" and scrap or delay both the minimum tax and the capital gains exemption.
Of course, faced with that kind of criticism, the Minister had to find some way out of this dilemma. He should have dropped the capital gains and put in the minimum tax. Of course, he did not. He has twisted himself and the Income Tax Act into a pretzel in order to try to accommodate both of these objectives. In his attempt to reconcile the irreconcilable, namely to have tax free capital gains for the wealthy on the one hand and a minimum tax for the wealthy on the other, he had decided to add back one-half of the capital gains exemption in calculating that minimum tax of 17 per cent. That, effectively, means a tax of 8.5 per cent on the tax free gain, but it is refundable at a later date, as the Minister just told us, because the minimum tax will have a carry-forward mechanism to ensure that the value of all these tax incentives, the deductions and credits, is not lost to the individual taxpayer. Effectively, it becomes a refundable minimum tax on high incomes and is not a real tax at all.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Big deal.


Donald James Johnston: Quoting a great Canadian, the Minister should have opened his remarks today by saying: "A minimum tax if necessary, but not necessarily a minimum tax".


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: That sounds like a Liberal.


Donald James Johnston: To save face he has simply added more complexities and compounded inequities. He has told us that there are some deductions. In A Minimum Tax for Canada he refers to the dividend tax credit and the capital gains exclusion which, of course, he effectively has not dealt with. However, carrying charges in excess of investment income which may be interest write-offs is the real problem, and he has chosen to skate that one off-side and not deal with it.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I learned from Mac-Eachen.


Donald James Johnston: He says that he learned from the MacEachen Budget. The MacEachen Budget was intended to introduce some equity into the Act with respect to these exorbitant write-offs.


John Edward Broadbent: Why did you back down? You changed it all. Don.
Statements by Ministers


Donald James Johnston: The fact of the matter is that what he must do is bring some coherence, clarity and simplicity to the tax system in order to avoid the necessity for this kind of exercise.
The Minister continues to drag us further and further into a swamp of fiscal incoherence and tax complexities. I know this is difficult in politics, especially for a Minister of Finance, but instead of admitting to the gross stupidities which characterize so much of the May Budget, he is wading further and further into treacherous quicksand and mud, praying that he will emerge on the other side of the swamp before he drowns.


Mr. Malone:: Did he see MacEachen on the way?


Donald James Johnston: We have asked him to turn back, to withdraw, to start again on solid ground, but he steadfastly refuses to do so. He believes that he will save some credibility by moving straight ahead and drowning. I fear that drown he must, unless he backs out of this quagmire.
I will now turn to some of the other provisions of which we heard today. The Minister now tells us that he is going to terminate the use of partnerships in corporate takeovers to increase tax deductions through so-called partnership step-up rules.

Mr. Speaker, I would remind you that it was a similar arrangement-an advance ruling, a tax interpretation-that made it possible to transfer the shares and create a tax haven with respect to the Gulf case, a famous case here in the House where we asked the Minister many questions. Why did he not overrule the advance ruling in those circumstances?

He tells us now, after the horse has fled the barn, that he is going to stop this famous little Egypt bump which has cost taxpayers, in that one transaction alone, perhaps as much as $1 billion. Now we are going to stop that transaction.


Mr. Blaikie:: Why don't we tax nerve. We would make a fortune.


Donald James Johnston: We are enjoying a little comic relief from the left. Mr. Speaker, during the great exchange over that Gulf transaction I recall asking the Minister why he did not simply refuse to give rulings on such transactions. We were told that it was in the law and that the law was there and that the law had been introduced by the Liberals and that they could not do anything about it and so on, all of which, of course, was just rubbish and nonsense. The Minister himself said today: "One of my first acts as Minister of Finance, together with the Minister of National Revenue, was to suspend rulings on limited partnerships and similar financing arrangements that had the potential for major tax avoidance". If $1 million is not major tax avoidance, I do not know what is. The Minister had the option to stop a ruling from issuing with respect to that Gulf transaction, as he did in the case of limited partnerships and other financing arrangements. I want to know why he did not do it.

December 4, 1985
Statements by Ministers


Michael Holcombe Wilson: You know it is a different type of transaction.


Donald James Johnston: He says it is a different type of transaction. The fact is that it needed a ruling in order to proceed. He knows that, and there was no requirement whatsoever that that ruling be given.

Well, Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a difficult period for us. Hopefully, with the Government and our colleagues to our left, we are trying to improve the Canadian tax system. But every time the Minister comes up with a new project he makes the legislation ever more complicated.
Sure enough, the tax measures just introduced by the Minister simply confirm his reputation as an incoherent tax fiddler. [English]
If I may be nostalgic for a moment, Mr. Speaker, 1 picked up a document called A New Direction for Canada. In it, under the heading "Tax Simplification" I find these words: "The tax system is overly complex. It imposes on taxpayers and their advisers an unnecessary cost in time and money just to understand and comply with the law, and the more complicated the tax system is, the less effective will be the investment incentive contained in it". Need I ask Members of the Chamber, who uttered those words? It is our Minister of Finance. What has happened to him? I can tell you that there are many people in this country who are wondering what happened to that Minister of Finance.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member. I would ask him to conclude.


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, the Minister had tax lawyers, tax accountants and fiscal advisers in this country worried when he made that statement last year. These well paid tour guides in the labyrinth of the Income Tax Act were concerned. They now know that they are safe and secure. They would be well advised, before they go to sleep each night, to thank God for the Minister of Finance.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of the election in 1984 we had a tax system that permitted special deductions for yachts, for club memberships, special deductions for rather spurious research and development schemes that were constructed and special deductions in the corporate sector that provided no concrete incentives for investment to create jobs. One of them was known as the little Egypt bump. All of these produced in Canada one of the most unfair tax systems in the western world and it was created by the Liberal Government that preceded the present Government.
I have just seen the ultimate act of nerve of a critic for the Liberal Party getting up and denouncing a system of taxation that his Party created just over a year ago when it was in
power. There are simply no limits to shame, as one of my colleagues has just said.
I will leave my Liberal colleagues-metaphorically and literally to the right-alone for the moment-


Mr. Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: We are reformers.


John Edward Broadbent: Now that they are on this side of the House they are reformers, Mr. Speaker. They shift with location in terms of philosophic positions.
Unlike the Liberal critic, I want to deal with what was specifically announced today. Before doing so, I want to put it into some perspective. In the summer of 1984 there was a perception by Canadian men and women all across the country that they were indeed paying plenty of taxes. As the Minister has acknowledged, even before today, there were thousands of Canadians with very high incomes who were paying not a penny in taxes. That was perceived by Canadians even before the summer of 1984 to be unjust.
On July 25, 1984, in this city, as Leader of the New Democratic Party I was very pleased to repeat in that debate between the Leaders of the Parties the position of my Party, speaking out for Canadians across the land. That position, succinctly stated, is that as long as ordinary men and women are paying their share of taxes, it is time everyone in this country paid his or her share. I was pleased, as were all Canadians, to hear the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) say in that debate that if the Conservative Party formed the Government, in his view the rich would pay and, to quote him, "should pay handsomely".
After the election, we saw changes brought in by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) in his first statement in the fall of 1984, followed by the Budget. In those early provisions we did not see the kind of reform that was promised by the Prime Minister in that debate. We saw, along with other announcements, a package of tax increases on ordinary Canadians that amounted to approximately $1,000 per family, if one added the taxes together.


Mr. Cote (Lac-Saint-Jean):: Oh, come on.


John Edward Broadbent: I would be happy to provide the documentation to my Conservative colleague. There were substantial tax increases affecting the ordinary family, but we did not see the promised minimum tax in the first year of the Conservative Government.
I say on behalf of my colleagues-and I make a distinction between righteousness and self-righteousness-that if there is something to which my colleagues remained faithful in that campaign it was that there ought to be tax fairness in this land. When we were elected in September, 1984, all NDP Members in the House plus many others in my Party across the country kept up our faith to work for tax reform.
We initiated a commission, under the chairmanship of our finance critic, the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis), that is under way now and will be hearing representations from Canadians across the country until the next Budget
December 4, 1985

from the Minister of Finance, because we intend to continue to address the important issue of major tax reform. Perhaps the Minister of Finance will know that the Prime Minister's Office acknowledged publicly some two weeks ago on Friday that, as a result of a campaign initiated by the NDP to mail out over one million pieces of literature throughout Canada, the Prime Minister's Office has received 1,000 pieces of mail per day in the past couple of weeks urging tax reform, a minimum tax in particular.
We have responded to Canadians' sense of fairness by carrying out our political obligation of maintaining pressure on the Government to do what it ought to do. 1 am pleased by what has been announced today. I see it as an important start. We now have a minimum tax, and I compliment the Minister of Finance for at last coming forward with that promise.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: I also listened to him carefully when he said, with some emphasis, that this is a step and that he is committing himself once again to the process of continued tax reform, presumably leading right up to the next Budget.

However, Mr. Speaker, 1 want to emphasize that the policy introduced by the Minister today is just a starting point. This process must continue because all Canadians want to have a completely fair tax system. That is the objective of our Party here in the House of Commons.

I want to mention two specific items. First, of course, the minimum tax will provide some $450 million in additional revenue. That is important because $300 million will go to the federal Treasury and $150 million will go to the provinces. However, I would remind Hon. Members that the capital gains tax giveaway introduced by the Minister will mean a loss of $600 million a year. Therefore, the Minister has begun to retrieve a good part of that and we will be insisting that in the next Budget he retrieve the rest of it by abolishing that inequitable proposal.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Let the farmers hear that.


An Hon. Member:: You forget about western Canadian farmers.


John Edward Broadbent: My Conservative colleagues know that we have made provisions in our approach to this to recognize that home owners and farmers are in a special category and ought to be so recognized. 1 say to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) that if he will support our a special category we can have an interesting debate.
However, the Minister's proposal is an important and positive step. We question why the $40,000 in taxable income should be exempt and we will be very interested in discussing that proposal. I would also note that for some time our Finance critic and other colleagues in the House have criticized the little Egypt bump, this interesting tax provision that has no
Crow Benefit Payment
economic benefit but has resulted in a great loss of revenue. Again, that was brought in by the Liberals. We were critical of that with the Liberal Government. We have been critical of that with the present Government. 1 compliment, unequivocally, the Minister of Finance today for removing that particular loophole.
In conclusion, I do not think the Minister took 15 minutes to make his announcement. The Liberal critic took 15 minutes to say nothing. I want to wind up my comments right now by saying that the Minister has made a good beginning. I do not qualify that. A good beginning has been initiated here today. He also said that it was step one in the process of taxation reform. On behalf of my colleagues in the House of Commons and New Democrats all across the country I want to say that we will continue with our mandate to fight for tax reform from now until the Minister's next Budget. We want the Minister, in that Budget, to deliver total tax reform on personal income tax and corporate tax. We will be watching.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 1 wish to inform the House that because of the ministerial statement, consideration of Orders of the Day will be extended by 40 minutes this day.



STATUTORY ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Axworthy:
That this House take note of the Report of the Committee of Inquiry on Crow Benefit Payment.
And the amendment thereto of Mr. Benjamin:
That the motion be amended by deleting the period at the end and adding the following thereto:
"and rejects the transfer of Crow Benefit payments from the railroads to
producers as recommended in the Report'*.
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity this afternoon to say a few words on the motion before the House relating to the report of the Committee of Inquiry on Crow Benefit Payment. I must say that 1 was surprised when the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) said that he could not understand why we would be having a debate on this issue now, when the legislation provided for a debate after the Hall Commission Report was tabled in the House. Surely this is one of the most important economic issues in western Canada.
Also I was surprised that the Minister did not report more on the progress of the Western Grain Transportation Act, its

December 4, 1985
Crow Benefit Payment
effects in western Canada, and his views with regard to the Hall Commission Report.
The Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) seemed to complain a lot about the motion today. If he had really been concerned about the issue, he would have petitioned the Chair, as our caucus did, and asked for the debate. It seems to me that the issue is important and worth-while enough for the House to debate it.
The Minister talked about the Government dealing in a very hasty way with Bill C-155 when it was originally passed. However, if we look at what the standing committee did beginning in the summer of 1983, we see that it held hearings for many months. Representations on that Bill were one of the most extensive I have heard tell about around the House. The Minister might have gone into more detail as to whether he accepted or rejected the concept recommended in the Hall Commission Report.
I should like to refer to what he said on second reading of Bill C-155 on May 12, 1983. He went into a long explanation of how the Crow benefit should be paid, in his view. As reported at page 25386 of Hansard for May 12, 1983, he said:
In that connection, I have something to put forward to the Minister for consideration. Since there is no consensus on this issue and there are some differences of opinion, I ask the Minister to consider making the payment of the Crow benefit optional to the producer or to the railroad. Let the producer decide whether the money should go to the railroad, or let him decide whether it should go to him.
The Minister described this as his "freedom of choice" approach to the Crow benefit. Of course he was the transportation critic of the Official Opposition at that time. Since he was not in power, I do not suppose his view held much sway. However, now that he is the Minister of Transport, his opinions and ideas become very important.
In the same speech, he went on to say:
I repeat that I think the principle has validity. It gives the producer some freedom of choice and we would be very pleased to work this matter out.
Although the Minister outlined those provisions of the Act which provide for the review committee, headed by the Hon. Jack Horner, a very good friend of the Minister, it seems to me that the Hall Commission has had massive resources at its fingertips. It certainly had available more resources and more detailed research than did the grain transportation committee. At some stage the Minister will have to make a decision with regard to the Hall Commission Report. We can only assume at this stage, now that the Hon. Member for Vegreville is the Minister of Transport, that his "freedom of choice" approach will prevail.
It would be very useful to the grain industry, to the pools, to the Canadian Wheat Board and to individual prairie grain producers to know whether the Minister's position, as stated on May 12, 1983, prevails; whether he will leave the Act the way it is and the way it was passed by us when we were in power; or whether he will adopt the Hall Commission Report, which essentially recommended a payment of benefit directly to producers.
In his statement this afternoon, the Minister indicated that he had a number of concerns about the operation of the Act. He mentioned the safety net, the efficiency of the grain handling system, branch line systems of rehabilitation and upgrading. It is interesting that when he spoke on May 12, 1983, he seemed to have the same concerns. At that time he spoke about the problems of transportation and efficiency in the handling of grain. For instance, he mentioned that grains were weighed six times before being finally loaded on to the bottoms in Thunder Bay or Vancouver, that grains were graded three times, and that we had an inefficient or poorly co-ordinated elevator system which operated on a five-day week, whereas trains operated on a seven-day week. Also he spoke about the difficulties faced by individual producers when loading boxcars and hopper cars themselves and not being able to make that $600 saving. However, when Bill C-44 came forward last year, essentially it contained only two substantive clauses.
This Government has been in power for over 15 months, yet the Minister did not deal with any of the major problems which he outlined today. Since the Minister has been thinking about these matters for two years now, why did he not spell out to the House exactly how he will improve these efficiencies, remedy the situation and overcome these problems? Toward the end of his speech, he made the vague statement that he would have a grain transportation system in place by 1988, but he did not spell out when in fact he would be bringing in amendments.
We wonder why those amendments were not brought in in Bill C-44. When the Minister spoke in the Crown debate in 1983, he outlined 14 major recommendations that he would like to have made. He had 14 objections to that Bill, yet only two substantive ones were included in Bill C-44, the amendments brought in last year.
Although during the election campaign the Government clearly committed itself to freezing freight rates at the 198384 level, when the Bill was brought in, they were frozen at the 1984-85 level. That is another campaign promise broken by the Government. When freezing them at the 1984-85 level, the Minister knew that the 1986-87 level would be 22 per cent lower, that is, the transportation rates for grains which will come into effect. The Minister is really giving the agricultural producers of western Canada absolutely nothing. Talk about giving the sleeves out of your vest! "Maz" sure did it with those amendments in Bill C-44. We wonder about the freedom of choice policy that he enunciated so clearly on that sunny afternoon in May 1983. Will he be leaving the Bill as it is or will he be adopting the recommendations of the Hall Commission Report?
The Senior Grain Transportation Committee, as I said, does not have nearly the expertise or the resources which the Hall Commission had to do an in-depth analysis. The report evolves down to a decision by the Minister as to the direction in which he will go. We have seen some problems develop vis-a-vis the
December 4, 1985

efficiency or practicality of feeding cattle in the West, with the Alberta Government providing $21 per tonne in transportation assistance for the feeding of cattle in that province. There will be some distortion compared with other western provinces with regard to the feeding of grain and finishing cattle.
Last week the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Mayer), in response to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner), took great pride with regard to the benefit to be paid under the Western Grain Transportation Act, the $659 million. That is rather interesting because I do not recall hearing the Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board ever speaking in favour of the Bill or voting in favour of it at that time. The Minister responsible for the Wheat Board also took credit for the crop insurance, the western grain stabilization fund and all the other programs under which the producer pays a premium and, if he suffers a loss, he receives a benefit. That is analogous to any kind of insurance program that does not result in any great largesse from the Government of Canada.
The uncertainty in the agriculture field is greater than it has been since the 1930s. We recently spent two weeks in some 14 communities in the West listening to over 100 witnesses, farmers, farm organizations and community leaders. We certainly gained the feeling that there was incredible uncertainty in the West, not only among young farmers facing the loss of their farms because of the cost price squeeze, declining land values and low international prices. There seems to be no clear commitment by the Government to make any firm decisions with regard to agriculture.
This afternoon we are debating the Hall Commission Report on the Crow benefit payment. As far as we know, the Minister's position is that there will be a freedom of choice whereby the benefit can either be paid to the railroad or the producer based on his position in 1983. However, it goes beyond that. The Government made glowing commitments during the election campaign. When the Estimates of the Department of Agriculture came out, we noted that the Estimates for the previous year for the Farm Credit Corporation had been $494 million. This year they are $90 million. Obviously there was going to be no help or very little for the Farm Credit Corporation compared to the previous year.
Looking on through the Estimates, we see the Government making very significant demands on user-pay and inspection fees. At the end of the Estimates we noted that the Estimates were not going to be indexed. When we inquired of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise), we found that there will be a loss of purchasing power by the Department of Agriculture of some 10 per cent to 15 per cent in the coming year. In addition, there will be a straight cut of $50 million. We do not know whether that will be in meat inspection or research. Not knowing that has increased the uncertainty in western Canada as to exactly what the commitment of this Government is to agriculture.
In our task force hearings, we talked to many drought victims. We talked about the loss of farms by young farmers and farmers facing the prospect of asking the provincial and
Crow Benefit Payment
municipal Governments for welfare. We received the answer last week when the Government said it would provide assistance on an average of $5 or $10 per acre at a time when the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool and other wheat pools were asking for benefits of up to $50 per acre.
We see the uncertainty there and the prospect of the Minister paying the Crow benefit either directly to the purchaser or to the railroad, the choice being made by the producer. That creates great uncertainty. However, we could look at the other input costs which the Government has imposed upon the producers in the last couple of months. On September 1, there was an increase in the price of gasoline by 9 cents per gallon. That will cost many producers with large holdings $1,200 to $1,500 per year more. On January 1, a 1 per cent sales tax will be imposed, which will impact not only on fuel costs but on all the equipment a farmer buys.
There is great uncertainty as to the Government's priorities. Clearly the Government was not there for the victims of the drought. Clearly it is not there for the cost price squeeze. The Government is now increasing this uncertainty. The Western Grain Transportation Act was designed to improve rail transportation in western Canada and to provide funding to compensate for the benefit, and we are seeing some improvement. For instance, CP Rail reports that this year, it will have record spending of $600 million for locomotive cars, new rail tracks and mechanical facilities and $175 million will be spent this year on the Rogers Pass tunnel and on double tracking in the mountains. It claims that over 1,000 people will be working on those projects.
Clearly the Bill is seeing to the modernization and upgrading of western transportation. The response of the Hon. Minister of Transport was that the entire Bill should be put on freeze for three years. I would ask him where the improvement in rail transportation would have been today if he had had his way and the Bill had not been passed for three years.
There is great concern among groups like the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool. The Chief Executive Officer for the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool has said that the Government is sending out conflicting signals by not encouraging major cost reductions and efficiency gains on one hand while reactivating uneconomic rail lines on the other.
The international climate is very uncertain. The United States is putting in place a bonus program and the EEC has in place a massive bonus program. In Canada, the Government's commitment to agriculture is certainly in question. There can be no doubt that because of the input costs provided by the Budget, the cut-backs in departmental spending and the $5 or $10 per acre benefit for drought victims, the Government is sending out very confused signals as to whether or not it has made any commitment to the future of agriculture. That is sad because it is a very, very important part of our economy. It is important to western Canada. The Government should come clean and get its priorities straight.

December 4, 1985
Crow Benefit Payment


Mr. Michel Champagne (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to note my great satisfaction at being able today to take part for the first time, and there will certainly be others, in such an important debate, which deals with both agriculture and transport. I am all the more proud after seeing in Hansard that I am the first Member for Quebec, except for the former Minister of Transport under the previous Government, of course, to speak about the Gilson Report, Bill C-155, and finally the Hall Commission Report.
During all that time, Mr. Speaker, we did not once hear the Members opposite express their views on this issue, even though they were in power. We have been hearing for a long time that they were supposed to defend the interests affected by the reform that they, themselves, wanted to bring about. I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that no Liberal Member from Quebec dared to rise and speak on this issue, which was very controversial at the time. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to belong to a party in which everyone has the opportunity to speak about issues which are close to him. I am all the more proud that I can depend on a Minister of Transport who, before taking a final decision on such a controversial and nationally important issue as that of the Crowsnest rate, gives us an opportunity to discuss the whole matter in this House so that we may have a preliminary discussion and make, together and collectively, an enlightened decision in this regard. This reflects the will of the Government to consult the Canadian people and I thank the Minister for it.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to tell anyone interested that we are open to discussion on the Hall Commission Report, that we are open to all points of views, that we are open to the necessary consensus of all parties involved to make an enlightened decision, and especially one which will take into account the unity of Canada and the various interests involved. Many interested groups from Quebec have outlined the parameters of this discussion. Everyone knows that the Union des producteurs agricoles and the Cooperative federee du Quebec have made submissions, and if I may, I would like to quote a few passages which should confirm the consensus and meet with the approval of my colleagues in this House. Let us look first at the UPA proposals, and I quote:
As concerns the Canadian grains policy, the concept of equity between East and West is based on three components: First, a single domestic market for grains, which means a single price throughout Canada for grain users, except for differences related to transportation costs. Second, if there is to be equity, the balance has to be maintained between grain and meat transportation costs so that the meat production industry can develop in both Eastern and Western Canada based on production efficiency. Finally, the concept of equity also requires that any assistance or benefit given by the Federal Government to Canadian grain producers be available to all producers concerned, whatever their region.
Mr. Speaker, I hope nobody in this House will dare suggest the opposite, and I hope they will agree with me that equity is the fundamental and most important parameter to be kept
clearly in mind in order that the end result will not favour one part of Canada while harming another.
In another quote from UPA, it was stressed that producers firmly believe that the neutrality of payments must first and foremost be analyzed on the basis of their future impact on Canadian agriculture rather than on the basis of past results of a policy that was then different.
Mr. Speaker, the concept of neutrality of our resources is another basic and fundamental aspect that should be kept in mind in this debate. Although our country's economic complexity seems obvious to me, my hope is to attain, with all my colleagues, and as soon as practicable, some sort of neutrality in the interests of the country as a whole, and especially of Canadian agriculture.
Mr. Speaker, allow me another quote: "The payment method should not distort the forces of the marketplace by pinning down the production and marketing structures of Canadian agriculture." Once more, this is a vital aspect in this debate.
Finally, a last quote from the evidence submitted by the Union des producteurs agricoles and the Cooperative federee du Quebec. "If we are not to rewrite history and create clearly destabilizing effects on Eastern Canadian agriculture, especially in Quebec, it is our view that Bill C-155 is the most neutral solution possible at this stage, the least disruptive for Canada as a whole, and the most in line with the history of the past 87 years."
Of course, Mr. Speaker, I am quoting here from two well-known organizations in Quebec, two organizations which are strong and which very aptly represent producers. And it is my view, as a Member of Parliament, as a Member from Quebec, that we will have the decency to closely follow those recommendations and try-as certainly we will succeed-to reach with all our Western colleagues an agreement that will give each Canadian farmer his fair share.
Mr. Speaker, the submissions from which I have just quoted were presented to the Hall Commission on November 2, 1984. To my knowledge, this still represents the position of these two powerful farm organizations. I wanted to read their views to make all Canadians and all Members of this House understand how much this issue concerns Quebec and all the other Canadian provinces.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that it is essential to consider the whole Crow benefit issue in the context of the future of agriculture in Canada, and in my case, more specifically in the context of agriculture in Quebec, always taking into account the principle of national equity and fairness so that Canadian farmers will feel at ease whether they live in Quebec, in Alberta or in British Columbia.
December, 4, 1985

Selling Canadian federalism to Quebecers-and when 1 look at my colleague for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau), 1 cannot help thinking about it-is first and foremost selling the concept of equity in sharing the resources available to develop and promote our agricultural industry.
Mr. Speaker, for a Quebecer, Canadian federalism also means having the constant political will to ensure justice and equal opportunities for all Canadian farm producers. We in Quebec consider that Canadian federalism must first of all promote our collective interests. If I may, I would like to remind each Member of this House that this is the major reason why they were elected.
In this regard, I would like to quote the words of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), who stated in Prince Albert that the whole issue of the Crow benefits had to be related to the principle of equal opportunities for the economic development of all regions in Canada.
I sincerely believe-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Do it!


