1986-02-11

Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (President of the Privy Council) moved:: That the proposed amendments to the Standing Orders, laid upon the Table on Thursday, February 6, 1986 (Sessional paper No. 331-7/37A) be adopted and made provisional Standing Orders of the house.
Provided that, unless otherwise ordered;
1.	the said provisional Standing Orders shall be in force from 11.00 o'clock a.m. Monday, February 24, 1986 until the House adjourns on the last sitting day in December, 1986;
2.	and further to the Order made on June 27, 1985, the provisional Standing Orders thereby adopted shall continue in force during the same period; and
3.	the Clerk of the House shall be authorized and instructed to print a revised and renumbered edition of the Standing Orders integrating the provisional Standing Orders and making any necessary amendments in consequence thereof, or relating thereto in respect of the Standing Orders concerning Private Bills, and to make such changes to the Order Paper and Notices as may be required.
He said: Mr. Speaker, when the excellent debate on reform of the House of Commons came to an end on the evening of December 4 last, you said that you had never before so greatly missed the right to speak in debate. I understand that sentiment, because seldom does one have the privilege of participating in a fundamental reform of the central institutions of one's nation. 1 have had the privilege, which all Members of this Parliament now share, of participating in this process.
In opening this debate today, Mr. Speaker, I am deeply conscious of the honour and responsibility which I have been granted. 1 know that you, Mr. Speaker, and many other distinguished Canadians, share with me a sincere affection for the ability of the House to capture the best of the Canadian experience and make this place reflect and exemplify the possibilities this great nation holds for her people. It is with this sense of motivation that I participate in this very important debate. I hope that the reforms which we are debating today will soon be in place and that they will lend new vigour to the work and new luster to the achievements of this and many future Parliaments.
I would be greatly remiss if I did not, from the outset, acknowledge the Government's debt, and, indeed, that of the whole House, to the distinguished Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) who is seated in the House at the present time.
Wisdom acquired over 25 years of service in this House guided his chairmanship of the Special Commitee on Reform of the House of Commons. The results of that arduous task, contained in the three reports of the committee, have led to the package of reforms presently before the House and to other important administrative reforms now being dealt with by the Board of Internal Economy.

Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to emphasize the invaluable contribution made by the two critics of the two Opposition parties, the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouel-let) and the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie).
The Committee's proceedings were conducted with great effectiveness and impartiality. All parties demonstrated their goodwill and unstinting co-operation in laying the foundations for the proposals we are considering today.

I do not think that any praise would be too high for the members of the committee who brought with them a wealth of experience, both in the House and outside of it. Under the inspired leadership of the Hon. Member for St. John's East the committee brought forward one of the most cogent and decisive studies of the House that we have been privileged to receive. May I again congratulate the committee for its work.
This work was an ample fulfillment of the undertaking the Government made during the last election campaign which was subsequently enshrined in the Speech from the Throne. On the initiative of the Government the committee was formed and undertook its difficult and sensitive work in a spirit of nonpartisan co-operation. As a result, last June the House adopted an important package of reforms which have already had a profound impact on the work of the House and its committees.
In September, 1985, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) announced a broad range of additional reforms which touch on our national institutions, both in Parliament and across the Government. These included a commitment to ensure that almost all order-in-council appointments would be subject to review by a committee of the House. This unprecedented move was coupled with new conflict of interest and post-employment guidelines which now apply to most employees of the federal Government and Crown corporations. In addition, the Prime Minister announced a proposal for a registry of interests of Members of Parliament and a registry of lobbyists. The Government's demonstrated commitment to reform of our institutions cannot be doubted and has never wavered.

February 11, 1986
Standing Orders
In June of last year I participated in the debate which saw the first stage of reform adopted with a laudable degree of unanimity which I hope will also guide our consideration of this new package of reform.
[ Translation]
Again, I wish to take this opportunity to express my support for this major body of parliamentary reform that deals with the powers, practice and procedure of this House. The amendments to the Standing Orders which I tabled last Thursday reflect the majority of the recommendations contained in the Special Committee's Third Report. During the past few months, I have had a series of consultation with the Opposition parties, and the document I tabled last week is a reflection of negotiations and consultations, both public and private.
We have approved Members' recommendations in many areas, including the changes that have now been made regarding membership of committee. I believe the amendments have been drafted in a way that responds to the concerns of all three parties.
The nature of these discussions and the spirit in which they were held have made me confident that this debate will be an excellent vehicle for communicating the results of the impartial study accomplished by the Committee.