Michel Champagne: I will try! I sincerely believe that the concept of equity and equal opportunities expounded by the Prime Minister is the basic principle of all the policies proposed by our party.
This is a policy aimed at building a strong and stable agricultural industry in all Canadian regions and at promoting the development of the natural assets of each region.
As the Hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) himself said: "Our objective is to implement an efficient and productive grain transport system to assure maximum benefits for the agricultural sector and the country as a whole."
Mr. Speaker, as I said shortly, not a single Liberal Member from Quebec dared to rise to recall these great concepts of equity and fairness which must permeate our Canadian agricultural policy as a whole.
As Riverolles put it: "It is a great privilege to do nothing, but it is hard not to abuse it." Mr. Speaker, it should be pointed out that the Liberals did nothing. I ask the people in Quebec, the farm producers, to remember that the Liberals decided not to pay for crop losses in 1983. I want to remind Quebec and Canadian farm producers that the former Government refused to pay $27 million for the crop losses. Remember, Mr. Speaker, when the previous Government turned down the request made by all the producers in Canada for a longterm dairy policy that would recognize the interests of every individual and every region. Remember the Liberals did nothing. Remember, Mr. Speaker, when the Liberals let farming interest rates soar to 17 per cent. Look at what happened. The Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) should be listening, because at that moment he was in Toronto, a rich city. He should listen to what happened.
Crow Benefit Payment
What happened is that Canadian farmers, farmers in his constituency and in mine lost their farms-


An Hon. Member:: They went belly up.


Michel Champagne: -because of the failure of an irresponsible Government to act on farming.
Mr. Speaker, they did nothing. I will stop with this. You kept silent then when speaking was in order. 1 appreciate that the truth hurts, and this is why the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell is yelling.
However, Mr. Speaker, I will conclude on that, for fear of imposing upon your kindness. And anyway the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell knows very well that Canadian farm producers understood that on September 4, 1984.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, like other Canadians and at the request of the Minister of Transport himself, we from Quebec will have an opportunity over the coming weeks to further strenghten our common position, which is very firm on that whole question of the Crow rate.
Let me simply point out that Quebec farmers and their representatives in this House will share the prevailing ideals of fairness and equity; they will have discussions with all their Canadian colleagues, whether they are farm producers or Members of Parliament, in order to reach, more than ever in this Confederation which we have a duty to build, a national consensus, a policy under which we shall be respecting every Canadian man and woman across our nation.


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to join in this debate with respect to the Western Grain Transportation Act. I wish to commence my remarks by complimenting the Hon. Member for Champlain (Mr. Champagne) on his maiden speech in the House of Commons. I also wish to compliment him on the way in which he was able to respond to the inappropriate interventions from this side of the House. I congratulate him on a very fine presentation.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Iain Francis Angus: I rise to support the amendment which I had the honour to second, which states that this House rejects the transfer of the Crow benefit payments from the railroads to the producers as recommended in the Hall Committee Report. As I listened to the Hon. Member for Champlain (Mr. Champagne), I realized that so often we in this House, and I think people across Canada, see the Western Grain Transportation Act as something which only affects the prairie Provinces. Nothing could be further from the truth. It affects the three prairie Provinces, yes, but it also affects Ontario, Quebec and Atlantic Canada. It does affect producers in each of those provinces in terms of transportation. I, like my colleague, the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin), say that this

December 4, 1985
Crow Benefit Payment
is a transportation subsidy not an agricultural or grain subsidy, and we should look at it in that context. The movement of grain from the prairie Provinces through the Port of Thunder Bay-half of which 1 represent-is part of the backbone of the economy of a lot of eastern Canada. The grain which moves through Thunder Bay is upwards sometimes of 23 million tonnes for export. As we note how it flows through the transportation system, we realize how broadly the Grain Transportaton Act affects the economy. Twelve per cent of the grain handled in Thunder Bay is also handled in the Port of Montreal; 7 per cent in Sorel; 7 per cent in Trois-Rivieres; 15 per cent in Quebec City. Saint John and Halifax both handle 2 per cent of the export grains which move through my port. Significantly, 37 per cent of the grain which moves on those rail lines from Manitoba through Thunder Bay is transshipped through the two ports of the riding of Manicouagan- which is the riding held by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney) of this country-21 per cent in Port Cartier and 16 per cent in Baie Comeau. Clearly, whatever happens on the Prairies will be felt all the way through that system.
If there is a situation where more grain is moving in an easterly direction, then all of those communities will benefit both directly and indirectly. If, on the other hand, for some reason the movement of grain through the eastern leg of our export situation is reduced, then we hurt all the way through. We hurt in Manitoba in terms of rail jobs and services. We hurt in Thunder Bay in terms of grain handling jobs, marine jobs and the other spinoff jobs in the community. The same could be said all the way through the Great Lakes into the St. Lawrence River up to Atlantic Canada.
I rise in the House today to support the motion that we continue to pay the Crown benefit to the railroads rather than to the individual producer. There are a number of things which will happen out there in the grain industry if there is not a national policy in effect. With changes in pricing and rates, the individual farmer would have to make a very hard decision between supporting the Canadian economy on a broad base and recognizing the limitations of his own income and opting for an avenue of transportation which, while it would be beneficial to him, could be hurtful to other Canadians. It is no different from decisions individual Canadians make all the time about whether they buy a Canadian product or something which is produced in another country. It does not matter whether it is shoes or automobiles or a decision about which method to use to ship one's grain. If it is left to the individual, he will naturally look at his own finances and, of necessity, he would have to go with the lowest price.
But we, as a nation, have some responsibility. We provide a Crow benefit to ensure that our export grains can be moved to an export position in a manner which allows us to compete in the world markets. I think we have to stay with that concept, and the only way we can do that is by continuing to make the payments to the railroads. It is extremely efficient to do that. We only have to write out two cheques per year. If we pay to the producers, we will have to establish a very large bureaucracy, which will increase the administrative costs of providing
that same benefit. For that reason alone, I think this Government should reject the Hall recommendation and keep the legislation the way it is and pay the railroads a transportation subsidy.
Having said that, I would like to point out that there needs to be some changes in the kind of allocations and some provision for those improvements in the transportation system about which the Minister talks, so that on a national basis we can ensure that our grain products can continue to move to an export position and be able to compete in the world market.
A lot of the grain which Canada produces moves through the Port of Thunder Bay. In fact, historically, 60 per cent of that grain has been shipped eastward, primarily to customers in Europe, Russia and other countries in that general neck of the woods. But in recent years, the balance has begun to shift to a point where today less than 50 per cent of that grain is moving through the Port of Thunder Bay. With that reduction have come lay-offs, and not only in Thunder Bay, although we have suffered the greatest amount of lay-offs. This summer, for instance, we had over 1,200 of our people out of work. That was felt all the way down the Seaway system. We have seen unemployment levels of around 45 per cent to 50 per cent in some of the communities in Quebec which are involved in grain movement. Eighty per cent of the business of my port is grain movement, so you can appreciate, Mr. Speaker, why it is so important to me and my colleague, the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp), that we keep fighting to ensure that we continue to get our fair share. If the Government decides to accept the Hall Report and its recommendations, then we will no longer get our historical and fair share of the grain movement.
The movement of grain is under attack from many sources. In another place in this capital city of ours, we will be dealing with an Act which will allow the Government to charge for coastguard services. That will add to the cost of moving grain east and west. It will add to the cost of dredging and ice-breaking and navigational aids. That will make us less competitive. The Laurentian Pilotage Authority has asked for increases in excess of 60 per cent. The CTC has held hearings but has yet to report on whether it will allow those increases to occur. This summer the cost of weighing our grain which is charged back to the producer and the elevator operators has gone up. The S30 million dollar carve out, as proposed by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) in this past spring's budget to take $30 million from the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority, is going to force the tolls up.
Most recently a gentleman by the name of Esmond Jarvis from the Canadian Wheat Board proposed that we legislate geography, that we no longer say that the midpoint between western movements of grain and eastern movements of grain is somewhere around Saskatchewan but that we move it to the Manitoba/Ontario border. It would henceforth become cheaper to move grain from Winnipeg to Vancouver than to Thunder Bay, which is only some 400 miles away.
December 4, 1985

We are being attacked on all sides. If the Government accepts the Hall Committee Report it will be one more nail in the coffin of the port of Thunder Bay. We cannot allow that to happen. We cannot allow any of these things to happen.
We have to continue with our traditional balance of grain movements in this country to ensure that those jobs that exist today can be retained where they are and not shifted to another part of this country or to another country. That is what will happen if we become less and less competitive.
We are already fighting subsidies provided by the Americans and by the EEC to their grain producers. The last thing that we in Canada should be doing is adding costs to our own products.
Mr. Speaker, 1 do not want to prolong this because I am hoping that the request that my colleague from Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) at the end of his remarks-


Donald Frank Mazankowski: New rules!


An Hon. Member:: No new speakers!


Iain Francis Angus: Well, we offered the opportunity for the other Parties not to put up speakers but they chose to do so and, in fairness, we have to have some balance.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: The truth has to be heard.


Iain Francis Angus: But 1 am going to have to conclude my remarks early. That would allow one more speaker 20 minutes and still afford an opportunity for a vote on this very important question. 1 think it is time that all three Parties in this House give a clear indication where they stand on the issue of paying the Crown benefit, whether to the producer or to the railroads. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Raymond Garneau (Laval-des-Rapides):: Mr. Speaker, I believe today's debate is very timely, especially in the context of the current situation in agriculture. 1 had the privilege, together with a few of my colleagues, to go on a tour that brought us around Western Canada where we met with many farmers. Within 15 days, we visited some 15 communities from Winnipeg to Vancouver.
At each of these communities, between 8 and 12 briefs were presented to us, at the level of the national caucus of the Liberal Party of Canada, by farm producers' organizations, including the wheat pools, dairy producers, grain producers and in fact just about every commodity groups, and 1 was able to see first hand just how precarious the farm situation is in Western Canada, especially because of bad weather, including the drought and grasshoppers that devastated a significant part of the acreage, but also because of the cost price squeeze, the ever rising costs of production and the sharp reduction in the price of wheat resulting in an ever shrinking profit margin. So there is great anxiety in the agricultural sector.
Mr. Speaker, 1 would not want to digress too far from the motion we are debating; however, I suggest we cannot put this
Crow Benefit Payment
debate in its proper context without referring somewhat to the general situation in agriculture and without mentioning that the Hall report raises considerable concern and that farmers and commodity producers in Western Canada are anxious to learn about the position of the Government because of the impact it will have on their financial planning for the next few years.
I have noticed that most of the briefs that were presented to us, particularly by wheat producers in Manitoba and Saskatchewan, as well as by producers in British Columbia and Alberta, although the production is much lower in the latter Province, that most of the briefs that were presented to us in the Western Provinces insist heavily on the issue of wheat transportation and the manner in which payments or grants would be paid out.
I would not want to make a mistake or to risk quoting figures that could be misleading, but I would say offhand that some 75 per cent of briefs that were presented to us by various commodity groups and especially by wheat pools indicated a strong preference for maintaining the present legislation, that is, for continuing to issue payments to railways rather than to producers.
I must admit that in Alberta the reverse was true; however, when looking at the whole picture, it seemed to me that the view expressed in the briefs that were presented to us was, on the whole, abundantly clear. Moreover, on both sides of the matter, people are concerned because they cannot figure out what will be the position of the Government.
Turning now to the situation in the East, that is in Quebec, in the Atlantic provinces and also in parts of Ontario, there are also great concerns in these areas, and the motion introduced by my colleague from Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) is certainly timely. Indeed, it could give the government the opportunity to reassure Western Canada producers, to bring them up to date on the issue while at the same time reassuring producers in the East. Obviously, significant amounts are at stake-some $650 million a year, as far as we can estimate. This is therefore a most significant amount in the overalll farming economy.
I listened earlier to my colleague the Hon. Member for Champlain (Mr. Champagne), and of course this was his maiden speech in this House, so it seems. It had not occurred to me that after a year and a half, there were still Progressive Conservative Members who had not not risen in this House. I apologize for that. I did not know it was his maiden speech. Had I known, 1 might have left out some remarks I made, but apart from that context of a maiden speech, I have to tell him he should be careful in his second speech. Apparently he forgot which political party introduced that legislation. But I am also looking forward to his stating, in the second speech he hopefully will be making very soon, whether he supports the Hall Report or not. He spoke for 20 minutes or so. He blamed the

December 4, 1985
Crow Benefit Payment
Liberals for all kinds of things, but he still has to tell us what he, as a Progressive Conservative Member for Champlain, and his party were going to do. Lie quoted the UPA. Lie quoted the Cooperative Federee, and I am convinced that the UPA in particular would have been very pleased to learn that from a Progressive Conservative Member, and much more so from the Minister.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, the UPA is now holding their convention in Quebec City. It is their annual convention. 1 believe they will be sitting today, tomorrow, Friday and Saturday. Their discussions will deal with orientations. I am sure that the UPA during this convention would have appreciated being told by the Hon. Member for Champlain or another Member from Quebec what the Quebec Conservative caucus will do about that Hall Report. He did not tell us. He pointed out that apparently in years past the previous Government did ... Mr. Speaker, that is a typical Conservative comment.
Looking at the speeches that were made during the debate on that Bill by our Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski), who was then the Opposition critic, reading through his comments, we find all kinds of objections to the Bill that was then being discussed, but it is impossible to know whether he supported it or not. And that is today's problem in the farming economy. Perhaps my colleague from Western Canada will rise later and tell us what will be the policy of this Progressive Conservative Government. That is the main thrust of our motion.
They can blame the Liberals for all sorts of sins committed in the past, but they certainly cannot blame them for lacking courage, because there is a statute in our books that was put in there by the Liberal Party when it was in Government.
We may have made errors, Mr. Speaker. I was not a member of that Government, I was not even a Member in this House. The Liberal Party may have made errors with respect to that issue, but there is now in this House an overwhelming Conservative majority. What we are asking them is quite simply this: What are you going to do? You have criticized the new method for making payments in respect of wheat transportation, you have the Hall Report in front of you, you have the representations as quoted earlier by a colleague that were made by the UPA and the Cooperative federee, but he did not say whether he was for or against, but it does not matter. There are representations which we ourselves, which I myself have received during my visit to Western Canada, and it is up to you now, since you are no longer in the Opposition, after criticizing for years, it is up to you to take a stand on that Crow issue. Are you going to get rid of it? Are you going to maintain it? Are you going to let everyone choose for himself so that there will be complete chaos? What are you going to do about the Saint Lawrence river ports? Will everything be moved to the Manicouagan constituency and will the silos in Montreal and Quebec City be closed?
All these questions are related to the discussion we have had today, and in my opinion, it would be appropriate for the Government Members to explain their plans not only to us, as Members of the Opposition, but also to the Canadian farmers, who are doubly concerned because of what they were promised.
Mr. Speaker, as Deputy Speaker of this House, I know that you cannot take sides in partisan debates, but you heard like myself Quebec Members say during the electoral campaign: The Crowsnest will never be changed. When travelling in Western Canada, however, I learned that the Conservative Members of Parliament were saying just the opposite during the campaign. We now have an opportunity to know who was telling the truth: Conservative candidates in Western Canada or Conservative candidates in Quebec. As for us, we have already made our position clear. If there was a political price to pay, we have paid it. It is up to you now to decide and tell Canadian producers what you are going to do.
Mr. Speaker, Canadian farmers have many grounds for concern, and I must point out that another one was added today when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) made his statement about the minimum tax. This affects Canadian farmers directly because, if we read the documents we have received, after having announced to the farmers that they would enjoy a capital gains tax exemption of up to $500,000 during the fiscal year they sell their farms-and the Minister should listen carefully because he might want to convince his colleague to change this-the Minister of Finance now tells them that, if they have zero taxable income during the fiscal year when they sell their farm for $250,000, $300,000 or $500,000, because of the way this is written, they will have to pay 12.5 per cent taxes on their capital gains.
I do not know whether this was the intention of the Minister of Finance. I have reread this document and I could even quote certain parts by heart. I am very glad to have drawn the attention of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) to this issue, but I would like to invite him to read the information on the minimum tax in paragraph 4 on page 4 under "Capital gains and losses", where we see, for instance, that the part of capital gains which entitled taxpayers to the life exemption will be taxed at the federal rate-


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I know that from time to time a debate like this can be rather broad and far-ranging, but I am not sure what capital gains has to do with the method of payment of the Crow rate.


Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, I think it is appropriate to tell Canadian farmers that they should not cross the Government. They should not cross it as far as the Crow rate is concerned, particularly Quebec farmers, but also those in Manitoba,
December 4, 1985

Saskatchewan, B.C., and Alberta. Two of my colleagues and I spent 15 days in western Canada.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: You can spend 15 years and you will not understand the west.


Raymond Garneau: We listened to many, many briefs. During the electoral campaign in Quebec some of the Conservative candidates were campaigning to keep the Crow as it is. I have been told that the Conservative candidates in the west were campaigning against the Bill. There comes a time when we should know the truth. That is why the farmers do not trust the Government.
There is an additional reason not to trust the Government, and that is the declaration made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) this afternoon. At page 4 of the documentation tabled this afternoon it states that those who have a capital gain will have to pay 12.5 per cent on it. The year that a farmer sells his farm with a capital gain of $300,000 he will have to pay a minimum tax. This declaration comes only a few months after the same Minister of Finance and all the Conservative Members were praising the capital gains exemption as the thing which will save agriculture. Now they are coming back through the side door and imposing a 12.5 per cent tax on capital gains on farms.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is about time the Conservative Members of Quebec and elsewhere should stop playing hide-and-seek and speak the same language instead of doing like the Hon. Member for Champlain (Mr. Champagne) who quotes from statements made by other people but fails to take position himself. I would tell them that it is time for a debate on this motion that will give the Government an opportunity to take a position and tell the farmers who are now looking after their books, because this is their slack season and they will be sowing in the spring, what decisions will be made. I urge the Government to take advantage of this debate and refrain from playing hide-and-seek and to let us know what will be the position of the Tory Government on the Hall Report.


Mr. Lee Clark (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, to begin with, I would like to congratulate the Hon. Member for Champlain (Mr. Champagne) for his fine speech.

I wish also, Mr. Speaker, to reply to some of the comments just offered by the Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau). As happens so often with the Party which he represents, he has attempted to create confusion in many parts of Canada by spreading fear and apprehension. I know that the statement offered by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) today will be extremely well received by the people of Canada because they have been saying it is very important that all Canadians pay an equitable share of taxation. I believe that in the end the statement offered by the Minister today will meet a desire of Canadians.
Crow Benefit Payment
I want to remind you, Mr. Speaker, other Canadians, and members of the Official Opposition, that Canadian farmers well remember which Party introduced the capital gains tax, and they will also remember very clearly which party nullified the capital gains tax for Canadian farmers.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: The debate today is not on capital gains or on the minimum tax. The debate today is required by legislation dealing with the operation of the Western Grain Transportation Act at this particular time. Today we are taking a very important step in that process, a process which involves consultation with Canadian farmers and farm organizations. The process requires than an impartial committee be struck which is representative of the industry in Canada. It requires that committee to report to the House, and that the report, having been made to the House, be examined by Members of the House and then be presented to the Minister for his consideration.
The members of the Official Opposition have contributed a considerable amount of confusion to the debate this afternoon. I wish to stress that right now we are in the midst of this very important process. It is very appropriate that the Government should come before the House today and participate in this debate on the motion presented by the Official Opposition. Let us remind ourselves of that process and how it is unfolding. While we may be aware of it, I suspect that many Canadians are not. Unfortunately, if they only listen to the speeches by members of the Official Opposition I believe they will become more confused.
I remind Hon. Members and all Canadians that the legislation required that a committee be struck to examine the Western Grain Transportation Act and its implementation. This was done according to the statute. That committee was struck in 1984 and began its process of hearings as required by the legislation. The legislation required that it make a report to the Minister on or before March 31. Those recommendations were presented to the Minister and, as required by the legislation, were tabled in the House. There is provision within the regulations for Members of the House to request a debate, under certain regulations, and that is the debate which is taking place.
Let me point out that there has been a substantial change in the way Parliament operates. Our Government is in the midst of a process of consultation with farmers and farm organizations.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: As required in the Bill.


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: That is required in the legislation. Indeed, it has been carried out because the Government is committed to consultation. With all due respect to members of the Official Opposition, it seems that they have not realized that a change occurred over a year ago with the election of a Government that was committed to a process of consultation.

December 4, 1985
Crow Benefit Payment
Therefore, we do not enter into this process with preconceived decisions. We do not enter into this process under a facade of consultation. We genuinely have sought and continue to seek the input of farmers and farm organizations from all regions of Canada, as pointed out by the Member for Champlain (Mr. Champagne).
We are also extremely fortunate that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski), unlike his predecessor who spoke earlier this afternoon, sincerely believes that the way to good Government is to work in co-operation with the provinces, the organizations, individuals and all Members of the House. Such a process has not existed for a long time. I speak as a historian as well as a Member of Parliament. I have been here for two and a half years but as a historian in Canadian politics I know that such a process has been lacking for the last two decades. Therefore, perhaps it is understandable that members of the Official Opposition are confused that we have no preconceived position on this extremely important issue.
The issue we are concerned with today has been of immense importance to western Canadians since 1897. Unfortunately, those listening to the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) may have come to the conclusion that the Crow's Nest Pass Agreement came into effect in 1881.
This agreement was very much a fabric of western Canada. Canadians will know that in 1897 the railways received certain benefits from the Government of Canada to construct the line through the Crow's Nest Pass, which is so much an integral part of British Columbia. In return for that financial compensation and acreage compensation which the railways received in 1897, the farmers of Canada were guaranteed a certain concession with respect to freight rates into the future.
A couple of years ago the Government of the day-the Official Opposition today-decided to change what had been a perpetual agreement up to that time. I will not repeat the debate which took place at that time, when we debated this issue into the early morning hours.
The point is that the legislation under which we are operating now was passed as a result of the decision by the Official Opposition, which was the Government of the day. It is important to understand that the so-called Crow gap, what is now called the grain transportation refund, was part of a package that was put together two years ago to compensate those western Canadian farmers who were injured as a result of that policy change. Many western farmers would have preferred that that policy change never took place two years ago. Indeed, they would prefer that we never became involved in the question of the Crow gap involving some $650 million or the question of how it should be paid. Nevertheless, we must live with that decision because it is the law of the land. It is an irrevocable change.
We are now concerned with a review of how that policy is operating. Let me stress that we are not talking about a new policy of subsidy implemented some two years ago. We are concerned with compensation for a policy that was enunciated some 80 years ago and changed two years ago.
The difficulty we face with this issue is that we are attempting to govern during a time of real financial crisis. Canadian farmers are suspicious about any policy change, the suggestion of a change or, indeed, any suggestion that would raise doubts about the future.
I say with all confidence that our Government has done more for agriculture in 15 months than any Government in Canadian history over a comparable period of time. However, despite what we have done and will continue to do there remains a financial crisis among farmers which must be addressed, as well as a tremendous suspicion within that farm community.
With all due respect to members of the Official Opposition, I believe that that suspicion which has been growing in western Canada is part of the legacy left to us when we came to office some 15 months ago. I am pleased to see that my hon. friend, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie), agrees with me for once. We regret that this legacy exists and that there was cause for such suspicion, but it is a fact. Therefore, when we address a question as important as this we must proceed with all caution so that we do not add to the suspicion or cynicism that exists.
That is why our strategy of consultation is exceedingly important. Philosophically speaking, I believe that this should be a strategy followed by any Government. However, it is particularly important at this time.
The Hon. Minister is reassuring Canadian farmers and I do not believe that there is another Minister in the Government or previous Governments who is better suited for the task with which he is appointed than the present Minister. I have every confidence that the Minister will proceed in such a way that he will reassure those various farm organizations that do not agree on this subject that their sensitivities and fears are being carefully considered.
The Canadian Federation of Agriculture was in Ottawa some three weeks ago to attend meetings. One of the highlights of that week was their meeting with the Prime Minister and 18 Cabinet Ministers. I believe that is an event such as has not taken place in recent times. I asked the Canadian Federation of Agriculture what they felt about the method of payment issue. It was not that they did not have any attitudes. Of course they had many, but they had no position. We recognize the issue which we are addressing as being extremely important for many reasons.
As I have said already, people are very apprehensive about anything which would work to their financial disadvantage. It is an exceedingly complex issue which is not well understood in various parts of Canada. Perhaps it is fair to say that it is not well understood by farm organizations in any region of Canada. There is still a considerable amount of confusion.
What we have is a report of an inquiry which tried honestly and sincerely to listen to farm groups and to alleviate some of their fears. It has tried to come up with a reform which is "resource neutral", in its own words. The committee of inquiry
December 4, 1985

went in that direction and sought a solution which would not injure any particular sector of the Canadian agricultural community.
1 remind the House that there is a recommendation in the Hall report that compensation should be paid to any segment of the agricultural community, should it be established through due process that indeed there was injury. The fear that there might be injury and the possibility of dealing with that injury are recognized in this report.
Also there was an attempt in the report to alleviate some concerns about the previous recommendation of acreage payments. This report abandoned that particular proposal and talked about net grain sales. I think that is a step forward in that regard. However, there are some remaining problems in that particular part of the report, as I see it and as was expressed to me by farmers. There is a fear remaining about the difficulty of monitoring sales between farmers. Also there is some fear that farmers who are feeding their own grain might divide into a grain enterprise and a cattle enterprise and try to take advantage of the proposed changes. These types of concerns remain and stress the importance of the process of continued consultation.
I am sure Hon. Members of the Opposition realize that this is an ongoing process throughout this crop year. In essence, it began some 12 months or so ago. However, the Minister is required, by the end of the crop year, to have considered these recommendations. That is why the debate is occurring today. I am sure there will be other opportunities in the future for it to be continued. This is an ongoing process. I think we are looking at some seven additional months, and 1 hope within the course of that seven months that there will be adequate opportunity for various farm organizations to reach a definitive position. Also I hope there is an opportunity for farm organizations which fear some of the implications of the report to speak directly with each other.
It seems to me, as political scientists and historians have said, that Canada is a very difficult country to govern because regionalism, which is so much a part of us, tends to be divisive. One way to lessen that regionalism is for those people who represent the different regions of Canada, whether they be Members of Parliament or part of the farm community, to have a chance to come together and perhaps informally meet on common ground to discuss their differences.
The Hon. Member for Champlain made an exceedingly important point today. He stressed that under the new Government, which has been in place for 15 months, he felt perfectly comfortable in rising as a representative of his province, on behalf of his constituents, and expressing their concerns. He felt that he could do that in an atmosphere where such debate was welcome. Other Hon. Members feel equally comfortable in the process. I believe I may be followed by one of my hon. friends from the Province of Alberta. I know that he, too, feels equally comfortable entering into this debate. The essence of the parliamentary process is that those of us who represent varying constituencies which sometimes have conflicting points of view must have the opportunity to express those points of
Crow Benefit Payment
view. In fact, later this evening we will be discussing parliamentary reform as a result of the "McGrath" report which is before the House. If I understand that report correctly, that is one of the main principles in it. The parliamentary part of the process which began today is an important step in the direction of parliamentary reform.
I want to conclude by saying that a great deal of discussion must yet occur. Although many of the farm organizations are not yet in agreement, whether they be in western Canada or elsewhere in the country, what we are doing today is setting the stage. We look forward to being a part of that process. I compliment Hon. Members who participated in this debate. Even though in western Canada we see this as being primarily a western Canadian issue, for historic and economic reasons, I am delighted that all Hon. Members of the House feel comfortable in participating, and I congratulate them on their contributions today.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I realize-


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I thought you wanted a vote on this.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: I understand that there cannot be a vote. I know that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski), except on occasions when he disagrees with me, is very seldom wrong. I will take his word for that. However, on this occasion I want to reflect upon what happened to the statutory grain rate and to remind Hon. Members of the great things which were predicted by both railways if the Crow rate were to be changed.
In particular, I refer to something which happened this year as a result of an arbitrary action taken by one of the railways. I understand that a great many Hon. Members are concerned about it. I am referring to the arbitrary action of Canadian Pacific in depriving its pensioners of their pass rights. Many Members on all sides of the House have expressed concern about this matter. I am not aware of anyone in the House who supports the CPR in that action. I am sure almost all of us have CPR pensioners in our ridings and will therefore know how much of an insult this was to them, even though many of them may not use their passes. The amount of money which it costs CPR for those who use them is a very insignificant one indeed. However, that was the generous corporate response of a company that got its way with the change in the Crow rate and received $300 million per year which it otherwise would not have received. What was its response? Its response was to act in a mean, stingy, cold-hearted way toward its pensioners. I just wanted to put that on the record.
The other railway in the country, Canadian National, along with CPR, has responded in general through a systematic reduction in its employee levels. It has responded by trying to do away with what we regard as important processes for worker and public safety, such as the preservation of cabooses on trains. I do not have time to go into the record of the railways and their responses to getting what they wanted in terms of the Crow rate, but it has been an abominable one.

December 4, 1985
Reform of the House of Commons
They have not shown the generosity one might expect from a recipient of this largesse from the public purse. They have not proceeded to deliver the kinds of jobs which they promised their employees. Many people in railway shops across the country were called in and showed nice movies about all the jobs that would be created. Since then we have had nothing but lay-off after lay-off. In fact, I was informed by CNR just yesterday that another 93 positions are to be eliminated at the Transcona shop. This is the kind of response we have had. Also we have had an unwillingness or a reluctance, shall we say, on the part of the Government to go ahead with other related programs, such as the boxcar rehabilitation program which came about as a result of a federal-provincial agreement. We have seen a third of that program implemented at Transcona. We have another two-thirds to go. That two-thirds is not happening yet. Instead, what do we have? We have more lay-offs at the shop.
I just want to put on the record that I think the behaviour of the railways following the change in the Crow Rate has not lived up to the promises they made to the Canadian people, and to a certain extent the Canadian people and Parliament itself, at least those who voted for the change, were hoodwinked by the railways.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to the order made earlier this day, the House will now proceed to the next order of business.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Donald Frank Mazankowski: That this House take note of the matter of reform of the House of Commons.


Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It will be one year ago tomorrow since this House established a special committee on reform. In so doing, Sir, it embarked on the most ambitious and comprehensive reform ever undertaken by any Commonwealth Parliament. This is the first opportunity we have had since that time to discuss the committee's reports, although much has taken place since the committee was struck.
We already have in place the recommendations of the first report on a provisional basis. Before dealing with that, though, I want to take this opportunity to thank my six colleagues on the committee who gave so selflessly of their time and who put so much effort and energy into the work of the committee. I want to thank especially my two Opposition colleagues, the
Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) who served as first vice-chairman of the committee and the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie), who was the second vicechairman of the committee. They, Sir, together with my colleagues on this side of the House, the Hon. Member for Argenteuil-Papineau (Mrs. Bourgault), the Hon. Member for Peace River (Mr. Cooper), the Hon. Member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Ellis) and the Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen) were able to rise above narrow partisanship and take the broader view, thereby taking up the challenges presented to them by the Government and this House.
They brought to the task a personal commitment, a commitment to make this a better and more effective place to deal with the business of the nation. Critical to this was their commitment to enhance the role of the private Member. 1 want as well to acknowledge the work of the alternate members of the committee and the 83 Members of this House who made submissions to the committee.
We brought to our task almost 100 years of parliamentary experience. As well, we had the professional support of the most able people who serve us in this place. I mention this because of the many new Members of this House who came here 15 months ago full of high hopes and great expectations. 1 can say to them that the frustrations that they experienced are well known to us who were already here. They expected great things from us and their ongoing interest served as a constant reminder of the importance of our mandate and the challenge inherent in it.
The House will be interested in knowing that in the 55 formal meetings of the committee, which included visits to the national Parliaments of Great Britain, France, the Federal Republic of Germany and the United States, there was not one single division. There were no heated partisan exchanges. As a consequence, the committee was able to reach consensus on the 82 recommendations contained in the three reports. The result, in my opinion, is a package of reform which would change the way this place functions in an important and fundamental way-change the way it functions in an important and fundamental way for the benefit of all Canadians.
Therefore, tonight I express the hope that this will not be a partisan debate. Were we to engage in such a partisan exchange we would destroy not only the letter but the spirit of these reforms. We are not here to score partisan points in this debate. We are not here to discuss the benefits or emoluments accruing to Members. Nor, Sir, for that matter are we here to cater to the complacent and the self-satisfied.
The fundamental question that each of us should ask ourselves tonight is what do the people of Canada expect of us? Are we who are here on their behalf satisfied with the way we conduct the business of this nation? Are we satisfied with the procedures already in place to hold the Crown accountable for the way it spends the taxpayers' money? What you have before you tonight are the efforts of seven private Members who attempted in the recommendations of the committee to address these important questions.
December 4, 1985

I would like now to pay tribute to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) for it was the commitment of the Prime Minister to the people of Canada to reform Parliament that resulted in the setting up of the special committee. The first priority of this Government in the Speech from the Throne called for the setting up of this special committee. I quote directly from the Speech from the Throne of last fall:
The central focus of this task force will be the enhancement of the role of the Private Member. From that prospect the task force will examine and make recommendations concerning the powers, practices, organization and resources of the House of Commons.
The Prime Minister never once wavered in that commitment. Not only that, he publicly supported the work of the committee throughout the life of its mandate. That commitment to this House by the Prime Minister can best be summed up by his words which, consequently, I found at page 823 of Hansard for December 3, 1984, one year ago, and I quote:
-what is emerging is a conflict between Parliament and the executive. 1 stand fully for the rights of Parliament.
Never in the history of this place has a Government, and I pay tribute to the Government House Leader, moved so quickly and so positively to implement the recommendations of a committee of this House. The recommendations of the first report which are now in place are dramatic testimony to that fact. When the Prime Minister agreed to give the committee the broadest possible mandate, he was by his vision challenging this House to reform itself. I hope, Sir, that we as Members of this House are up to that challenge.
Let me say that if we were to identify a philosophic thrust to the findings of this committee, it would have to be its attempt to enhance the role of the private Member and to provide for greater accountability by the executive to this House and its committees. That is the heart and soul of the committee's recommendations. That is what we at least attempted in our reports.
We have already set up legislative committees arising out of the recommendations of the first report. Let me say to my friend and colleague, the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn), that I believe it was a mistake on the part of the committee to recommend a floor on the size of those committees. In retrospect I believe that was a mistake. That would have been better left as a question to be negotiated by the Leaders of the House, through the work of the Striking Committee. I do not say that to address the configuration of this House because that would be a mistake, if we were to address the reforms to this Parliament. I say that because I think that is much better way to go about the business of the House. However, I would like to say this parenthetically: when we made that recommendation, we never envisaged a situation of having more than six or seven Bills before a committee at any one time, as that had been the record of the House up to that time. I would say to the House and to the leadership of the House that neither was it our intention that these legislative committees be struck after first reading. They were to be struck after second reading and that is clearly explicit in the
Reform of the House of Commons
recommendations of the committee. 1 hope the House will take that suggestion seriously.
I would like now to move on to the specifics of the Government's response to the committee's second and third reports. Time will not allow me to deal with all the recommendations, all the changes that have been made as a result of some of these recommendations, or every response of the Government for that matter. Rather, I would like to highlight some of the areas that the House may wish to reconsider, and indeed the Government House Leader in a spirit of reform may wish to reconsider.
To its credit, and to the credit of the Government House Leader, the Government is for the most part in the process of moving toward implementing many of the recommendations of the second and third reports. However, I am concerned about a number of areas and I will refer now to two recommendations contained in the second report.
The first concerns new voting procedures. I would like to have some explanation in this regard, that the 30-minute bell proposed in the Government's response would only be an interim measure in place until the House installed electronic voting devices. Otherwise, it would make no sense. After examining the experience of the electronic voting system in the U.S. House of Representatives, one would see that to have the machines activated for 30 minutes would really make no sense. What we are recommending here is that for the 15 minutes while the bells are ringing, the machines would be open and Members would come to vote. This must be taken as well in the context of the attitude of the House toward the convention of confidence, something which I believe has to change. We made no recommendations there but we addressed the matter in narrative form. The Minister has dealt with that as well.
I am also worried by the proposed changes in the Standing Orders as they relate to the new voting procedure. Paragraph 4 of the proposed Standing Order 13 seems to indicate that either the Government or the Opposition could delay any vote while the bells were ringing for a period of one day. I hope 1 am reading that wrong. This proposed change would certainly make the job of the Party Whips easier, but I think it would dramatically alter the accepted principle of the House and how it votes. It would be a backward step. For example, any contentious vote could simply be delayed until the Parties were satisfied they had the numbers here to deal with it. That is not reform.
In the committee's recommendations concerning the precincts of Parliament, we recommended an intendant. We did that because we were concerned that we had lost control over this place and its precincts. We acted from evidence presented to us by former Speakers and present Speakers. Things are happening here that do not have any reference to Parliament at all. Just a few months ago, they put a marquee tent on the grounds of Parliament, something which had no reference to this place. We had the sound and light show learning up the

December 4, 1985
Reform of the House of Commons
grounds of this place to turn the front lawn into a carnival without any reference to this place.
Surely we are responsible for this place and not the Department of Public Works or the bureaucrats from the National Capital Commission. I would plead with the Government not to tamper with that recommendation so that the proposed parliamentary intendant would become merely a co-ordinator between the Department of Public Works, the National Capital Commission, the Speaker of the House and the Speaker of the Senate. We want him to be in charge of this place, to execute our wishes on behalf of the people of Canada and to enhance and preserve this important part of Canada's national heritage.
Other than that, 1 am satisfied that the Government has moved with regard to the implementation of the recommendations of the second report. I hope the Minister or the House will reconsider those points, because the Government to its credit has not presented its response in a partisan fashion. It wants to hear from the House. I congratulate the Government House Leader and his colleagues for arranging for this debate.
The third report was tabled in the House on June 18 and is the basis for new provisional Standing Orders which will take effect next month.
One of the series of recommendations that we made in the first report was that all questions relating to confidence be removed from the Standing Orders. We did that because we felt that this was not the role of the Chair. It is not for the Chair to say when a Government should resign, when it has lost the confidence of the House or when it should not. That judgment and the responsibility for that judgment must be taken by the Government. Yet we have references to confidence restored to the Standing Orders by defining what is a free vote.
How can the Chair define what is or is not a free vote? How will the Chair be able to enforce the Standing Order if a Government is defeated on a measure which is defined in the Standing Orders as confidence yet the Government of the day decides not to resign? What happens then? The Chair is then left in the position of having a Standing Order that it in fact cannot enforce. I hope the Minister will give some thought to that.
We talked at great length about the myth surrounding questions of confidence that has grown up in this country. Governments should not have to resign when they are defeated on a Bill. All Parliament is saying is that we do not like the Bill, bring back a better one. If the Government gets defeated on a Budget, obviously it cannot function as it cannot get its Supply and it must resign. If it is defeated on a specific, explicit vote of confidence, then clearly it has to resign. But surely we should put in place reforms that will give the House an opportunity to express itself on legislation.
We know just as much if not more than those faceless people in the PCO who draft these Bills. Surely we should be given the opportunity to improve them. I would hope that the Government will take to heart the words of the eminent
constitutional expert, Senator Forsey, who produced a 323-page paper for the committee on the convention of confidence. He said: "Questions of confidence and their definition are best kept out of the Standing Orders altogether".
If we adopted the attitude necessary to restore to the House a new approach to the so-called confidence convention, we would by that very fact be restoring to the House an important role in the legislative function, a role which I do not believe it now has because there are no surprises in this House any more. We know how we are going to vote on every Bill that comes before the House because the Whips are on on every Bill. We asked a representative from Britain about the three-line Whips. He said that they have used the three-line Whip there so often that it has become a feather duster. We have used the three-line Whip in this country on every Bill. It is about time we changed that.
If I want to vote against a Bill because it is not in the interests of my constituents that should not mean that I have no confidence in the Government I support; nor should it mean that I am a maverick who makes the headlines and the national news that night. When we in the House reach the stage that that fact no longer makes news, we will have achieved one of the greatest reforms in the history of this Parliament.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: There are two other areas on which I wish to touch very briefly. We as a committee working with consensus felt that the heart and soul of parliamentary reform and the enhancement of the role of the private Member could best be done through a new committee system. We recommended a new Standing Committee system, and in order to ensure the independence of that committee system we recommended it be given its own budget, have its own ongoing mandate, be better equipped to hold the Government accountable during the examination of Estimates, and that Parliamentary Secretaries be excluded from membership on the committees.
There is a very important role for Parliamentary Secretaries to play and that is in piloting Bills through the legislative committees. In my view, they have no role on the Standing Committees. They may observe the proceedings but they should not in any way attempt, as surrogates of the Government, to interfere with the process of concensus and collegial-ity that will hopefully emerge from that new Standing Committee system.
Finally, I hope that the Government will accept our recommendations regarding Private Member's Business. Surely, that is something the House can deal with itself. My friend, the Hon. Member for Peace River, took the lead in putting those reforms together. It is one of the area, apart from the new committee system, about which we are most excited as members of the committee. We hope that the Government will give us a chance to function as legislators. The only way we can truly and fully function as legislators is if a new system with
December 4, 1985

regard to Private Member's Business is brought in. In this way, Bills will have a chance to become law. The last Private Member's Bill which became law in this place was a Bill establishing the beaver as Canada's national symbol. Who will take us seriously if we conduct ourselves in that fashion?
1 will not indulge myself on the time of the House. This is a special debate by Special Order. I have 20 minutes and my time is up. I wish to say to the House, the Government House Leader the Prime Minister and his colleagues in the Government how grateful I am for the opportunity which was given to me as one member of the committee to be a part of what I consider to be this exciting process of reform.
I hope in saying this that the Government will not lose the spirit which prompted it to start this reform process in the first place because if there is one thing this Government will be remembered for, among all others, it will be its determination to reform this place in order to make it more meaningful for the people of Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this special debate tonight and I would like, at the outset of my remarks, to congratulate the chairman of the special committee on the reform of the House of Commons, the previous speaker, for the speech he just delivered, but especially for the outstanding work he has done as chairman of that special committee. In my view, he was an inspiration for all members of the committee and he prompted us to work in a non partisan fashion. Our job was excessively difficult in some regards but I believe the results have been well received and even applauded like no other report from a Parliamentary committee has ever been before.
The media unanimously paid tribute to the hon. member who presided over that committee and unanimously expressed the hope that the Government will implement as soon as possible the recommendations contained in what is commonly referred to as the McGrath report.
That explains why I was somewhat surprised, Mr. Speaker, when I read the response to the recommendations contained in the second and third reports from the special committee on the reform of the House of Commons, response which has been submitted to us last October by the Government House Leader.
I suggest the recommendations made public at that time by the House leader can be viewed in two different ways. On the one hand, one can say that the government seems to be prepared to accept almost all recommendations suggested by the special committee. This approach, this reaction is of course that of an optimist. On the other hand, a pessimistic or partisan member of Parliament could react in an exactly opposite way because when one examines very carefully the response of the government, one realizes that only one of the
Reform of the House of Commons seven recommendations made in the second report is in fact immediately accepted by the government and that the six remaining are to be subjected to additional studies, consideration and discussion within the new Board of internal economy.
As for the third report from the committee, the government is telling us that it only accepts one third of the recommendations, that it wants to see further discussion about another third of the recommendations and that the last third is not accepted at all.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether, when rising tonight, I can consider myself an optimist or a pessimist. But 1 want to say this to government members, that we, as members of Parliament, every one of us, collectively, have a unique opportunity to operate a major, meaningful reform benefiting the institution of Parliament and all members, whether they sit on your right or youi left, Mr. Speaker. And 1 suggest it would be unfortunate if, through misunderstanding or hesitation on the part of the government, we were to miss the boat on parliamentary reform.
I am prepared to accept the word of the Government when it says it is in a favourable frame of mind about this. However, I believe that this report which results from the assiduous work of all members of the special committee must be accepted in its entirety. The fact of the matter, Mr. Speaker, is that we have worked in a spirit of consensus, in a non partisan fashion. 1 am sure that the representative from the New Democratic Party who was sitting on that committee alongside with me would agree with me that we have agreed to some things in the best interests of Parliament even though we knew that for us, in the opposition, for the Liberal Party as well as for the New Democratic Party, some of these recommendations would not necessarily be well received by all our colleagues from the opposition. We accepted these compromises because, on the other side, the Government Members sitting in the committee were also willing to make certain compromises and non-partisan suggestions in the best interests of the Canadian Parliament.
The Government cannot now pick and choose in the document which has been presented to us and accept only those recommendations which it might find more interesting and reject other recommendations because they seem to favour the Opposition.
I believe that the balance which we have been able to maintain through the work of the Committee Members is a delicate one, and that it is essential that it be respected by the Government. Otherwise the package of recommendations made by the Special Committee on the Reform of the House of Commons will make no sense.
If we were to accept only the recommendations which favour the Government, it is obvious that the objective of parliamentary reform would not be reached. Essentially, Mr. Speaker, what our Committee tried to do is to bring to bear an

December 4, 1985
Reform of the House of Commons element of freshness, a new approach to Parliamentary procedure which puts more emphasis on the individual Member of Parliament. This does not mean the Ministers, Parliamentary Secretaries or Members of a political party, whether in the Government or in the Opposition, but the Members democratically elected by the public to represent their views in the Canadian Parliament. Throughout our work, we always kept one thing in mind, namely the obligation of parliamentarian to reassert the value of our institution in the eyes of the Canadian public. We should not delude ourselves. We have to face the brutal truth. Many Canadians have lost confidence in politicians. Many Canadians no longer see the Member of Parliament as someone with an important role in Canadian politics. If we want our democratic institution to have some meaning and usefulness, it is essential that we give back to the population a minimum of confidence in its representatives in the Canadian Parliament. 1 believe that this is still the fundamental purpose of parliamentary reform.
I would like to say that the first report to be approved by the Committee chaired by the former Member of this House who is now Senator Tom Lefebvre included a series of recommendations which were nearly identical to the recommendations accepted unanimously by the three political parties in the previous Legislature.
However, 1 have to say with some regret, Mr. Speaker, that three of the recommendations contained in this first report are not being rigourously applied and followed by this Government. The first of course concerns the legislative committees. We had recommended that legislative committees be created after the second reading stage, but that the Government also be able to decide after second reading that a bill would be referred to a Committee of the whole for consideration.
The Government obviously had a choice in dealing with bills. They could be referred either to a Committee of the Whole, to a legislative committee or even to a Standing Committee of the House. However, at the present time, there is a proliferation of legislative committees, much too many compared with what we had envisioned at the Special Committee on the Reform of the House of Commons, and certainly also with the views of the Lefebvre Committee, which had never recommended such a proliferation of legislative committees.
Yet, there are now 13 legislative committees, although seven only are active. Why were six other committees struck if they are not to meet and do worthwhile work? It is my view that something went wrong with respect to the spirit, if not to the very concept of the use of legislative committees.
Secondly, we had mentioned appointing Members of Parliament, Private Members, back-benchers to the Committee on Internal Administration, because as suggested earlier by the Hon. Member who spoke before me, the Hon. Member for St.
John's East (Mr. McGrath), it is important that Members of Parliament should control the administration of their own institution. Of course we have no objection to House Leaders from the three parties sitting on that Committee.
However, it may happen that they will not always be as nice and civilized as the three present House Leaders, and the spirit of cooperation now prevailing between House Leaders could also deteriorate. It would be too bad, and most unfortunate were the Committee on Internal Administration to become just another forum for discussion between House Leaders. 1 simply wanted to point that out, because we believe it is very important that the other committee members besides the two Ministers, the Speaker and Deputy Speaker who play an important role on that Commiteee, be actually Members of Parliament, not necessarily Officers of the House, but actual Members of Parliament.
Finally, the provision concerning Ministers' statements is something we wanted, but on this side of the House we have been somewhat amazed to see to what extent the Governement can take to the letter of the new procedure. What I mean is that Ministers' statements must be delivered in an orderly manner, and the least we can expect is that there should be some advanced notice because, as you know, Mr. Speaker, Ministers' statements are made after the oral question period, and proceedings go on after normal hours at 6, 6:30 p.m. We ask for advanced notice at least on the day before such Ministers' statements are made-I am not asking Ministers who will be making statements to send their documents, but at least to notify the Opposition that there will be a Minister's statement the next day-in order that on this side we may, at least prepare for the debates for a period somewhat longer than after 6 p.m. Those are the comments I wanted to make concerning the second report.
I want to commend the Government for deciding to proceed with parliamentary reform. The fact that they accepted the first report is a very clear signal that they wish to implement parliamentary reform, but one thing I woud like to suggest this evening is that in order to have a genuine parliamentary reform, the second and third reports have to be implemented almost entirely. Failing this, we of the Opposition will have been somewhat gypped in the co-operative effort made at that non-partisan committee to arrive at a series of recommendations which in my view are most fair to all Members of Parliament, whether we are Government or Opposition Members.
My major concern is with some proposals made in response to that report by the Government House Leader. I cannot understand in particular why he does not accept the suggestion concerning the in-depth consideration of the estimates. We believe-a view that was shared by all Members from both sides of the House-that the consideration of the estimates is practically a farce. The way it is done leads to a minimum of scrutiny in the discussion of the estimates of various Depart-
December 4, 1985

merits. And it is our view that strengthening the MP's role depends on the opportunity for that Member to make a more thorough study of the various expenditures of Canadian Government Departments. What we have suggested, in view of our parliamentary tradition and precedents .. . We did not want to change completely this review of budgetary estimates, but we thought that Committee Members who will look into these estimates should not only have the right or the privilege to put questions for a few minutes to civil servants or ministers, but also to ask a series of questions to officials concerning the activities and spending of their Department, and to obtain a written reply in time to make it possible for Committee Members to carry out a better informed and more useful study of a particular Department.
I cannot understand why the Government has not accepted this recommendation. 1 can assure the Government that this suggestion had been made not only to benefit Members of the Opposition, but also in response to the wishes expressed by Government Members. I dare hope that we can find a formula which will satisfy the Government so that these questions which could be tabled with the Clerk of the House in an appropriate form may be accepted and answered before consideration of the estimates.
Mr. Speaker, I see that unfortunately my time is just about up. To conclude, I should simply like to say that 20 minutes to describe the great experience which I have lived with my colleagues on the Special Committee on Reform is not enough. I want to thank all of them for their co-operation, understanding, and I hope that the Government will remember that this document is so valuable that it should be accepted in full, not just in part.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to begin this evening by expressing my congratulations to the Government House Leader for instigating this debate before any resolution of the recommendations made to the House by the Committee on the Reform of the House of Commons took place. I am glad to see that this is indeed happening.
I also want to congratulate the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) with whom I have had the pleasure to work in two special committees dealing with parliamentary reform.
In that respect I want to say that tonight we are nearing the end of a stage which really could be said to go back to 1979 when the Hon. Walter Baker, the predecessor of the current President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn), brought in a position paper on parliamentary reform of the Government at that time.
Since that time of course we had in the last Parliament the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedures chaired by the former Member of Parliament, now Senator
Reform of the House of Commons
Tom Lefebvre. I had the opportunity to serve on that committee as the vice-chairman and as well in this Parliament as vice-chairman on the Special Committee on the Reform of the House of Commons.
I recall these things because I want to be clear that what we are talking about tonight is the accumulated consensus of the opinions of many Members of Parliament from all sides of the House. If I understand the history of parliamentary reform correctly, we are nearing the end of what has been a truly remarkable process. Going back to the last Parliament, leading up to this very moment, we have seen a remarkable process whereby consensus rather than division and partisanship has been the rule of the day. I feel that 1 as a Member of Parliament have been privileged to be a part of that process for as long as I have. I estimate that I have probably attended about 95 per cent of all of the meetings that have been held on parliamentary reform since the bells rang for 16 days.
During that time I have had the privilege to see the best side of many Members of Parliament and the best side of what Parliament can be. I say that tonight because 1 am, as I hope it can be said of me throughout the process, not out to pick a fight with anybody. I do not want what I say tonight to be understood in that way at all, but I want to say some things in what I hope will be a strong and convincing way about how I think this process should come to a successful end. It needs to be nursed to a final conclusion consistent with the spirit that has imbued the process from the very beginning.
The Goverment has a special responsibility in this respect because if the process is to end as it began with consensus then the Government must not flinch as it faces the final stage of parliamentary reform-or at least the final stage in this stage of parliamentary reform, because we know that the process of reform is ongoing. The Government must not falter in the respect it has previously and consistently shown for the consensus arrived at by the Special Committee on the Reform of the House of Commons.
It can fairly be said that the Progressive Conservative Party has demonstrated a consistent interest in and support for parliamentary reform. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), to his credit, as was said by the Hon. Member for St. John's East, has made it a centrepiece of his claim to represent a new era in Canadian political life. I say to the Prime Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, do not back off now; reconsider some of the ways in which the Government's response to our final report needlessly tinkers with some of the recommendations, with little or no reason offered for doing so, in many cases; reconsider the ways in which it significantly violates both the letter and the spirit of our reform particularly as it pertains to the question of the confidence convention, and to the matter of parliamentary secretaries sitting on standing committees. I will elaborate in more detail in just a few minutes on those two matters.
But first I want to say a word about something that has arisen more as a problem than as a principle, and that has to do with the way the recommendation on legislative committees has unfolded. We know there is a problem with the legislative