I am sure that I need hardly remind Members of the House that the main thrust of the reform initiative taken by the Government was and remains to search for a more relevant and meaningful role for the House and its Members, and particularly private Members. Our system of Government, as it has developed over the last two decades, has placed increasing importance on extra-Parliamentary centres of decisionmaking and policy development. As a result, policy initiation was no longer considered a part of Parliament's role. Indeed, that role has been diminished so that Parliament was sometimes seen as merely endorsing legislation developed elsewhere.
In recent years, however, primarily as a result of the first two reform packages and the commitment of the Government to involve Members of Parliament in a much larger role, Members have had numerous opportunities to take part in the process of policy development.
The adoption of the proposed Standing Orders will provide the Standing Committees with an even greater number of opportunities. The paramount role of the House and its committees is to ensure that the Government is held accountable every day for its actions and decisions. If these reforms are adopted, the entire array of Government activity will be before Members, giving their consideration a broad horizon over which to range.
The ongoing accountability of the Government to Parliament, which is already most comprehensive, will become complete as a result of these reforms.
Members in the House have, as their principal mandate, the enforcement of Government accountability. For that reason I am sure that all Members will welcome the increased powers of review and investigatiaon being granted to the Standing Committees.
It is because we endorse the views of the special committee that: "The key to restoring confidence in our central democratic institution is to enhance the role of the private Members of Parliament" that we have brought forward the package of Standing Orders which is before the House today. The Government believes that only by improving the influence of the people's representatives in Parliament can Government be made more relevant to the citizens of this country. For this reason an important focus of parliamentary reform must be the role of private Members as legislators and as part of the policy development process.
As a result, the Government has worked to ensure that the recommendations with respect to Private Member's Business will be accurately reflected in this proposed package. [Translation]
The proposed Standing Orders will make it possible to bring certain Private Members' Bills to a vote, following debate during a period not exceeding five hours. Private Members' Bills or Motions will be considered in turn, according to their place in the established order of precedence. This will make it possible to provide more thorough consideration of motions and of Bills on second reading.
The report stage is reached after substantial consideration in committee, and in most cases, it will be after two rotations of the order of precedence.
Furthermore, debate may be extended at the report stage and on third reading so as to allow all Members concerned to express their views.
1 have been particularly attentive to the concerns voiced by the Opposition parties regarding the provisions on Private Members' Bills. In fact, following these representations, we made very substantial changes in our proposals in this respect. [English]
In this proposal, the role of the private Member as legislator has been significantly enhanced. In addition, the new rules concerning Private Members' Business will ensure that more Members will be able to participate in debate and more new ideas will be able to be brought forward. These changes to the rules relating to Private Members' Business will make it more important and relevant.
Having touched upon the enhancement of the roles of the Standing Committees in policy, management and operational accountability, I would now like to take this opportunity to summarize how these changes are proposed to be brought about.
First, most Standing Committees will be given wide-ranging powers to conduct independent inquiries into all aspects of a Department's activities.
February 11, 1986

Second, a smaller, permanent membership will be given sufficient facilities to develop an expertise with respect to the function and the mandate of the Department they will be reviewing. The Department's operations will now not only be before the committees during their three-month study of the Main Estimates but will now constitute a permanent order of reference to the committee. As a result, the permanent Members will be able to develop an in-depth and continuing understanding of the Department. Since no parliamentary secretary will any longer be a member of a Standing Committee whose mandate includes the review of his or her Department, such committees will have significantly increased independence.
The new role of the Standing Committees will provide an unprecedented opportunity for private Members to have a real impact in the way in which this country is run.
The enhanced powers of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments contained in the proposed package represents a major effort to restore the important balance between parliamentary and extra-parliamentary decision-makers. This historic reform will provide the House with the power to approve orders to the Ministry to rescind regulations. While all Standing Committees will have the responsibility to review the substance of regulations in respect of Departments under their scrutiny, the Joint Committee will have the power to make reports recommending recision of delegated legislation. The Joint Committee will retain its present powers under the Statutory Instruments Act and will, in addition, be able to recommend rescission on the basis of its study of regulations which is authorized by that Act. The Standing Orders empower the committee to recommend that the Ministry rescind those items of delegated legislation over which the Governor in Council has the power of rescission.
In this way, the decisions of extra-parliamentary decisionmakers will come under very close scrutiny. The power given to the House by these proposed Standing Orders will enable it to regain significant control in this important area.
In recent years, public concern has been raised with respect to the manner of making appointments to important managerial and indeed regulatory agencies of the federal Government. For this reason the Prime Minister made a commitment to allow the Standing Committees to review all non-judicial Order in Council appointments.
This historically unprecedented move will ensure that the Government is held accountable for its selection of individuals for important public posts. I believe that all Members will agree that this new power will greatly enhance the work of the Standing Committees. This landmark experiment will provide, for the first time in our history, an open public review of the qualifications of individual appointees to non-elected public offices.