December 4, 1985
Reform of the House of Commons committees, that people feel Members are overloaded with work and that there are too many committees. I think we have to acknowledge a couple of things here, and make a few suggestions about which I think can be easy consensus.
First of all the committee, in its imagining of how legislative committees would work, always imagined the legislative committees working simultaneously with smaller standing committees. I understand the mechanics of what the Government wanted to do, and rightly so; to introduce our second report. So they did, and that brought about legislative committees. Our smaller standing committees were in the third report fully, so there was a chronological difficulty there. Let us keep that in mind when we are critical of the existence of legislative committees, as some Members have been. Hopefully it is only a matter of time before they exist alongside smaller standing committees. That will help to ease the problem.
It will also help to ease the problem if, at the same time as we initiate the next stage of reform, we also more to make the number of Members required on legislative committees more flexible. I do not want to second guess the work of the committee, but I think that we should have recommended more flexibility for the size of legislative committees. We did not, but I think there is a consensus in the House that it will be possible to have smaller committees for noncontroversial legislation and larger ones for legislation which is seen to be politically controversial.
I think there is also a consensus that there should be some kind of traffic control on the creation of legislative committees. There should be only a given number of legislative committees sitting at one time. There are various ways in which we could do that and I will not use up my time suggesting them. However, I think it is important for Members to realize that the problems with legislative committees are solvable and that we should not allow transitional irritants to lessen our enthusiasm for reform. My concern with legislative committees to this date has not been with the possibility of them working as we intended them to, but that in the short run they have made some Members skeptical about the reform process.
I will now turn to the two elements of the Government's response to our final report which I find to be the most troublesome. The first and the most troublesome has to do with parliamentary secretaries sitting on standing committees.
As you know, the committee recommended that there be smaller standing committees with seven members and the Government responded by recommending standing committees with eight members and parliamentary secretaries. We recommended that the committees have a form of tenured membership with Members selecting their own alternates. This will, hopefully, develop a sense of collegiality that will provide better scrutiny of and accountability for the various departments which these standing committees will mirror than we have seen to date.
I say to the President of the Privy Council that what all Members and the public imagine for these committees and, falsely, for present committees, is an independence from the Government which will be impossible if parliamentary secretaries are allowed to sit on those committees. I say that with no disrespect to persons who are presently or may in the future be parliamentary secretaries. It is just in the nature of the beast that this will be the case.
The Government argues that parliamentary secretaries will play an important role in liaising with the Minister. Mr. Speaker, if we get these new committees and if they are as important and as meaningful as we want them to be, the job of liaising with the Minister can easily be done by a capable chairman of a committee. The chairperson will still be appointed by the Government rather than by the Speaker as is the case with legislative committees. That chairperson can work with the Minister and the Minister will have more inclination to keep channels open with these new committees than he may have had in the past with former standing committees.
As long as there is a parliamentary secretary sitting there feeling, quite naturally, some obligation to defend Government policy, the Minister, or the department, and to report back to the Minister about what has been going on there will be inhibition of the free, frank and independent collegiality that we want to have developed on committees. It just cannot happen if parliamentary secretaries are allowed to be on committees.
Imagine a standing committee coming to a unanimous decision that a judgment or an action of the Government or a department is to be criticized. A parliamentary secretary could not very well make unanimous a recommendation of a committee which was critical of his Minister or department. Let us think about that recommendation because I believe it goes to the heart of reform. If the Government does not change its mind on that it will be very, very difficult for me to be supportive of any conclusion we arrive at. However, I will do my very best because I want this to result in consensus, if at all possible.
I would now like to speak about the issue of confidence. The whole gist of our recommendation up to and including the final report was to deproceduralize confidence. That is the reason we recommended that the language of confidence be taken out of the Standing Orders, and presumably that is the reason it was accepted. That has already been done. We did that because we wanted the question of confidence to be explicitly political rather than a procedural maze in which Members could find refuge when they wanted to as was often the case, and Members of all Parties were guilty of it.
Motions of supply on Opposition days were procedurally matters of confidence so people said that they had to vote with the Government even though they were really against testing the cruise, for example. That is one example. But people in all political Parties were guilty of using that procedural reality in a number of ways which debased the coinage, if you will, of what Parliament is all about, that is, standing up and being
December 4, 1985

counted for what you really think about an issue and being answerable to your constituents for that.
What the Government proposes is not only a violation of what the committee recommended, but if the President of the Privy Council moves ahead with this he is asking for an incredible number of problems just in terms of trying to define what confidence is. As has been suggested before, having that in the Standing Orders and putting the Speaker in the position of having to rule on Standing Orders that deal with whether the Government will stand or fall is an incredible position in which to put the Chair. That is certainly quite the opposite of what we contemplated when we recommended that all reference to confidence be taken out of the Standing Orders and that only those motions that are explicit motions of non-confidence in the Government be so regarded. The Government will continue to have the freedom, at the political level, to say what is confidence and what is not.
The idea is to give the Government the flexibility to say that it pays attention to Parliament and because a particular Bill was defeated, either in the House or in committee, it will go back to the drawing board and have another look at it rather than being caught up in a codification of what confidence is all about.
I say to the Government House Leader, who I know has great respect for the common law tradition, that he should not try his hand at any other tradition at this point. I would refer Hon. Members to various studies conducted by Doctor Forsey and Doctor Norton for the special committee in which the case for this is outlined at great length and quite convincingly.
With respect to the question of recorded divisions, I could be satisfied if what the Government has recommended is seen as an interim measure and that it intends to go ahead with our recommendation of conducting a vote while a 15-minute bell is ringing. When that recommendation is finally implemented, we will not have the possibility of House Leaders deciding to defer a vote during the time it is being taken. That is possible in the Government's response. It may not be significant in this Parliament but one can imagine the problems that might occur in a minority Parliament where pressure could be on people overnight if a vote could be delayed by people interested in the outcome once the vote had started.
The Government's response with respect to the precincts of Parliament is a half-hearted acceptance of our recommendation for the establishment of a Parliamentary Intendant. I do not understand why the Government could not have accepted our recommendation to establish a Parliamentary Intendant and that we gather to ourselves all the various and confusing jurisdictions that now exist with respect to how Parliament Hill is administered. We would then have some control over our own lives. We would be accountable to the Canadian people for what is seen to be related to us. Too often we have been put in a position of not knowing what is happening. An example which was already mentioned is when construction was taking place about which we knew nothing.
Reform of the House of Commons
If time permitted, I would comment on many other questions. However, 1 believe I have spoken to the two issues that are most important to me. They are the ways in which 1 believe the Government is tempting itself to set itself against the momentum which has been created for some years now. We have done so much and made so much possible that it would be a shame to fail in this eleventh hour. It would be a shame for the Government to fail by backing off in crucial ways as it is tempting itself to do. I hope that as a result of the debate tonight, and as a result of whatever process remains before there is final agreement, the Government will reconsider those very important areas that are now at variance with what the committee recommended.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Albert Cooper (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me this opportunity to participate in this debate. 1 must say that this is a very special evening because in the six years that I have been in Parliament this subject has become a love of mine. It is a subject that is important to me and one that I think is extremely important, not only to this institution but to the people whom we represent throughout Canada.
Tonight I want to begin by acknowledging the Chairman of the Committee, the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath). He is a tenacious, demanding task master and 1 think it is very much to his credit that we as a committee were able to come forward with these recommendations. He pushed and worked us hard. I often remember getting off an airplane after a hard weekend in my riding only to know that there was a phone call from the chairman with a message that we were about to go back to work. It was a tough ongoing process and 1 pay him the greatest compliment I can by saying how much we appreciate his work. It was because of his work that we have what is before us tonight.
I also want to pause for a moment to mention the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). When this debate began and the committee was given this job, I recall frequent comments that the Prime Minister, although new, would never go through with this change. It was said that he would pull the rug out from under us so that this would not happen. As stated by the chairman, the Prime Minister supported us throughout the process. He listened to our concerns and I believe he has responded to our report.
I also want to mention the Government House Leader who has made this debate possible. That in itself is a reflection of the kind of work we were doing in committee. We believed that when important reports came to the House there should be some discussion of those reports. Tonight we are seeing that in a real, intensive debate that gives each of us an opportunity to express our opinions.
I must also thank my colleagues from both sides of the House who worked with me on the committee. When we look at the membership of that committee we see a quite unlikely group to arrive at a consensus on a report. It is an unlikely group that would go through some of the discussions and

December 4, 1985
Reform of the House of Commons decisions which we made without a vote to arrive at a consensus.
If one considers the structure of this committee, it is no accident that it arrived at many of the reforms and recommendations it did. For example, it is no accident that it was recommended that there be seven members on standing committees. We picked seven members because our committee was made up of seven members from all sides of the House who were able to get together to confront an issue that we all believed was important. Therefore, I want to say a very special thanks to each of those members.
I also want to mention the staff who worked with us, some of whom are watching the debate tonight from the gallery, some of whom are at the Table, and some who are watching on television. They gave their all to make this evening possible.
I want to mention one final group. As we went through this reform process, people talked about the responsibilities of the Government, the responsibilities of the so-called McGrath committee and the responsibilities of the House Leaders. However, throughout the whole report there is the responsibility of Members of Parliament.
Reform, no matter how wise, how effective and practical, will not work unless Members of Parliament have the courage and the desire to make it work. My concern is that once we move from this stage into practising some of the recommendations we have put forward on a provisional basis, the success of those recommendations will very much depend on the understanding and demonstrated concern of all Members of Parliament from both sides of the House.
Let me move to the issue on which I want to focus tonight. In many ways, I think this question personifies what we in the committee were trying to accomplish. The area I want to talk about concerns Private Members' Business. It deals with the whole issue we were trying to address in terms of parliamentary reform. I came here in 1980. Since then I have watched the process of Private Members' Bills and Private Members' motions. I have found it one of the most humiliating, frustrating and perhaps most useless processes in which any Member of Parliament can engage.
In his remarks, the chairman of the committee referred to the last private members' Bill that was passed concerning the symbolism of the beaver for Canada. That is a picture of what has been happening with Private Members' Bills but, more important, I think it is a picture of what has been happening to private Members in the House of Commons of Canada.
I have chosen tonight, in the few moments I have, to focus my remarks on this particular area and to put forward my concerns and ideas about why we have to proceed with the reform of Private Members' Hour. A Private Members' Hour with teeth and with opportunity for private Members would change the way that we as Members of Parliament look at this institution. It would change the way that the Government looks at private Members. As well, it would change the way Canadian people look at their own Members of Parliament,
the role of MPs, the institution called the House of Commons, and the Government as well. It is crucial to come to grips with that.
For a few moments I should like to talk about some of the fundamental elements which I feel are absolutely essential in a proper and effective Private Members' Hour. The first element is that any subject an Hon. Member wishes to bring before the House has to have at least the chance of a vote. Otherwise, it is nothing more than talking in the wind, nothing more than speaking for the record, nothing more than rhetoric. It has no chance for action; it has no chance to demonstrate a concern, and it has certainly no chance to make a change to the country.
We have recommended that any Private Member's Bill which comes forward should go before a committee of selection, comprised of our peers, to discuss whether or not the Bill should have the opportunity to come to a vote. That is absolutely fundamental and essential. If that is allowed to happen, then all of a sudden there is a reason for those of us who are private Members in the House to take an interest in a subject, to seek a solution and to go out to try to achieve some action. That is the first element which I think is important.
The second one which I felt was important was the whole idea of other Members of Parliament being able to say "I support" the Hon. Member from whatever riding it may be. Then, as we begin to work, not only individually but collectively as Private Members of Parliament, we begin to impact on this institution and ultimately on the nation. My dream and my ideal would be to see an Hon. Member come forward with a Private Member's Bill, have some seconders sitting around him, but also someone from the other side seconding his or her motion. It would then demonstrate that private Members are trying to take control of some of the responsibilities given to them by their peers and by their constituents.
Another area about which we talked in this reform was that a Private Member's Bill, once introduced in the House, must have an opportunity for thorough debate. I have sat through Private Members' Hour here; all of us have. We have watched what happens. Hon. Members rise to speak on subjects which are important to them, only to have two or three speakers come after them often filling time, because if they manage to talk the clock out, the Bills die and the potential for opportunity or change is finished. Thus, all we have engaged in is an exercise in frustration. However, if we had the ability to vote, the ability to attract others to demonstrate their support for what we are working on and a designated time for debate, then Private Members' Bills would take on a whole new dimension.
I see you signalling, Mr. Speaker, that my time is coming to an end already. It is difficult, after the work we have done in committee, for those of us who love this institution and feel that the work we are doing here is important to express it in just a few moments. In closing, I believe that if we change the way in which Private Members' Bills and Motions are viewed in the House of Commons, we will change the way that Canadian people, our constituents and we, as Members of Parliament, view this whole place. Then we will have a House
December 4, 1985

of Commons which relates to, brings dignity to and really accomplishes what the Canadian people dream about, talk about and hope for.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) and those who worked with him on the McGrath committee stand in the company of a determined and dedicated few who continue to believe most fervently that Parliament, this greatest of democratic institutions, stands always in the need of reform. 1 believe the Hon. Member for St. John's East, himself an outstanding parliamentarian and a reformer, knows that the road to parliamentary reform is not one that is well travelled.
It was in the year 1830 that the Prime Minister of England, who was so out of touch with reality and with the demand for parliamentary reform in his country, was able to say in the House of Commons: "The legislature posesses the full and entire confidence of the country", and he was wrong. Two years later he was out of office and, in 1832, the Parliament of Great Britain got its first reform Bill.
I simply mention that because I believe that the citizens of Canada today know that their Parliament is not serving them as well as it should or could. This institution today, to a significant degree, lacks public confidence. It desperately needs to be changed. It needs to be reformed. If we do not understand that and do not believe that, then we too are out of touch.
The report of the McGrath committee is a radical report, but it is radical in the very best sense of the meaning of that word, that is to say, it goes to the root of the problem. This report does not merely tinker and dabble and rearrange our Standing Orders. Of course, the procedures and rules of our House are vital to orderly and democratic disposition of the nation's business. Our orders ensure as much as possible the smooth operation of Parliament, enabling the Government to govern but to do so under the close scrutiny of the peoples' representatives.
More than just procedural reform, the McGrath committee calls for attitudinal changes on the part of Hon. Members, Ministers, party Leaders and Whips.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I knew you would say that.


B. Keith Penner: Of course the McGrath committee saw the need for more effective committees to monitor carefully the performance and spending of government departments. As much as we look to the Auditor General as one of our allies, we cannot rely upon him entirely to do everything for us. We, too, every one of us, have been elected as watchdogs of the public purse. We have a responsibility to do as good a job as we can and to be allies with the Auditor General to see that taxpayers get the best deal for their dollars.
With rare insight, however, the McGrath committee saw what is a central and persistent problem with the Canadian parliamentary system. Our parliamentary system is dominat-
Reform of the House of Commons ed, controlled, manipulated and at times even suffocated and exploited by a far too powerful executive branch of Government. The legislative branch in our system is alarmingly weak. There is in Canada a serious and extreme imbalance between the executive branch and the legislative branch. That is our essential problem.
What is the result? It is that we have a parliamentary system in Canada which is underdeveloped, immature, retarded and defective. For example, in what other Parliament of the world are Members referred to as sheep or trained seals? Can we imagine one of those appellations being applied to a Member of the United States Congress or even to most Members of the United Kingdom House of Commons? Certainly not. Among most MPs there is a prevailing sense of frustration. Ours is a full-time job to be sure, yet there is such limited room in which to manoeuvre as one seeks to serve his or her constituents. Around here, to have an independent mind, to have one'w own thoughts on some public policy issue, to buck Party disciline is to be what, a maverick, a loner? In our heart of hearts, do we not admire those who display such courage?
Just the other day magnificient words of respect were paid to our late colleague, Max Saltsman, a man who fought for himself, a man who acted and spoke always in the best interests of his constituents. Would not every one of us be proud if those kinds of words could be uttered about us when we are no longer active in this place or no longer present on this earth?
From the very outset the McGrath committee defined the problem as it saw it. I quote:
The purpose of the reform of the House of Commons in 1985 is to restore to private Members an effective legislative function, to give them a meaningful role in the formation of public policy and, in so doing, to restore the House of Commons to its rightful place in the Canadian political process.
With this in mind, the McGrath committee examined the principle or the convention of confidence; that is, that every vote in the House of Commons is in some way a direct threat to the credibility, to the acceptability or even to the right of the Government to govern. What a ridiculous convention that is.
The McGrath committee concluded that Party lines would become more flexible if there could be a change of attitude on the part of MPs, the Government and the Party Leaders. That is the way to essential parliamentary reform rather than by simply changing the rules of procedure. The McGrath committee has argued very effectively and convincingly that it is up to Members themselves to prove their independent spirit and the Government should avoid raising the question of confidence at every turn. It does not serve it well, it does not serve Parliament well.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, the ball is in our court. It is up to us as Members to reform this institution that I think most of us respect and even love. I wonder how we are going to respond.
9158

December 4, 1985
Reform of the House of Commons


Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Mr. Speaker, I want to say at the outset that I will be eternally grateful for having had the opportunity to serve on this committee. I would echo the words of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) that it has been an opportunity to see the best of the institution and the best of the other Members of this House. I believe it is worth mentioning again that we brought together recommendations that should bring about sweeping reform, almost radical reform of this place, and we did it without a vote. It was a committee that represented all Parties of this House and we did it without a vote. If that, does nothing else, it ought to prove that we can get a lot of work done here without confrontation, argument and bickering if only we will get close enough to other Members to establish some kind of trust. We can set aside some of our ideological differences for the betterment of the institution and the country if only we will put some trust in other persons, get close enough so that we know them and have confidence in them. We can do away with the confrontation, accomplish a lot more and work for the welfare of our country.
There are three reasons I was interested in working on this committee. I want to say how pleased I was that the first working statement in the Speech from the Throne by our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) was the statement calling for the establishment of a task force that would enhance the role of the private Member. You cannot enhance the role of the private Member unless you free him. What you have to do is emancipate the private Member.
The private Member gains his authority from the people who elected him. When we come together as a House of Commons representing all of our Parties, representing the entire country, we become the aggregation of the voice of the people. However, to come here as a private Member and find that legislation and policy has already been drafted by people who were not elected and find that you are supposed to give the stamp of approval to something over which you had no voice is unsavoury. We need to emancipate him.
Therefore, it is central to any kind of reform that we deal with an ocean of confidence, as other Members have already said. We cannot free the private Member if at the same time we enslave him to the work of the bureaucracy. We cannot free the private Member if he is made to feel that he has to obey slavishly the Party line and thereby neglect the wishes of his constituents, the particular part of the country that he represents, and overlook the mandate that his people have given him in some cases. Therefore the notion of confidence is central to the emancipation of the private Member.
What will happen the first time a private Member or private Members vote against their Party? There will be first of all a psychological rupture within that particular caucus. Imagine what the press gallery will say the day after that vote has been taken. "Aha, there is a split in the Party ranks of the Government", or "The Liberal Party is split again", or "The New Democratic Party is fractured". If we are not careful, we will allow ourselves to be pistol-whipped by the press because we are afraid of the image we will create. Therefore, we will fall
back into the chains and the slavery to which we have become so comfortably accustomed.
We will have to overcome that psychological slavery. There will have to be some political will on the part of private Members to take the initiative on a Bill on which they feel strongly to vote against the majority of their colleagues and their caucus. Some day that will happen and we will have to suffer the fall-out. We had better have the courage to do that.
I say to my colleagues that it is easier to accept the status quo. It is more courageous to adopt a change that will free us all. I would urge, as other Members have, that the notion of confidence be adopted in such a way that the Government or the opposition Parties will have to take the initiative to declare what is a matter of confidence in that instance. Therefore, my first concern on becoming a member of this committee was the motion of confidence, the opportunity to free us all and be able to represent our constituents in a much more accurate way than we have been able to do in the past.
The second reason I was concerned about this work was the whole notion of Orders in Council, the practice and use of Orders in Council, otherwise called delegated legislation. I remember several years ago talking about what we call the emergency planning orders and how easily the Government of the day slipped massive powers into its hands by an Order in Council which is not fair to call secret, but which was quiet, easy and had the force of law. There was no way in which the House at that time could overcome those Orders in Council. Now to find that we have the means of neutering those massive powers that the Government has accumulated, over the years, and the means of giving back to the Members the opportunity to negate some of those powers which the Cabinet has taken for itself, it is very important that when the Committee on Regulations and Statutory Instruments meets that it take the initiative to nullify those Orders in Council it finds offensive to the freedom of the private Member.
The third issue to which the committee addressed itself that I think is important is the matter of private Members as has been so well stated by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Peace River (Mr. Cooper). We must have a guaranteed vote. I can tell Hon. Members that I worked for six years on a private Member's Bill. I flogged the House with it. It was a Bill dealing with the matter of parental abduction. The former Government did adopt it as part of its legislative package back in 1982, something for which I am grateful. However, why should it take six years? Why should children in those six years have had to undergo the threat of abduction simply because the legislation referring to abduction happened to be a private Member's Bill?
If a private Member sees a need and wants to reflect a need, that is not a matter of Government policy but reflects a concern expressed in his constituency or in a narrow constituency across the country, why should he not have the opportunity to do so? I say to Hon. Members that the biggest problem that we in the House have had to face has been a commitment
December 4, 1985

to the status quo. We need a commitment to changing the past. We cannot afford to be defensive about the flaws that we will continue to see in the Standing Orders we will bring forward. There are going to be mistakes made. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) has already pointed out the flaws in some of the changes we have made. That is a human institution. It is a human committee. We will need to make further changes. We cannot afford to be defensive about the flaws in the system. We must take the initiative. We must have the courage to change the flaws before we get accustomed to them.
The greatest danger that 1 see is the commitment to the status quo. It is easier to stay the same. I would like to commend the Government and the Government House Leader for adopting the measures that the committee has presented through recommendations so that sweeping reform is now possible. I would urge that we not be committed to the present as it is, but that we continue to look for ways in which the role of the private Member can be enhanced so that he can be emancipated in order to represent the people of Canada in a much more accurate and wholesome way.


Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to have the opportunity to speak on this debate this evening. At the outset, I would like to extend my congratulations to the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) for the tremendous amount of work and effort he along with his committee has put into this report for the benefit of the House and all Parliamentarians. I would like to let him know that I as an individual appreciate it very, very much.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Neil Young: I know one member of the committee a little better than I know others and that is the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie). He has been a champion within our own caucus for parliamentary reform and has studiously apprised the caucus of the work of the committee as it went through this process. Individual members of my Party were kept aware of what was going on. I appreciate that as well as do other members of my Party.
If I may be permitted to do so, because it is key to the remarks I want to make this evening, I would refer to one of my first experiences on a standing committee of the House after I was first elected in 1980. When I was elected, like most Members of Parliament, I thought I was coming to the House of Commons in Ottawa to participate in great debate. I thought 1 was coming here to act as an individual Member of Parliament not only on behalf of my own constituents but in the best interests of Canada generally. I hoped in that role to do something to better the lot of all citizens around the world. I must say that that impression was rapidly savaged.
My clear impression of the first several years I spent in this place was that it was one long, continuous, all-candidates' debate, such as the ones we see during election campaigns. I saw very little evidence of Members of Parliament working together in the common interests of the people of Canada. We
Reform of the House of Commons seemed to be much more interested in adopting positions as political Parties rather than as a group of people working in the best interests of Canadians, with one exception. There was one saving grace to that and it occurred on the Standing Committee on Health and Welfare.
My first meeting of a standing committee was of the Standing Committee on Health and Welfare. Stanley Knowles took me to that committee. Stanley had to leave and he said to me: "You keep an eye on things". So I said that was fine, but what I was supposed to keep an eye on I had absolutely no idea.
The then Minister of National Health and Welfare came before that committee and made a broad, general statement on policy. The Hon. Member for St. John's East decided to ask the Minister some questions; he did so. Then the Chairman said: "Mr. Young," and I said: "Yeah?" He said: "Would you like to ask questions on behalf of your Party?" The Hon. Member for St. John's East leaned over to me and said: "You're supposed to ask questions, Scotty".
I dreamed up some quick questions to ask the Minister which were promptly ruled out of order because 1 was not discussing some particular vote of which no one had ever heard except the Clerk of the Committee, and perhaps the Chairman of the Committee. So I got into a dispute with the Chairman and decided I should exercise my authority as a Member and challenge the Chair. The Hon. Member for St. John's East leaned over again and said: "It's not an NDP convention, Scotty. You can't challenge Chairs around here". The Hon. Member for St. John's East jumped in there because he knew I was a new Member and he argued for my rights as a Member of Parliament to ask the Minister questions. The committee agreed and I appreciated that. It was an example to me of how this place should operate. Every one of us should be supportive of each other, regardless of political Party affiliation.
Having said that, I would note that since the last election there have been some 100 new Members elected to the House of Commons. I think it has made a difference. It has brought a fresh point of view to this place, and certainly to Standing Committees. I have found the standing committees to be somewhat less partisan merely because people have minds which are more open than they were before. That is no reflection on the previous Parliament or the previous Government, because I do not think that had anything to do with it. It was the tradition and the history of this place that had led to the stifling of debate.
I have found that the newest Members of this place are less likely to fall into that trap. Certainly in committees on which 1 have sat Government Members have been more willing to go after the Minister involved if they did not like what that Minister was doing. They would question the Minister just as strongly as members of the Opposition were likely to do.
On the question of parliamentary reform, 1 had the opportunity to serve as chairman of a legislative committee which examined a Bill referred to it. That was a great experience. It

December 4, 1985
Reform of the House of Commons
is a refreshing approach to the way we do things in this place. I must admit that when I sat in the chair and called the meeting to order a few members who have been around the Elouse for a long time looked at me in wonder as if to say: "What is he doing up there?" Eventually, one of them finally said it: "What are you doing up there?" I said: "Under parliamentary reform and the changes which have taken place in the House of Commons, the Speaker has appointed me as Chairman of this committee". "Yes?" they said. And I said: "Yes". I explained what was happening in terms of parliamentary reform. I have to hand it to those Members, it took them about ten minutes, but they finally accepted a member of the NDP chairing a legislative committee. As we went through the Bill a strange thing happened. Members of the committee no longer looked upon me as being a member of the New Democratic Party caucus. They started to look upon me as the Chairman of the committee. To people outside this place that may sound strange, but in here it is extremely important. Members from all sides of the House must participate in all functions of this place as equal and responsible Members.
The reforms which we have initiated thus far have taken us a long way down the road to achieving that end. A number of different Members have been appointed to chair committees. That does not mean to say there have not been problems. Of course, there have been problems. Change does not take place without creating some problems. That is so because what is happening is changing from something which is old to something which is new. In many cases that newness creates a resistance on the part of some people because they do not want to accept it.
That is not to say that some of the problems have not been real-they have been real. Personally, I think the size of legislative committees is far too huge. They are too unwieldy. I do not know why we need 20 Members to discuss a piece of legislation. There is an obvious lack of research capability in these committees. I would much rather see a committee have an independent reserach capability of the Members' choosing as opposed to the way it is done now. It would make the committees much more effective. What I mean to say is, put in place a reserach capability which is permanent, as is the case with standing committees, as opposed to having different researchers at different times depending upon the subject of debate.
I see some problems with respect to the matter of research and with the size of committees. The difficulties we have at the present time are the result of an overabundance of committees. This places tremendous pressures on the time allocation of individual Members. I think that will be straightened out when the second or third report of the committee is adopted.
I see that my time is up. I thank Hon. Members. I hope we can get on with it.


Mrs. Lise Bourgault (Argenteuil-Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, I am particularly pleased indeed to speak tonight on the subject of parliamentary reform as I was appointed as a new Member
of Parliament to sit with my colleagues on that Special Committee on Parliamentary Reform, and I wish to take this opportunity tonight to express my thanks first and foremost to the House Leader who gave me the opportunity to be a member of that committee, and also to thank with all my heart my colleagues, and in particular the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet), and my colleagues here on the Government side who supported me at all times, because as you know, Mr. Speaker, I joined that committee as a new Member of Parliament with great expectations ... and I had another problem: I was not very fluent in English.
The committee therefore was a tremendous school of parliamentary procedure for me as a newcomer to the House of Commons. I did not know at the time that I would become so deeply involved in parliamentary reform and procedure. That committee also gave me the opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to get a free English course so to speak. I therefore thank my colleagues for their co-operation and help at all times so that 1 might become a full-fledged member of that committee like the rest of them.
In looking at this House tonight, Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to see that so many Members are present at 8:30 p.m. on a Wednesday night, and the reason is that they are interested in parliamentary reform. Not only are those Members interested, Mr. Speaker, but also all the Members of provincial legislatures in Canada. Other countries are also interested, as shown by the fact that the main debate at the 25th Annual Meeting of the Commonwealth Association which we hosted last summer centered around the Special Committee on the Reform of the House of Commons. The private sector is also interested in parliamentary reform. The Hon. Member for Papineau and myself were invited not very long ago before a group of Montreal businessmen who are very concerned with the reform process, and who asked us to tell them about our experience; they asked us: What is in fact parliamentary reform, and what is it going to mean for us, as citizens, as business people? Most of those individuals come from time to time as witnesses before our committees and, with the advent of television in Parliament, those groups were not sure that their views, their suggestions were really considered by the Government, when they came before a committee.
So I was pleased to meet them, and of course, we told them about our experience with the work of the Committee.
My colleague from Peace River (Mr. Cooper) was ahead of me, Mr. Speaker, because it was important for me too to raise the matter of the Private Members' Hour, between 5 p.m. and 6 p.m. I had myself the opportunity to experience recently the fact that after that one hour, after 6 p.m., it is over, it is gone, I do not know where . . . Mr. Speaker, one day, I would appreciate if you would show me the boxes of papers you must have in the anterooms of the Government. I would like to know what you do with all those documents, what happens to the
December 4, 1985

incredible work done by Hon. Members to bring forward a notice of motion, to debate it, and to know how many hours our staff puts in to enable us to have an interesting debate, to get our bill passed. I am interested in the volunteer sector. I have another motion, Mr. Speaker. As long as I sit in this House, I will put forward motions to enhance the role of volunteers in our society, every six months, as long as that matter is not passed at a certain time somewhere, at the first or second reading stage, in a committee ... I don't give up easily.
Now, I echo what my colleague from Peace River said about bills. So, in order not to repeat myself, because as you know, ten minutes is a short time, and I would have so many things to say .. .
Mr. Speaker, you know, according to an English saying, "You will never get another chance to give a first good impression." You will understand that. Well. When one comes to this House as a new Member, one is in for quite an experience. Now the biggest ceremony ... Of course, the Clerk is a charming man who welcomes us with the usual courtesy, except that we are sworn in almost in secret. And when the Speech from the Throne, the most important part of our Government... here we are, we poor ordinary members, behind the curtains of the High Chamber of the Senate, trying to see what is going on inside, that is our first impression. You know, one feels pretty small in such large surroundings and our Government has agreed to the principle, for which I am very greatful, that collective oath taking ceremonies would be interesting for new Members of Parliament and even for those who have been around for a long time, and then the people of my riding would see me. The next morning, I got some phone calls: Mrs. Bourgault, I watched television, how come I did not see you, you were not sitting next to the Speaker, nor beside the Prime Minister. Where were you?
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, 1 did not dare tell them that I was at the back, trying to get a glimpse of what was going on inside the Senate Chamber. I could not tell them. It seems to me that I would have offensed them somehow.
I have too much respect for my constituents, and I am therefore very happy that in future, my colleagues, those who will follow us, the new Members of Parliament, will at least feel they are part of the big family and that together, we are sworn in for the good of all.
We have also dealt, Mr. Speaker, with the issue of the convention of confidence. Well, I do not want to repeat myself either. I share the views of my colleagues but I would like to add a few personal views regarding the concept of confidence. I have checked and since our proceedings are broadcast on television, a dramatic change has occurred. 1 was speaking today with the Hon. Member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle), because we happened to visit my riding together and he told me that he missed those happy times when there were substantive debates, heartfelt discussions, when Members were rising
Reform of the House of Commons and reacting on the spot. Now, some people are watching us on television. We now have the American C-SPAN Network that broadcasts our proceedings as well as, of course, Mr. Speaker, the great national show, Question Period.
Our constituents are always asking the same question: "What are you doing? How is it that when I visited the House of Commons last week, Mrs. Bourgault, you were not there?"
I tell them this: "Listen, I sit on committees, but committee proceedings are not televised". Therefore, ordinary citizens do not know .. . There is in Weir, in my riding, a constituent who watches the oral question period every day hoping to see me doing something. So it is important, Mr. Speaker. Leaving aside the principle of trust, I will say that the TV broadcasting of committee proceedings would make it possible for Hon. Members to tell their constituents: "If you want to know what I am doing, just watch me tonight, at such and such hour, because I will be sitting on the Agriculture Committee, which is of great interest to my riding".
The fact is that, outside of Parliament, there are the committees. People do not know well enough how Parliament operates. There are people who come and see us, and they are astounded. Perhaps there should be a system which would make it possible for these people to say: "Well, that is what a Member of the House of Commons does in his or her everyday life. When the House opens its doors at 10 o'clock in the morning, he or she is sitting on a committee." Well, if some committee proceedings were televised, we could at least tell our constituents that we are working.
Mr. Speaker, I see that you are trying to cut me off. 1 must regretfully say that I had a great many other things to say but I thank again the Government for allowing me to sit on that committee, and I hope that the Parliamentary reform . . . Mr. Speaker, I urge all Hon. Members to push for this Parliamentary reform, because it is far from being over. This process will certainly continue. Let us all try to sell this reform and make sure that the House becomes the major forum which all our constituents expect it to be.
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate. I regret Hon. Members have only 10 minutes because there is so much in this report to comment upon. It would take much longer than that to do justice to the recommendations. Although I was not with the Special Committee on Reform, chaired by the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), I was with the Committee on Reform in the last Parliament. It is a subject with which I have been struggling within this House for many years.
Before we consider what the role of this House should be, 1 believe we have to come to some decision as to what the goals of this Parliament should be. It is only by having some idea of

December 4, 1985
Reform of the House of Commons
what the goals of Parliament are that we can construct rules of the House to achieve those goals.
In considering that matter, I think the first thing we must deal with is that the rules of this House cannot be evaluated in terms of how they best serve Hon. Members here. They must always be looked at as to how they serve the Canadian public. What is the Canadian public interested in? First, we must have rules in the House of Commons that enable Canadians to believe that we can do the job for them, that we can deal with public issues and develop public policy and pass legislation. We must have credibility in this institution. I am afraid that at the present time, many Canadians do not believe that this institution is doing the job for them which they want done. In fact, many Canadians hold this House in disdain, and that is regrettable.
I believe Canadians want to see a parliamentary institution where all of the issues could be raised, not only national issues, but local and regional issues. They want those issues fully discussed and finally resolved. They also want an institution where Hon. Members can keep in touch with them. For that reason, of course, we should not be sitting all the time. Because if we sat too long and too often we would become a ghetto here in Ottawa and would lose contact with the people we are supposed to represent. We have to consider that aspect in developing our rules. We must have an opportunity to keep in touch with the people we represent, and we should do that not only on a personal and individual basis but through our parliamentary committees, subcommittees and so on.
It is my belief that Parliament should seek to accomplish three goals. It should be a legislature, a watch-dog and it should control the public purse. As a legislature, it usually deals with legislation prepared by the Government. As the saying goes, the Government proposes and Parliament disposes. However, in order to do that in an effective way we should be able to deal with legislation as we really believe it must be dealt with. If there is something lacking, we should be able to amend it or defeat it without fear of defeating the Government. Unfortunately, that is not the case at the present time. As many Hon. Members have already said, at the present time all Parties vote in unison without any consideration of their personal feelings with respect to Bills or measures put before this House.
Our role as legislators has to be improved. As watch-dogs, we try to keep the Government accountable and responsible and we do that through Question Period and through Motions for Production of Papers. We also do it through Opposition days. That system can be improved as well. In Parliament we can control as well the spending of money by the Government. We do that through the Budget debates and Budget votes and by supply days and our votes.
To accomplish all of these tasks this House has to be an effective forum where we can discuss those issues and put forward all the pros and cons, the majority and minority views. Sometimes the debate becomes hot, and sometimes it becomes unruly. I do not believe Canadians should be shocked when that happens. I say this because people come to this House
with strongly held views and policies. They come here with passion, in many cases. This is a place where those strongly held views result in confrontation. This is a place where we resolve those conflicting views. How fortunate we are that we have this House, when we consider that in countries like Lebanon, El Salvador, Ireland and Poland, and I could name many others, the great political issues of the day are not resolved in parliamentary institutions, but in the street and mountains with guns and bombs. So when things get a bit passionate here let us compare that with what we find in other parts of the world. Remember that of the 150 countries in the United Nations only 25 are democracies. Only 25 have forums like this where representatives can come together and fight out issues on the floor of the House in a very moving and passionate way. Once these issues are voted on and resolved here we accept them. We do not resort to terrorism, bombing or shooting it out in the streets.
I think that Canadians should understand that no matter how good our rules are, and I believe we need reform and 1 am going to get to that in a minute, there will always be partisan debate and strongly held differences.
Mr. Speaker, of course there have to be clearly understood and well defined rules, and we are dealing with that in this report. There has to be a balance between the Government and the Opposition, even when the ratio is 282 to 70. There has to be a balance between the front benches and the back benches so that the front benches are not in a dominant position all of the time. There has to be fairness to the third and fourth Parties. We have to consider, when we are adopting rules for this House, that there will not always be a majority Parliament. I have lived through three minority Parliaments. In one of those minority Parliaments there were four Parties in opposition. So when we are making the rules for Parliament we cannot just consider the stereotype that we have before us in 1985.
With respect to some of the specific recommendations in the report, I fully agree with the additional powers given to the committees, allowing the committees to commence investigations and studies and work on their own without references from the House. I fully support the fact that they are given independent research resources and so on, but I am not convinced at all that we need legislative committees. That is one proposal in the report about which the members of the committee will have to convince me.
At the present time the 282 Members of this House are spread so thin that we are not able to do the things that we must do as Members of Parliament. One must remember that as Members of Parliament we must be available for debate in this House. As well, at the present time we must be available to deal with 22 standing committees, nine special committees and, at last count, 15 legislative committees. We also have our caucuses and the responsibility to meet with lobby groups and groups coming here to make representations. We must return to our constituencies from time to time. We have Party
December 4, 1985

responsibilities. We have many things to do as Members of Parliament and this proposal to add on legislative committees in my opinion is not well founded and is not reform. I am willing to listen to more debate, but I am not convinced that it is reform. It is almost as if those who made that proposal felt that over here we would have one group of Members who would serve on the standing committees and there would be another group over here serving on the legislative committees. In fact, Mr. Speaker, it is the same Members who are expected to do both.
There have been days in the last few weeks when at nine o'clock in the morning we have had standing committees; at eleven o'clock we went to legislative committees that went on until five or six in the afternoon, and then we went back to standing committees again. I would like to hear more discussion on that.
Mr. Speaker, with respect to confidence, I fully agree with the measures that are put forward in the report on confidence.
I wish I had more time to discuss them.
With respect to voting procedures, I like the electronic voting but I cannot accept the fact that the vote must take place in 15 minutes. That would never work in a minority Parliament.
My final word, Mr. Speaker, is that there are some good things in the report, but we need a lot more discussion in this House before we reach a consensus among 282 Members on what that reform should be.


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have this opportunity to say a few words in connection with the report of the Special Committee on the Reform of the House of Commons, and also on the Government response to this report. Many important issues and recommendations are dealt with both in the report and in the response. To begin, I would like to congratulate the special committee itself and the chairman of the special committee, the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) on the outstanding job they have done. I would like to congratulate as well the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) on being prepared to recommend the establishment of this committee and the adoption of the recommendations coming out of the committee. I would like to congratulate the House Leaders on their efforts to date in putting these recommendations into effect, and I hope that all three House Leaders will actually concur so that the recommendations can be put into effect.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Hear, hear!


Alan Redway: I am a new Member of this House, as you know, Mr. Speaker, but two of the areas that have been dealt with by the committee particularly stand out in my mind. The first is the right of the private Member to speak out on behalf of his or her constituents in this House, and I might say, particularly the right of the Government supporters to do that. That may be of a concern to Opposition Members but it is certainly of much greater concern to Government supporters.
Reform of the House of Commons
As a new Member of this House I came here not knowing what to expect. I had great visions that we would be having new rules, that we would be having reform and that private Members would be able to speak out and speak their minds. 1 find, as we all have, that there are a number of barriers to this that prevent us from speaking out on behalf of our constituents as they expect us to do.
First, of course, is the whole concept of confidence itself, that parliamentary tradition and convention that says that every vote in this House is a vote of confidence, that if you vote against the Government the Government might fall and if you vote against the Government that is an indication that you do not have any confidence in the Government. That certainly is the number one barrier to a private Member speaking out on behalf of his constituents.
The second is perhaps the Government itself, and a number of the Hon. Members tonight have spoken about that. There is what I guess you would call a subtle pressure on the part of the Government to make sure that all of its Members speak with a common front. That is an understandable concern on the part of the Government because it has a legislative program, it has Government policies and it wants to see those policies and that program put into effect. So it is quite understandable that it wants to see them supported as unanimously as possible.
A third barrier to this whole process of speaking out on behalf of our constituents is in fact the members of one's own Party. There is within one's own Party a team spirit and a feeling that if in fact one speaks out and goes against the team that is breaking faith. So there is a group pressure, a peer pressure, if you will, to restrain particularly the private government Member from speaking out on behalf of his constituents.
A fourth barrier of course that has been mentioned also tonight is the press and the media. As soon as a private Member does speak out on behalf of his constituents, if it is in any way, shape or form in variance with the Government's position, right away the media seize upon those remarks as an indication that there is a division or a split and that perhaps that Member is a maverick. I myself have been referred to in the press in those terms and I undrestand what that means and what a potential barrier that is.
I guess the final barrier in my mind is the inhibitions of the individual Members themselves. I think when you add up all of these other barriers, the convention of confidence, the Government's feelings about private Members speaking up, their own colleagues' feelings about them speaking up and the press and the media, it is no wonder that individual Members have certain inhibitions about speaking their own minds and actually representing the true feelings of their constituents.
I have struggled with this problem since my arrival in the House of Commons. There have been a great many issues about which 1 have had some concern, and about which I know my constituents have had some concern. There have been a great many issues on which I have wanted to speak out. I did

December 4, 1985
Reform of the House of Commons
speak out on some of them and I felt the censure of the various barriers to which I referred as a result.
However, whether there are these inhibitions and barriers or not, it is clear to me that the people of the country, and certainly my constituents, expect me to speak out in their behalf. They expect me to speak up if there is a problem which affects them. If I do not, they do not understand. They do not know why I am not speaking out and representing their thoughts and feelings. They feel that perhaps I do not understand them. They feel that I am not sympathetic toward their concerns and views. They feel that I am not representing them properly and, at the bottom line, they feel that Parliament as an institution is not working.
I hope that this report and these recommendations are part of the answer to a great concern of the people of the country. They want to see their Member of Parliament, whether or not he or she is a Government supporter, speak out and represent their feelings and problems. That sort of thing can be answered in part by this report and by the Government's response, but it must be answered as well by the Parties in the House. It must be answered by the House Leaders. They must agree if we are to put these reforms into effect. I have heard a lot of comments tonight about how wonderful the recommendations are and how wonderful the Government's response is. However, the proof of the pudding is in the eating; it all depends on whether we actually adopt these recommendations. I trust that we will, after all is said and done.
There is one other thing in addition to that, Mr. Speaker. After we adopt these recommendations we will have to put them into effect-not only the words on a printed page but the spirit of them. Individual Members will have to be prepared to speak out to ensure that this works. I have with the existing rules and this is not very easy. I suspect it will not be very easy with the new rules either. If an individual Member speaks out he will feel the response from the Government, his Party and the media. All of the individual inhibitions which I mentioned will come out to stifle the spirit of these recommendations.
I am hopeful, Mr. Speaker, that we will be able to break out of those inhibitions, that we will have the courage of our conviction, that we will have the courage to utilize the rule changes which I hope will come. We must not do this in the way the Soviet Union does with its constitution, but in the way we in Canada and other western democratic nations have practised those things that are in black and white.
There is one other area which I think is very important, Mr. Speaker. I would like to commend the committee and the Government for the recommendations with respect to the parliamentary review of Order in Council appointments. I think that is very, very important. It was an issue in the election and has been an issue since. On September 9 the Prime Minister indicated that he was adopting those recommendations. I think it is essential that they be adopted as well as the other recommendations in order that, to use the Prime Minister's words of September 9, "We can revitalize the faith of the citizens of the country in their institutions and their government". Mr. Speaker, that revitalization is long overdue.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to take very long, but there are some things I want to say. First of all I would like to congratulate the members of the committee for the work they did. Although I do not agree entirely with every recommendation, without exception I would be prepared to see all the recommendations tried in the form in which they were recommended. I entrusted that committee with the job of reviewing the procedures of Parliament. Having been a part of the committee at one point, I know that it worked diligently to come up with recommendations which seemed to fit the changing times. Therefore, from my point of view, that which they recommended should be given a fair trial. I think that on balance that is in fact what is going to happen.
The one aspect that is always difficult when dealing with recommendations for change is the diverse nature of the change and the need to co-ordinate and to understand how one change impacts on another aspect of political life in order to ensure that we do not unnecessarily add to the burden in one area in an effort to cure what may well be a problem in another area. That falls, in some ways, to the House Leaders, myself and my colleagues.
I want to deal with another aspect of parliamentary life which I believe is necessary to be dealt with now, and that is time allocation but not time allocation as we see it on an irregular basis when the Government and its predecessor bring forward a motion designating a day or two to complete deliberations on a Bill. That kind of time allocation inevitably leads to political confrontation.
It is not that about which I am talking. I am talking about the allocation of the time of Parliament and of the time of Members of Parliament. How can we best utilize the hours that we have available to us? How can we, as Members of Parliament, both in Government and in opposition, establish a system that will allow the various and many agendas which we establish from time to time, either on a partisan or individual basis, to be met and the results to be fruitful?
I want to set out a challenge. Time allocation is the responsibility of every Member of Parliament. It is not simply the responsibility of Government; neither is it the responsibility of the collective opposition. It is everyone's responsibility. It is our time that is being allocated.
I suggest that there are two areas in which self-discipline will bring about time allocation. The first is in the process of dealing with Estimates. I recall when I served in another place. We developed a process whereby, knowing how many hours were available for the consideration of Estimates, we set out the priorities of each of the three caucuses. We decided on an annual basis which Estimates we wanted to go into in some detail and which Estimates we were prepared to pass with less investigation. This meant that over the life of a Parliament all of the major Estimates received careful consideration in some detail and certain of the less major, although not necessarily minor, Estimates received lesser consideration in terms of the time allotted to them.
December 4, 1985

We did that in the following way. We submitted our priorities and a group chosen from Parliament sat down and in turn priorized. If the first choice was that of the Official Opposition, that was put down as the first Estimate to be considered, followed by an Estimate chosen by the Government and then by an Estimate chosen by the third Party. This process was continued until we had gone through each of the Estimates. We then decided how much time was required to give fair opportunity for careful scrutiny, while at the same time recognizing that it was not open-ended and that each Estimate had to be given some review. I must say, in all fairness, that this system worked.
I would like to suggest that in the new year we consider a system that would allow that kind of consideration. In return for doing that I would expect, however, that the Minister, the Deputy Minister, and the officials requested by the Opposition would appear before the appropriate committee for the duration of the time agreed upon for those Estimates. There would, in fact, then be an opportunity to discuss, not only the details but also the political decisions relating to the details. I would commend that to the House for its consideration in dealing with Estimates. I have only touched on it but I think it bears some careful thought. I believe it would add to the public's sense that we are indeed requiring accountability in expenditures. It would follow in some ways the model that has been used by the Auditor General in conducting in depth reviews in certain years and somewhat less in depth reviews in other years.
Let me turn to legislation, which is the next major problem. I believe that the chairmen of the committees that have now been established should, in themselves, form a chairmen's committee. When legislation is referred to a committee, the chairman should meet with the steering committee of that legislative committee and work out a time frame within which the deliberations can be concluded. The chairman should then sit down with the other chairmen and together work out the schedule of work, taking into account that certain Bills will take longer than others. Then, in the process, committees will be assigned some heavy work and some lighter work so that they will be able to proceed in a more orderly way.
I say to the Government House Leader in the most friendly way that it ought not to be necessary for the Government to move time allocation, except in the most extraordinary circumstances. I believe that we should be able, together, to look at legislation and determine how long is reasonable time for dealing with it at second reading. We should be able, without fear of criticism publicly or otherwise, to determine within the time frame that we know is the parliamentary calendar how much time can reasonably be allocated for dealing with a piece of legislation at a particular stage. If 1 may say so, I do not recall when I made this point some years ago and got the wholehearted support of the then Official Opposition. I might get it now, since the then Official Opposition is in Government, but I may not get it from the present Official Opposition. However, I believe that in the interests of Parliament we
Reform of the House of Commons should seek that kind of understanding. The time we are talking about is not endless. The responsibility is to point out the flaws in the legislative program. However, the responsibility is to also deal with it.
1 suggest that when these new legislative proposals come into effect, albeit on a trial basis, together we should consider the three suggestions I have made and make every effort to live by them. It should not be a practice to breach them; they should only be breached as an exception.
Having said that, I look forward to the trial period. It will not be easy. We have to be patient and we must understand that not everything will work exactly the way we anticipated.