Members will have to assume their new powers in a responsible manner. In fact, they will constantly have to define the borderline between a person's private and public life.
Standing Orders
I am confident that the committees of this House will use these new powers in the same spirit that has pervaded the process of parliamentary reform initiated by this Government.
Moreover, once the Canadian public is acquainted with the appointment process, it will be in a better position to judge the qualifications and sense of duty of people who dedicate themselves to the service of this country.
I have highlighted merely a few of the important reforms, but these in combination with others will have a profound impact on this House and this Parliament. I am very conscious of the historic nature of the course upon which we are now embarking. I am also very much concerned that the reform we now have before us combine to mould this, our most important democratic institution, into a Parliament which is uniquely Canadian.
I believe that these reforms are founded in the best traditions of parliamentary Government and will improve this institution in ways that we may little appreciate at this moment. This debate is but one step along the road of reform upon which the House has been set since the Speech from the Throne. This is neither the beginning of this process nor will it be the end. The Government, with a strong mandate for change, set better management and reform of the House among its earliest priorities.
Reform, Mr. Speaker, is not merely a matter of rules. It is also a question of commitment, the commitment to ensure that the talents of Members are used to the country's best advantage, the commitment to refocus public attention on the House of Commons when making policy announcements and the commitment to bring forward a bold and comprehensive legislative agenda.
This Government has moved to refer numerous policy questions for committee consideration. For example, the Government has brought forward several consultation papers and a White Paper which contained draft legislation. The Government in its first year in office made more policy announcements in the House of Commons than were made during the entire Thirty-second Parliament. As well, the rate of legislative activity has increased in this Parliament.
To our Government, reform does not only mean changes in the conduct of Government business, it also means a new attitude toward the substantive policy initiatives with private Members. Indeed, yesterday, the House passed Bill C-255, sponsored by the Hon. Member for York-Scarborough (Mr. McCrossan) the latest in a series of motions and Bills proposed by private Members and accepted by the House.
I believe the Government's record in this first session of Parliament gives ample testimony of our continuing conviction that Parliament should become again the central focus of democratic Government in Canada.
This tenacious commitment to reform has carried the recommendations of the members of the special committee

February 11, 1986
Standing Orders
forward to the point of implementation. I want to emphasize that the reforms proposed here today are an experiment, and, like all experiments, we cannot foresee entirely their outcome. We can monitor their success and we can seek to make improvements wherever possible. However, let no one here be in any doubt about our resolve to ensure implementation of reform.
We have in this House at this time a rare opportunity not given to many of our predecessors. We hold in trust for future generations the foundations of parliamentary democracy in Canada. In the last generation we have seen the gradual erosion of the power, influence, and importance of this institution and thereby the people's representatives. We now have the chance to reverse that trend. We have it in our power to change, for the better, the position of the House of Commons in a parliamentary system.
Can we rise to that challenge, Mr. Speaker? I am convinced that we can. Have we the courage to enter upon this new and uncharted territory? I, for one, and I am sure I speak the sentiments of the vast majority of Members of Parliament, say
yes.
I ask my colleagues on all sides of the House to join me in this initiative. Together with patience and fortitude we shall succeed, and thus bequeath a stronger and more effective Parliament to Canadians.
Let us meet this challenge together, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) is raising with the Chair a point of order regarding whether we would vary our practice in this matter by unanimous consent to permit questions to the previous speaker after each of the first three speeches. I take it there is agreement that by unanimous consent we would allow a 10 minute period for everybody participating in the debate, including the first three speakers.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Therefore, questions. The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier).


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Speaker, the Minister referred to the reforms as an experiment and that he was going to monitor the progress, the weaknesses and the strengths of them. Would he agree to have an ongoing review process put in place now? If somebody in the House felt strongly about certain amendments to our rules not working properly, could we appeal the case to somebody, grieve it to somebody in the House, either the Privileges and Elections Committee or some other committee so that we could get satisfaction? I am thinking particularly of legislative committees that for a number of months have been proliferating. We have no way of going to anybody to make sure that the legislative committees were queued or put in order by the House. Would the Minister answer that question please?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) raises a very important question. Let me respond in two ways. With respect to the precise matter of legislative committees, the Hon. Member will be aware that in the first report, the recommendations of which were accepted, that legislative committees were to consist of between 20 and 30 members. Our experience showed that this put enormous pressure on the Hon. Member who is the whip of the Official Opposition. He has a sense of this as much as anyone, and I know from speaking with the other two whips that this has put pressures on in terms of serving on those committees in a meaningful way. I have talked with members of the committee, including the chairman, who indicates that what was intended and what we have accepted in this set of revisions is that there be no minimum number of members for legislative committees. The striking committee will assess each topic. The number of members on legislative committees will depend on the relative importance of the legislation.
Accordingly, it may be appropriate for certain pieces of legislation to have by way of example seven members on a committee, whereas other topics may be of such crucial importance that we want to get a committee made up of over 20 members.
With respect to the Member's observation of monitoring and the method by which the rules can be dealt with and grievances or points of view put forward, I believe that with the present regime of rules, the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization has that very function. It would be my suggestion that this is an ongoing reference which they will now have under the new rules. We will now make a permanent reference with respect to these matters, including the whole question and rules of the House to the committee.
This committee will become very important as it is the vehicle for which all members, regardless on which side of the House they sit, will be able to put forward their suggestions and recommendations, have a thorough hearing and report and make a recommendation back to the House.
I have discussed this matter-not with any amount of thoroughness, but the matter has been discussed and I think it is fair for me to reveal that some of the discussions took place with House leaders. It seems to me that might be an appropriate thing for all Parties to be involved in, to look at the process a to make sure the legislative committees are working efficiently.


Mr. Allmand:: Mr. Speaker, in general I think the proposals for Private Members' Business are good, but I am still somewhat concerned about the suggested process for selecting private Members' Bills for voting. According to the proposed new Standing Orders, there would be a standing committee on Private Members' Business which would meet and select from the Private Members' Bills and motions on the Order Paper six that would be votable, and go through a special process. In principle that is good, but I am concerned about how it might work in practice.
February 11, 1986

First, the majority on that committee will be from the Government side, no matter what Parliament we are in. The majority can decide not to bring in any Bills or motions for a vote which might affect the Government, or might try to avoid any kind of controversial legislation, so that we would just vote upon very bland Bills.
I should like to refer to my Bill as an example, and not ask for any opinion on it. I am referring to Bills such as the one I have had for many years on gun control. In fact, the matter was raised yesterday by a Government Member. How do we see any possibility of Bills dealing with subjects such as that getting through a committee on Private Members' Business? Does the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn) think that process will be one where we vote on bland Bills, as we did in the past, such as the one to make the beaver the national animal of Canada, or the one by which the Hon. Member for Saint-Maurice (Mr. Chretien) was successful in changing the name of Trans-Canada Airlines to Air Canada? 1 think those were good things, but I hope the process will be advanced further than that. Could the President of the Privy Council assure us that the process will give the House an opportunity to bring to a vote Bills of some significance?
I understand that the Government must protect itself but, for this process to be meaningful, the committee has to deal with matters in a somewhat objective way so that we have a chance to discuss and vote upon Bills which will have some meaning.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, from that point of view, the recommendations absolutely follow the recommendations of the special committee on reform which was chaired by the Hon. Member for St. John's East. In the matter of Private Members' Business, we have tried to reflect accurately, with one exeption, the recommendations of that committee. We are talking about Private Members' Business. Parliament consists of representatives of various political Parties. However, in terms of Private Members' Business, it will reflect the membership of the House from time to time in subsequent Parliaments.
The two representations I have received have been at opposite ends of the spectrum, quite frankly. One was made by the Hon. Member, that we make sure significant items are allowed to come forward. I believe that we will have a chance to see, in this period of provisional application, private Members in control of their own destiny, not influenced by and not having the participation of Government Members, shall we say. They will exercise their judgment, to the benefit of private Members. That is the whole purpose of this kind of private Members' control over the agenda.
The other stream of representations I have received is a concern that somehow matters of great significance will in fact be dealt with in Private Members' Hour. This is the dilemma one faces; we have to make up our minds. Either private Members will be able to bring forward issues of importance or not. I opt for that. My position is that Private Members' Business will not be mere puffery, but I am only one Member among 282.
Standing Orders
The Hon. Member's question is a valid one. There has been a suggestion that perhaps there would be an opportunity to steamroll things through Private Members' Hour. I do not think that is a valid argument now, because we have not allowed for the telescoping of the debate. We have also extended the time available for private Members to participate in important issues. There will be 10-minute speeches and virtually an opportunity for all private Members to participate on really significant issues. I think we have reached a very satisfactory accord in respect of Private Members' Business. I am very interested to see how it will work. Notwithstanding my own views in respect of the Hon. Member's proposed legislation, I see no problem in that matter being debated fully and being put to a vote. I do not see how that would offend anyone's sensibilities. He may not be successful on a vote, but at least it would be put to a vote.