Mr. W. Paul McCrossan (York-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to participate in this debate tonight on parliamentary reform because I believe it is one of the most important issues that will be dealt with in the House. 1 want to commend particularly the committee and the chairman of the committee for producing what I believe will be important wide ranging reforms.
Each of us brings his or her own perspective in the House. I have had a rather checkered political career. In a very short period of years I have been in opposition, a Government Member in a minority Government, I have been out of office and 1 have been a Government Member in a majority Government. I think I have just about covered all the bases in a very few years. I have come to some conclusions about the necessity of parliamentary reform as a result of seeing Parliament from the different aspects I have experienced in those few years.
I want to deal with three issues that are in the report and one issue that is not in the report but that 1 believe is important to parliamentary reform. I believe that parliamentary reform is necessary to have an effective Parliament and effective Members. The first issue was dealt with earlier, but I believe I can put a different perspective on it. It concerns votes of confidence.
I do not want my remarks to be misunderstood by the Opposition, my fellow Members or the press. I am proud of the record of our Government. I think we have had a solid economic performance, with good legislation. However, let me say quite frankly that I think the record could be improved with respect to legislation we have presented.
In some cases, 1 think legislation should have been amended in committee. I am not quite sure that I am ready to say that legislation should have been defeated, but I certainly see some cases where Government legislation may warrant defeat. I am not out to end my political career in martyrdom by trying to pick a Bill with which to defeat my own Government, but I think we are talking about an important principle. Members of a Government Party or indeed members of the Opposition should feel free be able to vote against a Bill if they feel strongly about it. It is important to recognize the pressure that can be put upon Members both by their own Party and indeed by the opposition Parties.
The Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner) said earlier tonight that the onus is on the Government to free up its

December 4, 1985
Reform of the House of Commons
Members. Well, I would argue that if the system is going to work, the onus is equally on the Opposition. The onus is on the Opposition because the first time a Government Member breaks ranks, the temptation will be there in the Opposition to talk about the Tories being divided again, to say that they cannot stay united and so on. It is in their interests that we not go back to that old system. That will force the system back into the rigidity which we have had in the previous years.
I do not believe it will be the end of the world if a Government measure is defeated. Margaret Thatcher has a majority Government comparable in numbers, at least, if not percentages, to that of our Government. However, she has lost a number of Bills since she has been Prime Minister. No one is suggesting that Margaret Thatcher is weak because one of her Bills was defeated. Perhaps it is a reflection of a strong Parliament and strong individual Members of Parliament.
If and when a Government Bill is defeated, let the Opposition not use that to point out that it is due to a weak Prime Minister. It may not be our Prime Minister. It might not happen until another Parliament. However, let the Opposition recognize that it is the way Parliament should function if parliamentary reform is going to work.
The second issue dealt with by the committee is the issue of smaller standing committees with broader powers which can produce wide-ranging reports. Something which has struck me since I have been in Parliament-I have been in three-is the high quality of Members from all Parties. I have had the opportunity to work on many standing committees. Recently in this House, I worked on the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs when we were producing a report on child benefits. I also worked on the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs when we were working on the investigation of banks, trust companies and insurance companies.
I could list the members from my Party who impressed me, but perhaps I could make my point better by saying that on the Health, Welfare and Social Affairs Committee I particularly enjoyed working with the Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell) and the Member for Sudbury (Mr. Frith) because I thought that together we were able to produce something that was useful. Similarly, in the Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs Committee I enjoyed working with the Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) and the Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson) to whom I never even had a chance to talk let alone get to know and find out how valuable and hard working she was as a Member.
The point I want to make is that I think we have a tremendous amount of talent in the House which, with parliamentary reform, can be used for the benefit of the country. As I see it, smaller committees with much more power can investigate matters that may not be that important to the Government of the day but can be important national issues on which there can be consensus. Just as the reform committee
was able to produce some pretty revolutionary ideas, I see the same thing happening under the new standing committees.
The third issue about which I want to speak briefly is the matter of Private Members' Business and allowing some of it to come to a vote. The system we have now where basically the Government decides which measures come to a vote is wrong. It should be a committee of private Members that decides what measures warrant coming to a vote. There are many Members bursting with ideas here which could be accepted. Perhaps they will not bring in the wide-ranging Bills a Minister is expected to bring in, but they could bring in measures which are important for the country and improve the quality of life of many people, regions or whatever. Allowing Members to designate which Private Members' Business comes to vote is a very important part of reform. I hope we can approach that issue in as non-partisan a manner as we have the reform committee itself.
I indicated that I wanted to speak briefly on a subject which was not covered by the report. 1 think it is an important subject when it comes to dealing with the effectiveness of Members and of Parliament. It concerns recognizing that Members have different responsibilities which in some ways are reflected by the size of their ridings. I happen to represent the most populous riding of the country, which is now some 10 times to 12 times the size of the smallest riding in Canada. The Hon. Member for Nunatsiaq (Mr. Suluk) represents a riding which I think is a little bigger than Europe. He has special responsibilities as a result of that. While those different demands on him are recognized in a very small way through the moneys available to Members, they are not adequately recognized. I do not think his ability to function as an effective private Member is really available to his constituents because of the constraints placed upon him. Certainly I feel the same, representing the largest riding in Canada.
I talked briefly about supporting or not supporting a Bill. I happen to support a Bill which is before the House right now dealing with redistribution. I also recognize that the new redistribution Bill cannot be brought into effect before 1988. I am somewhat terrified by the prospect of representing, not a quarter of a million constituents when the average is 85,000, but some 350,000 to 400,000 constituents by that time. In order to make Parliament effective, the House has to address the problem of what should be done for Members who represent very large geographic or remote ridings or Members who represent enormously growing ridings, so that they can be effective Members of Parliament, representing their constituents adequately and also representing their views adequately in a national forum.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to participate in the debate on reform this evening. First let me say, "Amen and me too" to the last words uttered regarding the size of ridings and the facilities available to Members of Parliament, given various kinds of ridings-some of them are large and rural and others are heavily populated-and the current disparity which exists. That matter was not addressed in the report. I believe the
December 4, 1985

House can address it by way of the Internal Economy Commission, if we have the political will to do so.
Perhaps I represent, in some sense, the majority of Members of Parliament in respect of this reform exercise. I am one of those who did not pay a lot of attention to the exercise. I am one of those who did not participate by taking the time to come before the committee to understand what it was about and to make my views known. I am one of those who very nearly was not here tonight because I thought that what would happen was esoteric and would not make that much difference.
A few days ago I read, from beginning to end, the report of the reform committee. I really read it, rather than quickly look at the major recommendations and not give much thought to the exercise. I became excited about the reform process when I read the report. When I came here in 1980, like many new Members I believed, contrary to that famous quote by someone or other who said that parliamentarians 50 feet away from Parliament Hill were nobodies, that to be elected as a Member of Parliament was a great honour and privilege and was quite a serious responsibility, by the very nature of the fact that my constituents saw fit in an election campaign to send me here. 1 truly believed that my voice would count for something and that 1 could in a substantial and real way, as could every Member of Parliament, make a difference. I believed that my being here would count for something and that 1 would have some input if I was prepared to work hard. I discovered that it was not the case that parliamentarians were nobodies 50 feet from Parliament Hill, that the opposite was true, and once we got within 50 feet of this place we became nobodies. In our ridings the understanding of the mandate given to us was fairly clear. It was to speak in the House of Commons, to participate in the decision-making process and to exercise, bearing in mind our constituents' views, our best judgment in the final analysis. As a member of the Liberal Government of the day-and I am sure it is no different whatever Government is in power-I discovered that in order to get along I had to go along. I discovered that if I exercised an independent point of view or judgment, I would be considered a rabble-rouser or a rebel because I would be bucking the carefully laid plans of the executive branch of Government, and there were no rewards for that kind of attitude.
What does that teach Members of Parliament? What does that tell us? It tells us that the House of Commons-and this is somewhat of an exaggeration-is a little like Beirut. There is a green line running down the centre carpet, and a Member in his own caucus and in his own Party is best rewarded when he aims his gun across the way and pulls the trigger, irrespective of whether or not in his own best judgment his energies are truly being well spent and in a way which represents the best interests of his constituents.
There is a real opportunity for all of us, as a result of the report, the excellent work of the McGrath Committee and all members who served on it, to make a change. That is not to say that we will function in a parliamentary system where we are all chums, where we agree all the time and where we always operate with a consensus. That will not happen. There
Reform of the House of Commons will be times when we agree and when we disagree strongly. That is as it should be. However, we ought not to be disagreeing just for the sake of establishing Party lines and undertaking our responsibilities as Party people versus parliamentarians.
I have a couple of concerns to which 1 would like to see a positive Government response if the reform process is to work. One of those, and 1 believe the most important, is in the committee process and having parliamentary secretaries taken off those committees. I was a parliamentary secretary for three years. I will tell you what my job was. It was to understand the Minister's point of view, to understand what the Minister wanted to happen, to rally the majority of Members on the Government side, and I did that effectively, and to get the Bill through in exactly the manner in which the Minister proposed it or with the least possible change.
What happens when you set up that kind of system? Government Members initially resent being told how they should vote, what is acceptable and what is not. However, after a year find they cannot fight the system or, if they do fight the system, they are not rewarded. To the contrary, they become rabble-rousers in this place. They learn to come in, be a warm body, find out which way the Party is going and vote accordingly.
That is not because parliamentary secretaries have an inherent desire to run a dictatorial regime. It is not because the Government or even Ministers have an inherent desire to run a dictatorial regime. That is the system we have had. If we are going to continue to have parliamentary secretaries, and this is very important, sit on these committees, there must be an opportunity for Government Members and Opposition Members to reach a real consensus. Consensus means give and take. It means you do not get everything you want. However, you expect to see some sensitivity that at least people are listening to your ideas. Even if your ideas are rejected, there is some satisfaction in knowing that you at least had the opportunity, starting with the first clause of the Bill, to make your views known. Hopefully, people on all sides are listening to your point of view, accepting it or rejecting it for rational reasons.
I say to the Government House Leader that there is nothing more important, in my judgment, on the matters on which he reserved that needs to be corrected than this question. If this is not corrected, we will have changed the structure, but we will have presented a factor in the committee work that will make it impossible to have any kind of serious, objective consideration of government proposals.
It is strange when all of us realize that caucuses, which are the place where Parties should come together to develop policy, do not work that way. We all know what caucus is primarily used for, particularly if you are in Government. 1 have been there. Caucus is the escape valve where Members who cannot speak their mind because of the current make-up of the system go behind closed doors and let off steam. It is not only the escape valve but a red light indicator for the execu-

December 4, 1985
Reform of the House of Commons tive. The executive discover from time to time when matters are building up and the pressure is becoming extreme. That works in all caucuses, Opposition and Government. There is no better indicator that it is not just a minority of Members who feel the desire to operate as more independent agents or as agents of their constituents and their conscience in this House.
Tonight there is almost a magical mood in this House. I find it a fascinating experience to listen to parliamentarians on all sides. I sense the desire for real change. When the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) was in the chair, he did a fine job, enjoying the confidence of Members on all sides of the House.
I close by simply saying that the majority of Members of this place are not here. I suppose most of them are like me. They are either late coming to the reform process, they have not paid much attention, or they are so cynical about the current structure that they think nothing can make any difference. We must address the question of parliamentary secretaries, the question of confidence, and address something which is terribly cloudy in the reform process. People are venting their frustration in the wrong way. Legislative committees have got out of control. They are too big and too numerous. That must be addressed immediately.


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, it must indeed be a magical evening when I can stand up after the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin) and say I agree. For several years that has not been my experience and it is indeed a pleasure.
I sat here this evening remembering my sense of deep anguish during the constitutional debate and in the constitutional committee. My sense of anguish about the constitutional committee was that we had probably collected in that room from among the Members of the Senate and the House of Commons almost as good a group of Canadians in terms of their background and concern as was possible. We were able to call as witnesses the most informed group of Canadians in the country. When it came to amending that piece of legislation, the power did not lie with the Members who sat in that room. The power lay outside the room. We did not know who it was, but we knew that whoever it was, they did not have the time to listen to the witnesses, to share the sense of anguish or the sense of hope, whatever was there, and then use their judgment to produce a basic law for this country that would work.
What the parliamentary reform committee is proposing to this Chamber is not reform of the Chamber. It is a revolution for the Chamber. As is the case in all revolutions, you can espouse the cause, fire the guns and achieve the revolution, but there is a delicate period which follows as to whether the revolution will stick or disappear.
This evening I would like to direct by remarks, perhaps in a somewhat critical fashion, at some of the Government's response to some recommendations of the parliamentary reform committee. If we are really going to use the talents of the Members of this Chamber, and I concur with previous speakers who say that the notion of confidence and its use or
abuse lies at the very heart of the reform process, we must not have the tendency to think of that sense of confidence simply in terms of votes in this Chamber. In reality, the useful work which Members will do is more often in committees. The executive branch of Government must have confidence in those committees and in the wisdom of those committees to do a lot of the work.
I was sitting here this evening wondering if I am ever going to see a Minister come before a standing committee or legislative committee and say: "Here is a piece of legislation which represents the best thinking of the executive branch. What 1 want from you is a lot of hard work to see if you can make it better. Do not come back to me and ask me about my judgment. Simply call your witnesses, hire your experts, sit in dialogue together, take that piece of legislation and make it as good as you can".
If that were the set of instructions to a standing committee or a legislative committee, it would make the world for all of us a great deal more satisfying. More important, it would make legislation better. Legislation would be more sensitive to the reality of all parts of this country. What we have had in place up to this point is a set of bureaucrats who live in Ottawa. They may be in Justice and do the actual drafting or they may be in a policy analysis part of Government. They live here in Ottawa, they are captives of the Ottawa television stations, radio stations and newspapers. They do not understand the reality of Canada. It is Members of Parliament who were sent here to reflect that reality. Whatever we can do in this new revolution to free those Members up to do their jobs will work in the best interests of all parts of the country. That delicate situation relies on the political leaders. The risks are greatest for the Government and less so for the Opposition, but the leaders of all three political Parties and the sub-leaders within those Parties must demonstrate in the things they say and the ways they act a commitment to the processes that are possible within this place.
The part of the report on parliamentary reform about which I have thought the most and about which I know the most is the part about the role to be played by committees in the future. I was pleased to see that the Government simply agreed with Recommendation 4.1 which sets out the role of standing committees. However, the Government then began to deal with the structure of the standing committee system, and there we begin to disagree. I would like to suggest to the Government House Leader and the House Leaders of the other two Parties that they think about that a little more.
The biggest deviation from the philosophy of the reform committee's report as it affects standing committees is the decision by the Government to go to eight-person committees rather than seven and to include the parliamentary secretaries as the eighth person. When the Hon. Member for Burin-St. George's (Mr. Price), who had that kind of experience with the previous Government, laid out his concerns about it, I found myself nodding my head. I think he was dead on. There
December 4, 1985

is a role conflict, and that is what the committee told us and what our experience has told us. I hope that the Government will reconsider that in what is an experimental year.
There is nothing that stops a committee from co-operating with a parliamentary secretary and nothing that stops a committee from bringing the parliamentary secretary forward as a witness. However, having a parliamentary secretary as a member of the committee creates a problem regarding the issue of confidence. That is its biggest flaw. There is as well a secondary flaw. Any time there is a committee with an even number of members, more pressure is put on the committee when it comes to creating a quorum. It is easier to get four out of seven members together than it is to get five out of eight. I would hope that the Government would reconsider and return to seven-member committees as recommended in the report of the reform committee.
The other major area of disagreement I have with the Government is in its comments regarding the review of delegated legislation. All of us know that we are in a situation in which 3,500 to 4,000 Orders in Council are passed per year. All of us who have served on the Regulations and Statutory Instruments Committee know that the impact on people's lives from the publication of regulations can be and frequently is absolutely enormous. The regulations are more important in terms of impact than the actual legislation itself in most if not all instances. To leave the job of reviewing those regulations to one committee, a joint committee of the two Chambers, is to ask that committee to do the impossible. With the new setup for standing committees, if the Government were to go along with the committee's recommendation that standing committees be given the responsibility for reviewing the regulatory environment related to their areas of responsibility, I suggest that possible mistakes could be avoided and certainly regulations would be better promulgated.
I would make a brief comment on legislative committees. I would like to see them have from 10 to 30 members rather than thee present 20 to 30 members, and I would like to see their composition cut across committees. Someone from the Justice Committee should sit on every committee, as should someone familiar with finance. That way we could put a screen across a piece of legislation containing all of the different emphases Members might have.
I sent a letter to the committee recommending that we bring back evening sitting hours. I did that because I believe that if the House were not so sit until 2 p.m. four days per week, the sense of push and rush that all of us are feeling would be relieved. I know the committee did not accept my view, but it is my feeling, having experienced both systems, that one of the reasons Members do not have the time to think carefully, consider and learn enough about much legislation, is that we try to put too many things into too few hours in the course of a normal week.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I hope a few of the members of the public who watch the House of Commons during Question Period and see us as being the most undisciplined day nursery in the country will have had a
Reform of the House of Commons
chance to listen to this particular debate. I think it reflects Parliament at its best and gives us a chance to talk about some very serious concerns.
We are trying to reform this place and we are trying to ensure that the momentum for reform which built up in the last Parliament is continued. I do commend the members of the committee for their leadership and I also commend the Government, not for all of its responses but certainly for the fact that it is prepared to go a substantial way toward indicating its support for the recommendations.
I would like to talk mainly about committees tonight. Certainly in recent weeks we have experienced overload because of the overlap between the legislative committees and the larger standing committees which have different timetables. We now know that it is possible for an Hon. Member to begin his day at nine o'clock in the morning and wind it up at 10 o'clock or 11 o'clock at night and to have been in the House or committees continuously during that time. Frankly, that is exhausting and is not good in terms of the quality of work we can do. I do not think we can sustain it. That is why I would like to talk in some detail about some of the specific recommendations and ideas that I hope will be taken seriously by the House Leaders and the Government.
First, it is important that the new, smaller standing committees be independent. I happen to feel that to have only seven members on a committee with a permanent attachment may not be sufficient. My experience on the Public Accounts Committee and other committees on which I have played a part is that it is a bit like tag-team wrestling. Members do have many commitments in their ridings for speaking engagements and those sorts of things. Therefore, it seems to me that in addition to seven members on the standing committees, we should have a permanent alternative group of another seven who have some greater privileges and access to the committee minutes and agendas than other members. It should be expected that those members keep in touch with those committees and work very closely with the members to whom they are an alternative.
I do not think that a parliamentary secretary should be a full member of a committee. If the Government wants to assign a parliamentary secretary to sit in on meetings of a standing committee, exercising the right of any Member of the House to be there, I think that is fine. However, to have parliamentary secretariess on the steering committee and giving guidance to committees will, it seems to me, essentially undercut the independence of the committees. I certainly endorse the comments of the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) and others on that particular question.
There is a danger in the fact that the legislative committees, because they are ad hoc and have no history, will not have give and take between Opposition and Government Members, something which I think makes a committee work particularly well. I am concerned over the fact that some of the committees on which I have sat have seen an effort by Government Members to guillotine debate and shut down the amount of time in which consideration of an important matter could take place.

December 4, 1985
Reform of the House of Commons Since there was no appeal, we wound up wrangling with each other and playing the kind of games that I think people are anxious to try to avoid.
While allocation of time is becoming more prevalent and the Government seems to have chosen to use closure on an almost continuous basis, there must be in committees some recognition of the rights of the Opposition as well. Given that there is no give and take because legislative committees are temporary, it seems to me that there should be some right of appeal so that Opposition Members may go to House Leaders and dispute decisions of legislative committees which seem to have been too rigid in terms of their allocation of time. It seems to me that we should not have a situation in which the Government is all take and no give in terms of the way the committees work, in terms of the witnesses they hear and in terms of the amount of time which is given to ventilate concerns over important pieces of legislation, such as the divorce legislation or the legislation dealing with family allowances. These issues will come up again and again.
I endorse the comments which suggest that the size of legislative committees should be made much more varied depending upon the importance of the issue and also upon whether or not an issue is controversial. Given that the committees have to work very quickly, consideration should be given to having research support on legislative committees and, occasionally, on standing committees, allocated to caucus, that is to say, on a partisan basis and not just allocated to the committee as a whole. With respect to particular Bills, there are times when we in the New Democratic Party, or members of the Liberal Party and maybe even Government Members want to develop a particular line of thinking. We do not have the resources in our offices to carry that out. Our caucus research staff is limited and cannot focus on these committees. Sometimes the hearings of a committee may go on for a long period of time and we need to have access to either partisan researchers, who are also attached to the Library of Parliament, or perhaps even people who come in on an ad hoc basis for particular considerations.
My next point deals with the question of timetabling. It is a long way from matters of principle. However, it is very germane to all of us who have experienced a meeting at 3.30 p.m., a meeting at 6 p.m. and a meeting at 8 p.m., have gone home exhausted and in a bad temper without having had a decent supper and not having been able to do a particularly good piece of work.
When the legislative committees began it was decided that they would sit when the House sat but the standing committees would not. 1 think that decision is wrong. At times standing committees took place on a very artificial schedule. They were blocked in to two meetings, one a 6 p.m. meeting and one a day-time meeting. They have important work and yet find it impossible to fit within that particular strait-jacket. We have had situations in the Public Accounts Committee, on which I sit, which needed to meet for three hours but was told
it had to quit at 11 a.m. to make room for legislative committees, even though on certain days no such committees were scheduled after that time.
I suggest the balance has gone too far. 1 suggest too much day-time has been allocated to legislative committees and not enough to standing committees. I suggest something which is a great deal more simple and perhaps more manageable. 1 suggest that the mornings be given to the standing committees and that the afternoons be given to legislative committees exclusively, that is, outside of the time for Question Period. Then, in the evenings, when committees will only meet if they are particularly preoccupied with a subject, standing or legislative committees should be allowed to spill over into the evening hours, whether it be 6 p.m. or 8 p.m. We could see how that would work after a trial period of one year.
Some flexibility is in order because certain committees, such as the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence, need a lot of time for their considerations. The Finance Committee, which is considering the Green Paper on financial institutions, needs a lot of time and should not have to be subjected to artificial limitations.
I am also concerned about the allocation of administration costs of the House of Commons to the committees. At the moment the cost for staff alone is estimated to be something more than $1,000 per committee meeting. That enters into the budget of a committee. That will make heavy costs which could be misunderstood and even discourage committees from meeting frequently, despite the fact that most of these costs are fixed costs of the House of Commons and not variable costs, as is the case with the cost of printing committee minutes and other matters which can probably be costed and charged to the committees. I am glad to see the Government House Leader (Mr. Hnatyshyn) nodding his head.
With respect to the question of costs, we should look at ways by which committees can reduce the costs of travel, possibly by having a stripped-down form of reporting and of translation or other means by which it is flexible enough for committees to travel without the feeling that it will cost $5,000 or $6,000 a day, a sum which is felt to be intolerable.
In the limited time I have available to me, I also suggest that we should be looking at ways by which committees can communicate what they are doing to the public and call for witnesses without the need to spend $30,000 or $40,000 to advertise in every major daily newspaper across the country. That could well come into part of the public relations effort within the Speaker's office. Perhaps there should be a weekly journal of Parliament which is easy to understand and which could include notices of committee meetings calling for witnesses or informing the public about consideration of particular pieces of legislation. We could then make that journal available at a low subscription cost to every public library and newspaper in the country. Something in that respect could be part of an effort which should be made in order to find means to communicate what Parliament is doing.
The suggestion that the parliamentary channel be expanded and turned into a sort of Canadian version of C-SPAN is a
December 4, 1985

good one. The suggestion that committees be televised but that those televised versions of committees be run at night when the proceedings of Parliament are no longer on is also a good one.
The suggestion which I make now is that parliamentary notices with respect to committees seeking witnesses and so on should be on the parliamentary channel every morning between eight o'clock and nine o'clock. In this way people would know to look at the channel at that time. That should be encouraged.
The suggestion with respect to interpretive material on Parliament being televised on the channel and also in a Museum of Parliament, perhaps where the Postal Museum used to be, should be considered. The suggestion that we should try to find ways to interpret what this place is doing to visitors who come to Canada is something which is also a good idea.
Perhaps these ideas stray somewhat from what is contained in the report of the committee. However, I think they are all part of a desire that many members share, which is to make Parliament relevant and ensure that Parliament is seen to be relevant.


Mrs. Pauline Browes (Scarborough Centre):: Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to participate in this debate with respect to the reform of the House of Commons. Since I became a Member of this House approximately 17 or 18 months ago it gives me particular pleasure to take part in a debate in which we are talking about reform of the institution which represents the people of Canada.
With respect to the proposal regarding the reform of the House of Commons, I would like to restrict my remarks to the recommendation of a standing committee which suggests that there be a standing committee on human rights established. I think it is important in 1985 that a standing committee on human rights should be established. I would like to elaborate on that point.
In 1982, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was passed by the House of Commons. There was a delay experienced with respect to one section of the Charter. I refer to Section 15. This section of the Charter refers to equality, that is, that every individual is equal before the law, has the protection of the law and receives the benefits of the law. This section of the Charter came into force on April 17, 1985. When it came into force, the previous administration had done little to prepare for this three-year delay. Of course, the delay was facilitated to change programs and laws in order that they could comply with Section 15. When my Party took office in September of 1984, very little had been done in terms of preparing legislation and changing programs to comply with Section 15 of the Charter. Thus, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) brought in an omnibus Bill which changed minor items. In addition, he established a parliamentary committee formed by members of all Parties of the House to review programs and legislation.
Last summer and spring I had the opportunity to serve as vice-chairmen of the subcommittee dealing with equality rights. As all Members know, this committee was charged with
Reform of the House of Commons the responsibility of reviewing federal laws and statutes in order to determine if they conformed with Section 15 of the Charter of Rights. The work of our committee was crucial in helping develop a practical and sensible approach to equality issues under the Charter. Our report Equality for All covered a wide range of issues which demanded immediate attention.
I believe it is important for the work of the Equality Committee to go on, and it is important that that work go on here, in Parliament, carried out by parliamentarians. Therefore, I propose, consistent with the recommendations in both the McGrath Report and in the Equality for All Report, that a Standing Committee on Human Rights be established to deal with the important equality issues surrounding Section 15. The Equality for All Report listed three key reasons for an ongoing assessment of federal laws in light of Section 15 by a standing committee. First, a mechanism for public input into the process of addressing Section 15 to the wishes and needs of the community is very important. Under the current committee system, that mechanism does not exist.
Second, future Government policies or programs which are introduced into the House as legislation, may not conform to the Charter and, therefore, that legislation would merit scrutiny by a Human Rights Standing Committee.
Third, an all-Party committee would be in a position to review the Charter conformity of federal laws, providing the opportunity and enabling the examination of that legislation with input from witnesses attending that standing committee. That, in my opinion, would assist the Ministers of the Crown who are often consumed with the details and intricacies of the legislation. The standing committee would give us the overview representing all the regions of the country.
If there is one important message which came through loud and clear during the cross-country hearings of the Equality Rights Committee, it is that Canadians are very interested about how their Charter will affect their lives. Those concerns will continue to arise as our legal system grapples with the details and complexities of Section 15. Therefore, it is most important that Parliament deal with these issues as opposed to putting these issues into the hands of the lawyers or the courts. It is most important that we as parliamentarians continue to work toward practical application of the Charter which will fulfill the great principles of equality, justice and fairness for which this country has always stood.
The issues raised in the Equality for All Report represent only the beginning of a long and exciting process of clarifying our Charter and applying it to Canadian society. Let us make Parliament a part of that process by establishing a Human Rights Committee which will address the fundamental equality issues this country is now facing and those it will face in the future.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I take some pleasure in participating in this debate, mainly because the wisdom of whoever drafted the motion that this

December 4, 1985
Reform of the House of Commons House take note of the matter of reform of the House of Commons has given us all a chance to address the issue of reform in the House, and many other matters.
Since the end of June of last year, we have been operating under a different set of rules. We adopted, I believe, on June 27, some modifications to our rules which were inspired, in part, by the special committee of the House chaired by my friend, the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath). These were supported, I believe by most Members of the committee-at least all those I have come in contact with-in the spirit of trying to make this place more relevant to the issues of modern society and more understandable to Canadians.
I do not want to address all of the issues because none of us could do that in just 10 minutes. But since we have been operating since June under certain rules, I would like, as Party Whip of the Liberal Opposition, to make a few comments on how we have done with the new rules since September. I do not believe we can operate without a foundation of trust among the House Leaders of the Government and of the opposition Parties. I believe there have been some elements of difficulty which have arisen from the fact that some rules were either misunderstood or applied unequally.

What in French, Mr. Speaker, would be referred to as "demi-mesures". I do not think that in this Chamber we can tolerate that when a parliamentary committee makes recommendations, Members only go along with what suits them and drop what does not.
This evening, there has been some discussion about the legislative committees. I believe there is a problem. We have 282 Members in the House, and two weeks ago I counted 51 committees including standing, legislative, special and joint committees, task forces and sub-committees; add to these the task forces of political parties that travel across the country and all the work that has to be done in committee and in the House. Members each have to do their share of a very impressive workload, something which I think is at times frustrating because we are not always able to work in the manner we would like and to see exactly where we are going.
Mr. Speaker, not long ago you sent me to England to see how legislative committees were handled over there. I appreciated this opportunity because I found that with 650 Members and a very impressive legislative menu, the people over there had managed to set up eight legislative committees, which they refer to as standing committees, and each committee receives the legislation which is sent by the House of Commons, and there is a line-up and people wait their turn to be heard. I think that is eminently sensible.
We did not do that. Every Wednesday, I sit down with the Government Whip and the New Democratic Party's Whip and we have to appoint Members to legislative committees, when the House has adopted a bill on first reading or the Member has presented a Private Member's Bill in his name. That is not
what was recommended by the Committee on Parliamentary Reform. Somebody failed to understand what the Committee's recommendation was and this caused some problems. We are now stuck with an incredible number of committees and that has caused problems as well.
The other question I wanted to raise-and I realize I don't have much time-concerns Ministers' comments or statements. Ministers' statements are usually made on very short notice, and the Official Opposition and the other opposition have the right to reply, but the time spent on these statements is made up at the end of the day. Sometimes this may cause problems. A statement may take five minutes or half an hour, and this time is added on at the end of the day.
The point 1 wanted to make, Mr. Speaker, and I think you know what I am referring to because I already brought this up two or three times this week, or at least in the last few days, and that is that the provisions of Standing Order 46(7) provide that normally, the hour set aside for Private Members' Business ... If I am a backbencher and I want to have an adjournment debate because I asked a question and was not satisfied with the reply, I have the right to ask for an adjournment debate, a late show.
I can request that a question be dated on the "Late Show", and at certain times it is allowed. Standing Order 46(7) says when there is a vote the "Late Show" shall not take place unless there has been a statement by a Minister and Standing Order 19(4) applies-then there is a "Late Show". Yesterday we had a typical example of that. I cannot understand the logic of that. I do not know who came up with that, that sometimes, when there is a Minister's statement of five minutes, we have "Late Shows", and other times when there is no statement there is no "Late Show". I do not understand that. Somebody must clarify for us some day why a private Member is entitled to a "Late Show" if a Minister makes a statement, in certain circumstances, and at other times he is not. This does not make sense, and these are the things we have to clarify. I hope the Government House Leader will take that into consideration when he comes in with his package, if he has one to present.
I just want to make a few comments during this opportunity we have at this time to address the question of reform. I have been here for 13 years, Mr. Speaker. Every time we have talked reform in this House we have had difficulties, because the opposition is too strong or the Government is afraid and we do not move. This time I think the Government has the proper atmosphere and the proper timing, and it should move. But, very importantly, we must be entirely satisfied that we have debated this question thoroughly.
Speaking for the members of my caucus, I do not think we can accept that some deal will be made somewhere, that it will come in a package at whatever time in the evening, and we will say we have agreed to these changes of our House rules. I
December 4, 1985

think the Government has to come in with a package, and that the package must be debated in this House as it is tonight. 1 think it is a matter of eloquence, Mr. Speaker. The speeches I have heard tonight have been very eloquent and very interesting. 1 really must say that I have been here for some years now and I have heard some very, very nice statements and some very good ideas put forth by Members.
The point I really want to make clear to the House Leader is, and I think his little distrust comes from his misunderstanding of this point, that we want debate. Tonight 10 minute speeches are too short. 1 would like to have put questions to the Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath). I would like to have put questions to the Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet). We could not do it because of our constraints tonight.
I hope that if the Government House Leader intends to come in with a package of new reforms, these reforms will be inspired by this committee work, and that indeed the Government will read it properly, digest it properly and come forth, not with half measures but with full measures. Surely it is time we moved on reform, and that we created that type of atmosphere in which we all participate in a debate-not a monologue as we see tonight. I think it is good, it is interesting, it is eloquent, but 1 would like to have some real debate with some Members of the House. Those of us who cannot attend all of these committees need to have this debate in the House. We have to be able to discuss with our colleagues in the House the pros and cons, for example, of electronic voting versus manual voting versus lobby voting versus a whole system of improving the way that we vote.
I would like to see us debate these questions at the appropriate time, and I leave it in the House Leader's hands to arrange that. I repeat that the trust is his to take and to go with, and we will certainly work with him in the interests of House reform.


Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, this is a very interesting discussion we are having tonight. I do not believe it can be tainted by any acrimony or any accusation of political binding. It has been in effect a free-wheeling, freespeaking debate.
I think we are attacking in this debate tonight some symptoms which we cannot get at by the reforms that have been suggested in the remarks of the Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin) and to the Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand). Their emphasis was not on the difficulty within the House, but rather was on the failure of the Parties concerned to allow input from backbenchers to obtain the consensus we are now seeking to obtain by parliamentary reform, when in fact what we need is an element of caucus reform which does in fact accommodate the opportunity for the individual to represent his policies, his principles, his own interests with Canada as a whole.
There has been some discussion as to what is a free vote and when should it occur. Let us suppose that we introduce into this House an opportunity for a free vote. Let us take some examples of legislation that has been dealt with in this House
Reform of the House of Commons of Commons since it has been my privilege to represent my constituents.
Let us assume for the moment that we adopted the pattern of the United States Government where there is in fact a free vote, in principle, although I submit to you that most Members are bound by the principles they have espoused in their own constituency, that they are as bound in their voting by their own constituencies or their own districts as is any Member of this House bound in his vote as a result of his association with the Party and the constituency which he represents. It is a myth that it is totally free. There are a few people with stature who can in effect vote freely to their hearts' content, who will be returned to the Congress or the Senate of the United States, but there are only a handful of people who really have at their disposal a totally free vote.
I am going to make a suggestion here tonight which will not be acceptable to a great many people. I may get ruled out of order by some, or they might wish I would be. We have a bicameral system, and if ever there was need for reform it is that we reintroduce the intent of the bicameral system which was brought in with Confederation. There is an opportunity for the Senate to be given Green Papers, White Papers- whatever papers-for study and reference. 1 can think of no better work than that done by the agricultural committee when it studied soil erosion and prepared a report. I think that is typical of what it could do, and what it should do. This would relieve this House of those onerous duties that are beyond the capacity of most Members. It has been pointed out many times by many speakers on all sides of the House that the overload of committee work, plus constituency work, does render us to a degree incapable of serving all the purposes for which we are here.
We have heard some talk about what should happen to private Bills. I have had a little experience in this area. Let us be honest about private Bills. Some private Bills are introduced on principle. I think the Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen) who spoke earlier in the evening, espoused a principle in a Bill that he pursued for six years. I think it should have had the opportunity of a vote in this House-not a Party vote, not a vote on the whip at all.
I want to cite an example of a mischievous Bill which was introduced by one Ralph Ferguson who later became the Hon. Ralph Ferguson and the Minsiter of Agriculture. If ever there was a Bill intended to incite discontent in this nation it was that private Bill.
How then, Mr. Speaker, do we delineate between the mischievous Bills and those of principle which should have consideration? To say that private Bills should automatically be accepted by this House and go to committee is saying that every mischievous act of every mischievous Member, and there are many of us here who could be mischievous in opposition or in Government, should indeed be referred to committee for study. The Bill introduced by the Hon. Ralph Ferguson is an example of why, under no circumstances, should there be a carte blanche for private Bills to hit committee or the House in

December 4, 1985
Reform of the House of Commons
debate. How then do we sort out the mischievous from the sincere in principle?
1 say to the Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta, through you, Mr. Speaker, that his is an honourable case, but all cases are not honourable. How many of us have participated in the preparation of private Bills which were intended to be mischievous and embarrassing to the Government? That was their purpose and there is no question about that.
Before I arrived in Ottawa as a Member of Parliament I had the privilege of sitting in a provincial Government. I think that Government had the answer to some of the problems which have been voiced directly and indirectly or insinuated. That Government allowed Party members the opportunity to participate and influence the consensus within their own Party and before virtually every piece of legislation was introduced in the House it was vetted in principle before the caucus or the caucus committee. That would remove a great many of the problems which have been voiced here. But it has not been the principle of the executive of the Party, let alone the executive of the Government, to vet its policies, legislation or principles before its own caucus or caucus committee with a particular concern of interest.
If a free vote had been introduced I believe there are two or three pieces of legislation which the Members from the Atlantic provinces would have rejected out of hand during the last Government. I do not see any other Maritime Members here. Oh, there is one at the far distant corner of the House, the Hon. Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan), and there is one behind me from Prince Edward Island.
The health Bill introduced by the then Minister, Madame Begin, was one which deprived Atlantic Canada of badly needed money by virtue of its phraseology. Had the Atlantic region had a free vote in the House the Government of the day could not have passed that Bill in the form in which it did. Therein lies the difficulty of an area getting consensus in its own caucus, because had that area been able to achieve consensus and express the needs of Atlantic Canada that Bill would never have appeared in the House as it did.
One could go further than that and refer to certain pieces of legislation related, for example, to the fishing industry, a very major item in Atlantic Canada. The Member for Southwest Nova and I moved and seconded a motion for information in the fisheries committee. The results of that motion never came forward because the then Miniser of Fisheries blocked the information we requested. We should indeed explore what information can be obtained in committee. There is reform required.
However, let us not consider that we are part of a republican system. Before we go too far with the reform of the Hosue we must consider whether we are indeed trying to adopt republican principles in a British parliamentary system, there is room for changes. The Auditor General was mentioned tonight, and, as he said, it is impossible for a self-respecting member of the
Committee on Pubic Accounts to nail down the information which gives rise to the allegations of the Auditor General. He made a charge with regard to the Dairy Commission of Canada. Unless we had a leaker within the Dairy Commission-one who would give us confidential information-we could not ask the right questions to learn why he made the charge, who was the culprit, and who should be dismissed. The Act, as it presently exists, does not serve the House of Commons or Canada.
These are areas which require reform, Mr. Speaker. I thank you for the opportunity to speak on this debate. However, let us not dream that we are a republican system-we are not. Until we change the minds of the Opposition Parties, the people, and the press, the free vote will depict split Parties, whether NDP, Liberal or Conservative. Let us face reality.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I really had not intended to say anything tonight, I had not even intended to be here, but I happened to walk into the parliamentary lobby and, not only did the sandwiches look good, the debate on TV was excellent. I am very glad I stayed. I join with other Members to say that it has been a most enjoyable and worthwhile session. We must have more of them.
I would just like to add a couple of things which I do not think have been covered. I also want to say something for my colleague, the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy), who wanted me to mention one point he did not have time to raise. He feels that we should have an on-going review of this institution and that once a year we should have an open session such as this to allow people to speak in a very non-partisan way and to share feelings, ideas, and inspirations.
One of the things which bothers me, and probably bothers most Members of Parliament, is the perception that most people have of politicians. I am sure there are many reasons for this. Most of the politicians whom I see here day after day work very, very hard and are pretty serious minded. We do not always think alike, but that is part of the system as well. However, the perception of the public seems to be that we are pretty irrelevant, perhaps opportunistic, and somewhat shallow and manipulative. I must say that I do not find that. I think we are a pretty noble bunch, on the whole.
I think that we need to show this kind of a session to the public occasionally. This is kind of an in-House meeting that we are having tonight. I do not imagine many viewers in the outside world are as interested in parliamentary reform as we are. However, surely there is some way in which we can get this kind of mood projected into some of our other sessions so that the public will see us a little differently. So many of the people I speak with think that Question Period is just a squabble. Every time I return to Ottawa my niece asks if I am going back to the "funny farm". I find that it is people who enjoy theatre and politics who really enjoy Question Period. An awful lot of people do not understand what we are getting at. Perhaps the commentators on TV could help us to explain that the Opposition has an important role to play in democracy by criticizing. Many people do not understand that. We must try to change perceptions a bit.
December 4, 1985

The point I really want to make has to do with the role of Members of Parliament other than in the House. I always feel that my first responsibility is to represent my constituency, to create a two-way flow between Ottawa and my constituents and make Government and Parliament come alive. 1 am wondering why the Committee on Parliamentary Reform did not deal with any of the responsibilities we have and the reforms that are needed in our roles in the constituencies. I imagine it did not have enough time.
We all tend to say that our ridings are all different; some are close to Ottawa, some are very distant, some are rural, and some are urban. I personally feel that we do not have enough common standards to follow. I would like to mention two or three things.
I think we would all agree that the MP in the local constituency office has a responsibility to provide accurate information about federal programs and legislation. Yet we do not always have the necessary tools to do this. 1 would like to have a regular report on what is going on in the House that we could make available to our constituents. We all do our own things in our householders which are slanted to our own perspectives. However, I think that something quite factual and direct is needed. I have had ethnic groups in particular asking for this. I think we could improve our information systems. I do not know what it is like in the riding offices of other Members. However, it is often very difficult to keep an effective information system operating when being visited by many constituents. I believe that system could be standardized to a greater extent.
I believe most Members would agree that Members and their staff in those offices should be available to act as ombudspersons. We have a problem-solving role to play, particularly with respect to federal issues. But we are also advocates for citizens and have a responsibility to bring the problems of our constituents to the attention of the bureaucracies. Of course, we must also represent our constituencies in the House.
1 am not sure that all Members of Parliament have set schedules for the public to visit their constituency offices in order to see their Members. I realize that it is very difficult for Members who live on the West Coast to make sure that they can be at the office. One is often called back for votes and other matters. However, if we are going to make reforms in this area, perhaps we could set a standard.
For those of us who come from a distance, we can work much more efficiently by spending one week during a month in our riding. One can be available and accomplish much more, rather than recycling jet lag every two or three days. I suggest most Members would agree with such a procedure.
1 believe there should be a general procedure by which Members have a monthly accountability session for their constituents.
Another question concerns how our constituency offices are used. I believe that, because my constituency office is paid for
Reform of the House of Commons by the taxpayer, it should be available to be used almost as a community resource, provided it is in a non-partisan way. There may be ways in which we can relate to different community organizations. For instance, perhaps some offices could provide help with income tax matters, using volunteers. 1 recall having a UFFI information service from my office. It is a public office and I believe it should be available for community use.
Those are some of the questions that occurred to me. However, 1 am essentially suggesting that at some point this might be another chapter of the reform book. Again, I want to congratulate everyone who has done so much work for us.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I am indeed pleased to have an opportunity to participate in this debate. I only had an opportunity to listen to part of the debate tonight, but I was impressed with what 1 heard.
I think you would agree, Mr. Speaker, that in my 11 years in the House my role has not been one of speaking frequently in this chamber. One of the reasons 1 have not spoken frequently is that all too often these debates in the House are meaningless because Members are simply repeating what has been said by others. It is part of a game that is played between both sides of the House, and I do not like to participate in that game too often. However, this debate tonight is altogether different.
First, 1 want to congratulate the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn) for allowing this debate to take place, as well as to congratulate the House Leaders of the opposition Parties for co-operating and allowing this debate to be held.
There are two areas I would like to address which have been of great concern to me in my years in the House of Commons. One is the role of private Members and the other is the role of standing committees. I am sure that when all of us come here in the first year we are rather impressed, but certainly dismayed by the lack of a role for the private Member. Many of our colleagues have spoken about that tonight.
I have been particularly impressed by that problem in the last year when we had a great influx of approximately 140 new private Members. I am deeply concerned about the degree of disillusion that I see among some of the very bright young Members in the House over the lack of opportunity they have to fulfil some of the aspirations they brought with them from their ridings. Perhaps those Members from both sides of the House feel that they do not have the opportunity to express themselves and be heard in an effective way by the powers that be. I have had the privilege of serving on both sides of the House and appreciate the problems faced by Members from both sides.
Let me compliment the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath). He is one of the veterans in the House and, in being chosen as chairman of this special committee, has been able to exercise his experience over the years in helping to

December 4, 1985
Reform of the House of Commons
formulate some of these new recommendations. He and his committee are to be congratulated.
The Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell) suggested that perhaps the public was not too interested in what is being said here tonight. I do not believe that is true. Many of my more concerned constituents express extreme dismay when they learn that I come to the House to vote on an issue without even knowing what the vote is about. One simply comes in and follows the leader. As a private Member, one is not challenged to think about an issue; we can survive very adequately by voting as we are told by our House Leader. That dismays some constituents because they believe they have sent us here to express our views on issues and expect that our views will be heard and given due consideration.
One of the points that I believe the Hon. Member for St. John's East and his committee is attempting to make, and which I believe the Government in fairness is trying to recognize, is that we have a right to be adequately heard. I commend the committee on its attempt to allow a so-called free vote in the House, recognizing that there must be votes of confidence on certain issues.
1 also recognize the caveat expressed by the Hon. Member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain) that we do not want to have a presidential system here. However, I believe that within the parliamentary system as we know it there is room for more involvement by private Members than we have had heretofor.
I am impressed by the committee's suggestion for the role of private Members in standing committees, including that there be seven Members on the committee, without a parliamentary secretary. I must admit that I have not given much study to that suggestion, but 1 like the idea and hope that the President of the Privy Council and his colleagues will reconsider their move to make it an eight-member committee.
It has occurred to me over the years, as it has to many of my colleagues, that private Members have very little opportunity to effectively influence legislation that goes through the House. Let us assume that the executive branch knew that it would have to gain individual support from Members on all sides of the House when bringing in legislation. If that had happened when the Liberals were in power there would not have been some of the bad legislation we have seen over those years. The same is true now. If we have not already done so, our Government may introduce bad legislation, because most government supporters feel obliged to support a government Bill. I hope there will be more opportunity for private Members to have input before legislation has been drafted by the Government.
As always, my colleague, the Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes), gave a most eloquent presentation tonight in which he expressed the importance of encouraging the Government to attend committees, asking those committees to convert its ideas into good legislation. I believe that such a process would result in attracting better Members of Parliament who would stay here. Furthermore, legislation introduced by the Government would be much better vetted and studied before being voted on in the House.
Without taking up more time of the House, let me say that I commend the committee, and its Chairman in particular. I hope the Government will see fit, in co-operation with the opposition Parties, to make some appropriate changes to the House which are long overdue.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate tonight. I want to start by complimenting the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) on his excellent work in reform of the House of Commons and on his contributions to this area in the past, as I think all other members of that committee merit praise for trying to make Parliament work better.
It is not often that we have occasion to participate in an excellent debate, as is the case tonight, in a manner which is far less partisan than is sometimes the case. I have been known to have been partisan on rare occasions myself, but I am very pleased to participate in this debate tonight without any partisan overtones. At least, I hope not to inject any of those overtones into my remarks.
One matter I should like to raise with the House concerns possible changes to Private Members' Hour. I had the honour and privilege of being elected at the municipal, provincial and federal levels. When I was in the Ontario legislature, 1 was very fond of the process by which it dealt with Private Members' Business.
In this House, Private Members' Business only lasts one hour, and it is toward the end of the day. In my view the present process here is nothing short of a glorified adjournment debate. When Private Members' Hour comes along everyone leaves. Everyone knows that there will not be a vote at the end. In fact, what we have is an adjournment debate which lasts an hour and 30 minutes instead of a 30 minute adjournment debate. I think that is very unfortunate.
The process in the Ontario Legislative Assembly-and 1 believe it still exists-was better than the one we have here. First, the debate lasted all afternoon, one day a week. There was a very good exchange in which four or five Members from each political Party participated. Also there was no such thing as talking out a Bill. At the end of the day there was a vote. Every Wednesday afternoon at 5.50 o'clock there was a vote. There actually had to be a conscious effort on the part of someone to defeat the Bill, if that was the case. It made for a very interesting afternoon. Often we saw Government Members voting with the Opposition and Opposition Members voting with the Government against one of their own colleagues, and so forth. It was truly a Private Members' Hour in that sense. There was no attempt at trying to be polite and speaking in favour of a colleague's Bill when one was really trying to talk it out, because the whole thing was an embarrassment or something like that. Sometimes this happens in the debates during Private Members' Hour in the House.
December 4, 1985

I note that good improvements are listed in the "McGrath" report, but I do not think that they go far enough. I hope we will take further steps to totally remove the partisan aspect. For instance, in that respect we could have no Whips at voting time. We could probably advocate that the Whips absent themselves from the House during the vote. Perhaps it would be symbolic, but it would be a good way of doing it. In the Ontario House, the Whips voted but they did not actually salute the Speaker prior to the vote in Private Members' Hour. In any case, I believe it would be an improvement over the system we now have.
1 should like to speak briefly about the broadcasting of the House of Commons. The suggestion of televising parliamentary committees is not the way we should be going. I know that many people are in favour of it, but I tend to disagree. If we want to improve the availibility or the opportunity for Canadians to see their Parliament, we should use what we now have. In other words, often 6.20 p.m. or 6.30 p.m. when the House adjourns we could rebroadcast the House of Commons in the evening; we have the channel, and we have the facilities. We have everything. There is no reason that we could not repeat the process. Public opinion polls and surveys indicate that the majority of people watching the proceedings of the House of Commons are senior citizens. Why is that? It is because they are the ones who are at home in the daytime when we are on. Why not replay it at night when most people who work during the daytime can see it?
I should like to address the issue of the Clerk of the House. Of course I support the recommendations of the McGrath committee in that regard. In part, the report reads:
The role of the Clerk of the House of Commons should be one of leadership and inspiration for all employees of the House. For this reason the Clerk of the House must be, and be seen to be, the principal permanent officer of the House, accountable to it, and its bodies, for operations of the House of Commons.
As the McGrath committee indicated, the most senior officer under your jurisdiction, Mr. Speaker, should be the Clerk. There should be only the Clerk with that level of importance relative to the staff of the House of Commons. For one thing, it would enhance the powers of Members of the House-and the McGrath committee agrees with that-in the sense that the principal officer who is concerned with services offered to Members is actually in the House of Commons, where Members can see that principal officer, where Members can easily dialogue with that principal officer, and where Members can easily explain to that principal officer when an ongoing process is not beneficial to Members of Parliament in general, or specifically to an individual Member. There has been considerable discussion back and forth, through previous Speakers and so forth, on this issue. However, I think the McGrath committee goes in the right direction on that recommendation. It is one toward which we should move swiftly.
I should like to speak briefly about Order in Council appointments. Of course we are aware of the recommendations in the McGrath report which basically indicated that some 1,900 appointments should be available for review and that some 64 appointments should be subject to the veto of the House. In other words, the House should have a veto over the
Reform of the House of Commons appointment of officers of the House-the Clerk, the Auditor General and so forth. Because those people are officers of the House, I think that is the right way. I do not think there should be a veto over all political appointments. The mere process of recommending is the right way to go. However, in order for the process to work, the first thing we must do is put it into effect. Of course we have not done that yet, even though there has been a stated intent on the part of the Government in that regard. I think we should be moving in that area.
I should like to deal very quickly with the issue of office space for Members of Parliament. It has been the case in the past with previous Governments, and it is the case now with the present Government, that we see cabinet Ministers hogging space in the Centre Block of the Parliament Buildings. I do not say that in a partisan way, because the situation was the same before. It is not right that a cabinet Minister who uses his or her office here for an hour a day should have eight rooms. Many times there are not even eight people in those eight rooms. At the same time I have, as do other private Members, two rooms in the Centre Block. Many times there are four permanent people there, myself and three staff, and some days there are two temporaries. There are actually six or seven people in those two small rooms in Centre Block. The Board of Health would kick us out if it had any jurisdiction over it. That is not right. We should do something in the very near future to reallocate space so that private Members can have a lot of room.
Looking at previous experience, for example in the Ontario House, cabinet Ministers do not have offices in the building at Queen's Park, but in the surrounding buildings. The Premier and Deputy Premier are the only two members of the executive council who have offices in the Parliament building. The others do not.
I bring those remarks to your attention, Mr. Speaker. I thank the House for listening. Again I would like to compliment all Members for the very good and fruitful debate we have had tonight.


Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, I will just say a few words as I'm sure other Members wish to speak. As I entered the Chamber, I thought of the rule of procedure which states that I should not walk between the person who is speaking and the Speaker's chair. As I walked in and thought about that, I also thought of the fact that if you look at the rules of procedure in Beauchesne or Erskine May, you see that practically everything we do in the House of Commons is out of order. I have noticed that you, Mr. Speaker, sort of try to coach the Opposition, saying they should ask questions about the policy of the Government. If you read the rules in Beauchesne, Erskine May or the leftovers of the British parliamentary system, you have to conclude that you cannot ask questions about Government policy in the future, that going strictly by the rules you can only ask questions about what the Government has already done. You cannot even entertain a motion in the House which deals with

December 4, 1985
Reform of the House of Commons the expenditure of public money in any way, shape or form. I use that as an illustration for my few remarks.


An Hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


George Baker: The Hon. Member says "hear, hear". If he would listen, he might learn something. The Parliament in Canada is different from any other Parliament in the British parliamentary system. Our Parliament is a true definition of the word, coming from the French word parler, to speak. If you use the general term "legislature", which is a general term for all Parliaments under the system to which we belong, you would have to say that the British Parliament is a legislature. They legislate. Over the years we have developed a custom of really being a Parliament, to speak.
If you look at the British system and the Canadian system, you find that they have evolved differently. The Australian system and other systems have evolved to meet their own needs. In the British Parliament, there is no seat for you. There are not enough seats for all the Members. Here you take your seat and be part of Parliament and speak. Perhaps there's nothing left of a resemblance between the Canadian Parliament and any of the other so-called Parliaments in the British parliamentary system.
In changing the rules, I am willing to bet that you cannot find one legislature under the British parliamentary system that changed its rules to any degree through a committee of that Parliament. It would be a joke to go to the British Parliament and say that you have a committee of the House to change its rules. The way they change their rule is by having the academics, the outside people who are not a part of the parliamentary system, do that. They deride us as a Parliament in saying that this is a cumbersome system, a system in which nothing can be done. Surely Parliament is first and foremost a legislature. In practically all of the legislatures, a motion comes to a vote at the end of the sitting day.
The systems have evolved and you cannot compare one system to the other. To my knowledge, changes that have been made in other legislatures under the British parliamentary system have evolved in such a way that something else has taken the place of Parliament as we know it today. When looking at changes in our parliamentary system, perhaps we can borrow something from what these other legislatures have done. This brings me to the reason for my standing here today.
Given the fact that the only similarity we have is that the Opposition and the Government are two sword-lengths apart, that you are not allowed to lean on the rail, and you are not allowed to wear a hat in the gallery, perhaps we can borrow something from their committee structure. In the British Parliament, a member of the Government or a member of the Opposition are both equal the way the custom has evolved. The Speaker does not recognize a member of the Official Opposition, then the Opposition, and then get around to a government back-bencher. It goes right and left, right and left.
Something else that is completely different is that a Member has to give notice of a question. That is somewhat distorted because you can give any kind of notice that has
something to do with your question. Government Members, who have no seat stand up as a matter of custom and adamantly criticize their own Government. That is a custom.
My point can perhaps best be described by referring to the chairman of this committee, the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath). Every Member in this Chamber is frustrated. He has a great interest in a particular subject. For example, the Hon. Member for St. John's East has a great interest in search and rescue, as we all know. Everybody has a particular area of great interest which affects the people in their riding and their province. As things now stand, even with the suggested changes, their aspirations will never come to pass unless we have committees which can originate their own terms of reference totally to address immediate and long-term problems.
It does not matter whether the committees are called standing committees or select committees. I believe that could be borrowed from the British parliamentary system. We do not have rules whereby the media cannot tape record the proceedings or that do not allow for television cameras. Committees could be made the forefront of Parliament. 1 do not think Parliament would be robbed of anything other than to decrease the parler part of Parliament. It would decrease the amount of speeches given and the time spent in Parliament. Parliament would automatically adjust its time schedule.
That would require a great sacrifice on the part of the Government. It would require the Government to say to the committees that when something comes up, whether it be search and rescue tonight or tomorrow "buffalogate", a committee can at a moment's notice investigate that matter and have the power to call whomever it wishes before the committee and get the answers to both immediate and long-term problems, such as search and rescue in which the Hon. Member for St. John's East is so greatly interested. It would provide a forum in which the answers would eventually be given. If the Government would not want to make changes, it would certainly be embarrassed into making changes.
That is my contribution tonight. I could go on for hours on this matter. As you know, Mr. Speaker, I am perhaps the only former Clerk of a provincial legislature to sit in the federal House of Commons.


Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to compliment the Hon. Member for Gander-Twil-lingate (Mr. Baker) for his contribution to this very interesting exercise that we are going through tonight. As one of the veterans of this House, and as some people think the defanged tiger that does not have any teeth left, I wanted to listen and take in all the contributions of Hon. Members. I know that other Members will perhaps speak later, and I might provoke some to speak later.
I think this is a tremendous exercise and I compliment the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn) for holding this debate. Frankly, I would have liked to have gotten my
December 4, 1985

notes into an orderly form so that I could have developed my speech in a logical fashion. However, I am not known to do that. Therefore, I come now to the heart of the whole situation.
First I would like to get my Christmas kudos out of the way. Without being facetious, 1 would like to compliment the Chairman of the committee. I do not usually give him compliments because, quite frankly, I find I usually take a different stance from the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath). However, regarding his leadership of the reform committee that has produced the first, second and third reports which are the reasons why we are here tonight, I would like to give him, as well as the entire committee, my personal compliments.
I do not want to repeat this too many times, but 1 used to sit here listening to the then right hon. gentleman for Prince Albert who had been here longer than I. He used to talk about Parliament and I am going to talk about Parliament. One of the few reasons I want to stay here is to make sure that this institution is fundamentally reformed to reflect the body of opinion of Members of Parliament and is not just rubber stamping things that come from on high. That is the carrot in the sunrise that will encourage me to run again.
The Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate, whom 1 respect, has had an interesting political history. He is one of the few and at the moment the only former Clerk of a legislative assembly to be a Member of the House. He then warped the political label, but I do not care about labels.
Since we come to the House of Commons to vote on Bills that affect Canadians at large, we have to move to a mutation between a congressional and a parliamentary system. Unless Members of Parliament can rise in the House or contribute in committee on issues that affect their constituents or their own opinions without simply rubber stamping Bills, then this place is a charade.
I compliment the Hon. Member for Humber-Port-au-Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin) who talked a little about the words of a former Prime Minister who said that we are nobodies when we are 50 feet away from the House and somebodies when we are here. The 140-odd brand new Members of the House came here with such excitement, enthusiasm and idealism. Over a period of perhaps six months or a year, they found out that they are fighting the same parliamentary procedure that was the procedure at the time of Sir John A. Macdonald. Of course he was our first Prime Minister in 1867.
You know, Mr. Speaker, because you are relatively new to the chair and you are certainly relatively new to Parliament, as a defanged veteran, that you went through the depression and frustration of these 140 brand new Members who are representing all parts of the country. They came here thinking that they would change things and found out that they were in the strait-jacket of Sir John A. Macdonald.
The one thing 1 love about the McGrath report is its potential for the independence of Members. This independence is not to defeat Governments. I agree with my hon. friend
Reform of the House of Commons
for-I know him better as George but 1 have to call him the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate. When I think of Twil-lingate, I think of Pickersgill. He was one of the Hon. Member's predecessors. There have been too many Members. 1 am an old Member as this caucus of mine thinks. Frankly, though, in terms of parliamentary reform I am one of the youngest Members it will ever see.
What these new Members do not understand is what reform really is. Unless we can get in the Chamber and committees the right of Members to represent their constituents, regions and own consciences independently, then 1 would agree with the former Prime Minister who said that we are nobodies, but 1 would say that we are nobodies both inside or outside the House. We can change that around, and we have to change it around.
The mutation system to which I referred must apply to committees and we are trying to do that on an experimental basis in the Transport Committee in which I am privileged to be a participant. We are getting some expert information on issues of the day and we have to do that in a more organized way. Members of the House must come here to speak on Bills.
The matter is not too complicated. I would like this Government to continue in office for another 44 years. 1 sat in Opposition for 20 years and I do not want to switch back.
There are easy ways to effect reform. A Bill can be drafted by the bureaucrats and put forward by the Minister which may not find a majority vote in the House. This is not in the McGrath report but it is the easiest thing in the world. Sometimes the easy things are like Newton's Law. When something falls down, it means that gravity pulls it down. If we wanted to assess that like Einstein, we would have had an Einstein theory on why the apple fell to the ground, or why two feathers fell from the Tower of Pisa at the same rate. I do not want to deal with complicated matters like that.
Regarding parliamentary procedure, we must have the licence, liberty and independence of parliamentary debate. It will take time to happen. The fact that a Bill does not command a majority in the House of Commons simply means that it is sent back to the bureaucratic catacombs to be redrafted, after which it then gets the consent of the House. When a Government Bill goes down to defeat, I hope that in my lifetime as a parliamentarian there will be a procedure whereby, without any debate, the Speaker would ask if the Government has lost the confidence of the House. Without any hesitation or even a burp, the votes would return saying that the Bill was defeated but the Government had not lost the confidence of the House. It would be a clear message to send back to the bureaucracy and the ministry that the Bill be redrafted to command the respect and the vote of Members of the House of Commons.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: 1 know that my time is limited. I have so many things to say. When I heard there was a ten-minute limit on

December 4, 1985
Reform of the House of Commons this crazy debate, which I am glad to participate in, 1 thought to myself that for me ten minutes is just like a burp.
My time is coming to an end in terms of this debate but I hope it is not coming to an end in terms of what I am trying to propose. You are the symbol of this Chamber, Mr. Speaker. I commend you and congratulate you for doing a very difficult job. 1 have sat here by the clock, close to the door, and I am gosh darned glad to be sitting here sometimes so that 1 can get out the door. Let us not kid ourselves.
I was in favour of bringing television cameras into the Chamber. I was on the committee which proposed such a move. I am telling Members of the House that until and unless, or unless and until, we reform our procedures, Members of Parliament who know the mechanics of expressing views will not be able to take advantage of the cameras. Why should I play the game like John A. Macdonald played it? I watched the debate for hours today. We have all the mechanics to do our jobs. The one thing that we do not have yet, and psychologically this debate may help us get it, is the assurance that in this age of change with a new Government we can instil and complement the work of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization to ensure that Members of Parliament, be they in committee or in the House, can express their views and cause defeats, perhaps even of Government Bills, but not bring down the Government. I refer to legislation other than Speeches from the Throne, Budgets and tax Bills.
1 can see you are getting anxious, Mr. Speaker. I wish to sit down myself. However, unless we do something of this order then we are a charade. I will stay here as long as 1 can to ensure that your disquiet with my time and not my words will see you become, in my lifetime as a parliamentarian, the commander of the Chair. You will bring back into focus-


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member who is making a speech which the House is enjoying, but his time has expired.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I must say that in looking at the clock I can see that it is nearly 11 o'clock and I know that I am competing with the national news. At this point in time I know what most of the ears of the nation are tuned into. However, it is still important for me to enter this debate.
What the debate and the underlying question with regard to it mean to me has to do with democracy in the sense of the distribution of power between the private and public arena. Most citizens are familiar with the fact that, by and large, civil servants and bureaucrats run the Government. It is civil servants and bureaucrats who largely frustrate the people we represent. Thus, reform of the House of Commons has to do not just with updating some quaint institution which is of interest only to the few of us who happen to be elected here and have the duty to serve here, but it is something which is central to the democratic life of the country.
As a Member of Parliament who has been here for a few years, but not that many, one thing I find shocking about this place is the lack of financial control which the House has over public expenditures. Parliament was bom out of the recognition that the executive, the people who run the country and spend taxpayers' money, had to be accountable. If there is one thing that this place demonstrates it is the lack of accountability with regard to the expenditure of public dollars. Any real reform of Parliament has to increase accountability in terms of financial matters. It is not enough to have the Auditor General issue a report to Parliament once a year which is discussed in Question Period for one, two or three days and is then forgotten. We have to find some means, some mechanism, by which to examine in a thorough way the expenditures which are authorized by the House.
It is not enough to have just one committee, such as the Public Accounts Committee, perform such a function. All Members of Parliament and all committees of Parliament should be involved in a thorough analysis with respect to public spending. In today's political and social climate if we are to find the money which is necessary to meet the many needs of our constituents, then we have to demand a new excellence in public spending. We have to demonstrate to bureaucrats that as parliamentarians we will not put up with the waste of public dollars. We must ensure that public dollars are spent wisely and effectively. Any real parliamentary reform should first address the issue of financial accountability-
I would now like to address another area of parliamentary reform which interests me. It has to do with Order in Council appointments. Given the fact that bureaucrats have such a stranglehold on public power in the country, it seems to me we should find a way to subject senior bureaucrats, Deputy Ministers, presidents of Crown corporations and, since the introduction of the Charter of Rights I would say Supreme Court Justices, to some sort of public review as a part of the nomination process before they are finally put into their ultimate positions. These are people who carry real power in our society. They are the ones who make the real decisions. Their views and values should be examined in a public forum before they are given our blessing and those high positions. 1 would like to see us find a way for Order in Council appointments to be reviewed before the appointments are made. There is another function of the House to which we should pay more attention. That is the matter of petitions. With respect to the debate concerning family allowances and the debate on pensions, petitions played a significant role in the House. Petitions offer an opportunity for public input into the policy-making process. If petitions could come to this place asking specific questions of the executive, which Government Departments would have to answer in writing to the petitioners, then perhaps we could find a way for the public to have a more significant input into this place and into public policy.
The question of legislation in terms of Parliamentary reform has received a fair amount of comment. Primarily, it has been in terms of the freedom of the private Member to vote this way
December 4, 1985

or that following his or her own conscience. 1 believe there is another aspect of legislation which has to do not only with our individual values but our collective values. As members of different political Parties there should be a way by which we could allow a real and significant impact on the legislation which comes before the House and the way in which it is drafted. Through our collective values, having been elected to this place, we should find a way by which we could have a greater impact upon the type of legislation which finally passes through the House.
1 know that there is a negotiation process in this respect which goes on among House Leaders. Surely that process could be made more meaningful and could be handled in a way by which legislation would actually be amended, changed and improved upon, which could become a part of our policymaking and political process.
In conclusion, it seems to me that the question of parliamentary reform, whether it concerns financial matters, appointments of senior bureaucrats, public input or the type of legislation which is proposed by the House, is about democracy. It is about the private and public distribution of power. As an elected Member of Parliament, my commitment is to public power rather than private power. If we are going to have significant reform in this place, we have to bring decisions made by Government into a public forum. That really means bringing a lot of the decisions which are made by permanent members of the Civil Service into some forum for review by elected officials. The most important decisions which must be brought in for review are the financial decisions.
As 1 have said, 1 welcome the opportunity to say a few words in this debate about parliamentary reform. I must say that if parliamentary reform is to be significant, then it has to impact, first, on how public dollars are spent. Unless we can raise the level at which we examine public dollars, and unless we can reach a new attitude with regard to the expenditure of public dollars, we will not have the resources to meet the needs of our citizens.


Mr. J. R. Ellis (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I listened at the opening of this debate to the very learned and carefully crafted remarks of the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath). I feel a little humble with my few notes here in winding up the debate. I know that the Hon. Member for St. John's East was, and has been, totally wrapped up in the issue of reform of the House for a number of years. He sat as a Member from the Conservative caucus on the Lefebvre Committee, along with some other Hon. Members, and he contributed then, as he has contributed tremendously to this particular report.
History has shown us the evolution of the House of Commons. Some of us who have been in Parliament a little longer than others have watched it grow and change. Yet it is fair to say that many of the rules which were put in place by Sir John A. Macdonald are still with us. It is interesting to me that some of the changes which we recommended in our speeches
Reform of the House of Commons this evening were some of the things I would have liked to have seen discussed at a little more length.
In looking at the index of our last report, I see such things as the disciplinary powers of the Chair and I think we could spend a great deal of time on that, given some of the unruliness in the House over these past few months. I look at things such as the reorganization of Private Members' Business. I have heard other Hon. Members comment on that at length and I do not intend to go into it.
A good deal of time was spent on the prayer in committee, as well as a good deal of time spent on many other items. I think there is a need for change there. Perhaps reports from official parliamentary delegations would do away with articles like the one in the weekend Citizen about the travels of Members of Parliament around the world. Perhaps if we had those reports in place at least some of the press who now know, but who like to print differently, would understand as well as know why those trips take place.
I could speak about all of the various things which took place in committee but I want to take a moment to talk about the committee system and tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I am concerned that right now there is a great deal of criticism of the new legislative committee system. I believe we all have to be very careful and give that idea a good try. 1 know that as of today there is at least one Bill which is now going to be referred to a Standing Committee instead of a legislative committee. That concerns me. We have only had the legislative committee in place for a very short time and already we are short-circuiting it. I am concerned because the Hon. Member for St. John's East made the point that those of us who sat on the committee had an aggregate of about 100 years of parliamentary experience. I would hate to think that that much experience, having put some of these ideas in place, would be erased much too soon.
I would like to say again in my very brief remarks that when the chairman of the task force, the Hon. Member for St. John's East, said that there were no heated partisan exchanges in the committee, he was absolutely right. However, there were heated exchanges. They were not partisan but there were a number of heated exchanges. I am going to take about a minute and put on record, as I did on the 26th of this month in a Private Members' Bill, brief notice that I have a major disagreement with the report when it deals with the administration of the House of Commons. I have, perhaps, spent more time dealing with the administration of the House of Commons than most of my colleagues and I am sure that they get tired and fed up to the teeth hearing me talk about it. But, having been that close to it, I think I can say with some authority that the system we now have in place, the system which has been in place in other major western Parliaments for many years, is a system to which we must adhere if we are to retain the supremacy of Parliament and if we are to retain for Members of Parliament those services which they need and desire. I suggest that to go back to the old ways would get us into a great deal of trouble.

December 4, 1985
Reform of the House of Commons
I could go on at great length about the many services which we have received as a result of the administration of the House of Commons and which have been in place effectively for five or six years. I would like to take a moment and compliment you, Mr. Speaker, for having had the courage to broadcast our Question Period to 22 million Americans last week. It seems to me that to have taken that step required a great deal of courage. To have the temerity to put our happenings over American television must have taken a great deal of thought. I could go on about that but, if I did, I am sure that some of my colleagues would want to hang me with the telephone wires which have been causing them all so much trouble this last little while, and I know they would not really want to do that.
1 would like to say one other thing. At the table this evening were two of the staff who served us very well, and added to the 100 years of service which members of the committee had. The staff had a huge number of years. They served us with patience and willingness to put up with us and a willingness, where necessary, to argue for things they saw that we might not have seen. 1 want to give them a pat on the back as well.
I am proud to have participated in this particular task force. Hon. Members of the House must look at what we have put before them and understand that, whether they like it or not, we put it before them with the highest expectations, after giving it the most serious consideration, discussion, thought and argument. Nothing was put in that report lightly or frivolously, and as I said before there are parts of the report with which I disagreed. Nothing was put in that report without all of us putting a great deal of thought and effort into it. I would ask the House to give it a good try. Perhaps in a year or two years from now it may be necessary to appoint another similar task force to clean up some of the things we missed. The Hon. Member for St. John's East made the point to the Government House Leader this evening that in retrospect he saw a couple of items he would have liked to have changed, and there will be others. We did try, and tried hard, and 1 ask the House to give it every opportunity to work. If, down the road, the House thinks there needs to be a change, at least give us credit for doing what we could.


Mr. Alex Kindy (Calgary East):: Mr. Speaker, it was really a pleasure for me to be able to participate in this debate at this hour. It is somewhat late, but Members are still here and I think they might listen to a new Member who has comments to make on his experience in this House of Commons.
As I came here I had some expectations that we were going to produce something positive for our country. We have been doing pretty well in certain areas, but in others we can formulate criticism. That criticism is that as a Member of Parliament one has very little input into legislation. As the Hon. Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan) said, we are just rubber-stamping most of the legislation that is brought in through the Departments. The legislation is drafted by bureaucrats, and brought to a Minister, whether it is good or bad. If the Minister is weak he accepts that legislation and
brings it to the House. Then we have to vote on it, whether we like it or not. I think this is the problem. This is the fundamental problem that we have to address.
Among the different systems in the world there is a system that exists in the United States where they have a separation of the executive branch and the legislative branch. If a Democratic Congressman is elected he can still vote with the Republicans, and if their President is a Republican he can still vote for that President on certain legislation. It does not mean that he is against his own Party. He votes for what he believes his constituents want. This is a fundamental point.
Our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said the other day in the House, looking at the Opposition: "You are just trained seals". But I was sitting on the opposite side and I looked at the members of the Government and they were all applauding. The Member beside me said: "Look at those trained seals." Those are maybe not nice words but this reflects reality. [Translation]
Mr. Speaker, perhaps 1 should continue in French. In my opinion, there has been very little debate this evening in the other official language of the country. We have quite a few new Members from Quebec. Those Members can contribute a lot to the democratic system of our great country. The only thing is they have to feel they are part of this great assembly which is the Parliament of Canada.
There was an election in Quebec two days ago. Unfortunately, I must say that the Conservative Party was not strongly represented in that election. It is really too bad, because democracy means more that the immediate vote or the immediate result. A great Party like the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada should have taken part in that debate in the Province of Quebec. It left the road clear for the Quebec Liberal Party and the Parti quebecois. That is how we as a national Party came to be left out of that great debate in the Province of Quebec. This is to indicate that, as parliamentarians, we do not act freely. It is because the national Party had decided it would not be advisable to get involved in a provincial election that the federal Conservative Party refrained from supporting a provincial Party, the Conservative Party, and this is how it is not now represented in a province which will strongly influence the future of Canada.
This, Mr. Speaker, is perhaps . . . You will be wondering why I am talking about this, but 1 am doing it because a debate must be open, in Parliament we must be able to express ideas, try to sell them, debate them. Through the process of debate we reach conclusions which are good for the country. [English]
Mr. Speaker, I would like to conclude by saying that we have made progress in this Parliament. We have brought in some reforms, but those reforms do not go far enough. 1 would like to see that we are able to vote against the Government and that the Government is not defeated because of that. If we move in that direction we are going to help democracy and help our nation.
December 4, 1985


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, if I may in closing debate from our side, 1 would also like to join with the other members of the House in thanking the Members of the committee from all three Parties who put such effort into the report, and also to thank the Members of Parliament who contributed to the debate tonight.
I think it is fair to say that in the last election campaign all three Parties promised parliamentary reform. I think we have achieved remarkable progress because all three Parties have worked at parliamentary reform. I am sure that I speak on behalf of all Members of Parliament when I say that we shall
Reform of the House of Commons all try to make these reforms work and that they are by no means the last of the reforms that we want to make. There are some kinks to iron out and I am sure that we will all work to find where those kinks are, to iron them out, and to proceed to further reforms. Thank you very much.


Mr. Speaker:: It has been a marvellous evening. Maybe the House would let me say that 1 have never missed the right to speak so much as I have tonight.
Debate on the motion before the House has expired. Pursuant to order made earlier this day, therefore the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 o'clock a.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 11.29 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, December 5, 1985