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, in entering this debate I do not want to begin by dealing with the specific proposals for procedural changes which are before us, but generally with the purposes of parliamentary reform. Our object in considering reform ought not to be merely for the purpose of attempting to keep some Members who feel underemployed busy, or to make some Members feel that their work is somehow more meaningful. Our object should not be to make Parliament either an automatic legislative mill or, at the extremity, a mere cockpit for partisan political posturing. Our object must be to seek to make Parliament do better that which it is intended to do.
Parliament is here to consider and make final decisions on legislative proposals and, in doing so, to have the opportunity to alter and present alternatives to such proposals. However, the reality is that when we talk about legislative proposals, we are, to all intents and purposes, talking about those presented by the Government. Only the Government, that is the Ministry, can propose legislation to spend money or requiring the expenditure of money to achieve its purposes. Most of the time for debate is reserved for measures the Government wishes to introduce. The package before us does not change any of these essential facts.
This is consistent with the basic principle of parliamentary Government, that of responsibility. The Government is formed by those having the support of the largest number of Members. This means, with rare exceptions, that the Government is formed by the Party having the largest number of seats in the House, the largest number of Members. That Government must take responsibility for its actions or non-action to Parliament and, through Parliament, to the Canadian people between elections and ultimately directly to the Canadian people which makes decisions on whether a Party forming a Government should continue or be replaced by one of the other Parties in a general election.
Therefore, it could be argued that Parliament's function in our democratic system is primarily to hold Governments to account on behalf of the Canadian people in the broadest sense of the term. If that is the case, then we are talking about having Parliament in a position to examine every action of

February 11, 1986
Standing Orders
Government and to provide Government with a framework for operation which meets the needs and expectations of the Canadian people. I submit that everything Parliament does- legislation, examination of the Estimates and seeking information-flows from this basic concept. Surely we must examine all our procedures and all proposals for changes in those procedures in this context.
From what I have said, I think it is clear that we must examine any proposal for change, for reform of Parliament, in the context of our system of political Parties. Our parliamentary system is not simply one of Government and private Members, those Members who form the Government and those who do not.
To suggest this, and there is a disturbing flavour of this in the Government's proposals to change the Standing Orders, overlooks the reality of our parliamentary system, what it is and what I believe it should be. We do not talk of a system of checks and balances in our legislative, executive and judicial structures in the same way as the Americans do. Perhaps, in a more subtle and limited sense, we do have a system with checks and balances here in Canada and in our Parliament, our House of Commons. The balance, the creative tensions in that system are not simply those between the Government and Private Members. They are between Government, that is the Party forming the Government, and the other Parties as well. This is recognized, particularly by the fact that both in law and in parliamentary practice and precedent, the concept of the Official Opposition is enshrined; that is the Party with the second largest number of seats. We have gone even further here in this House of Commons and have recognized formally the position of other Parties if they have a minimum number of seats.
An essential feature of our Canadian parliamentary system-essential to our own Canadian approach to checks and balances-is the existence of parties other than the one forming the Government and their ability, particularly that of the party forming the Official Opposition, to play an active and meaningful role. What happens if that system, even in a well meaning and inadvertent way, is tilted so that this concept of parties testing one another and vying for support through their challenges to Government, alternatives, ideas and people on the one hand, and the Government putting forward its proposals on the other hand, is weakened? Then I say Parliament is weakened and the risks of untested, unchecked and, therefore, bad government is dangerously increased.
Parliament is not simply Government and private Members, it is, particularly today, the Party forming the Government and those Parties in opposition to it. It is clear we must examine any proposals for parliamentary reform in the context of the party system.
Over the years, Parliament has structured all of its activities around the parliamentary system. Constitutionally, most legislative initiatives are in the hands of the Ministry, those who are supported by the Party with the largest number of members. In turn, the Ministry organizes its supporters in the House of Commons in such a way so as to maintain their support, therefore, the confidence of the House, and to see its legislative initiatives acted upon. In order to hold the Government to account and to scrutinize its proposals. The Opposition as well has to be organized in particular ways.
The House, in any process or decision of reform, must ensure it has procedures that facilitate the organization, not only of the Government and its supporters, but of the Opposition as well. Our electoral system reflects this kind of organization. Study after scholarly study shows that the overwhelming majority of the Canadian electorate makes its choice at the polls, to a large degree, on the basis of political party and leadership. While each elector votes individually for an individual member, his or her decision is heavily influenced by party considerations. Candidates are mostly chosen by party processes. Elections are basically conducted on a party basis, and almost every member is elected, whether or not we admit it to ourselves as individuals, largely for party reasons.
Thus when we reach the House of Commons we face a dual situation. We have 282 individual members elected from what are still 282 separate districts. We also have a system that is organized into Government and opposition for the purpose of carrying on the business of Parliament. Both these facts must be reconciled, in the organization of the House and its rules, and if we are to fulfil the expectations of our electors we must bear them in mind.
Having said this, I do not want to be understood to be downgrading in any way the role of the individual Member of Parliament. The people, in making party choices, clearly do not wish their elected representatives to be trained seals functioning only as instruments of their parties, they expect initiative and individual participation to the fullest. Our party system, indeed, depends upon these very qualities for its vitality.
A major factor in the role played by individual Members, the major way in which they have an impact either on the proposals or actions of the Government, or of their party if it is not the one forming the Government, is through something not recognized in the Standing Orders at all, but which is very real all the same. I refer to the party caucuses and the caucus committees.
Bearing all this in mind, I want to make some comments on the Government's proposals. These proposals are, of course, not exactly those made by the Special Committee chaired by the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath). My colleagues, the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) and the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner), who are intimately involved in the proceedings of that committee, will be commenting more extensively on this. I want to say that all the Members of the committee worked both intensively and extensively and are to be congratulated for the production of their very comprehensive and challenging reports. The proposals now before us are in fact the initiatives of the Government. The report of the committee chaired by the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) was the taking off
February 11, 1986

point, but the proposals are in many places quite different than the committee's recommendations.
I want to say in this regard that the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn) has talked with myself and the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans), as the House Leaders of our respective Parties, about the Government's proposals and he has taken into account a number of our suggestions. This has likely made possible a debate that would be easier and more positive than would otherwise be the case at this time, but there remain a number of considerations for the House before it reaches any decision.
I want to stress that there has been no package deal worked out behind the scenes to simply whiz this measure through without any real debate. The debate today, as far as I and the members of the Official Opposition are concerned is to go on here on the floor of the House of Commons into the pros and cons of the Government's proposal. This is not simply a pro forma gesture aimed at enshrining something worked out behind the scenes. I want to say the individual Member rightly expects to be active and to count for more than simply casting his or her vote at the direction of his or her party whip.
The individual Member rightly expects to be active and to count in the visible workings of Parliament, to take part in a more visible and meaningful way. I recognize and support the importance of their work as individual Members of Parliament. Therefore, we must consider the effect of the proposed changes of the rules on both aspects of a member's work, as someone who is a member of a party caucus and as someone who has an individual standing and is directly elected for a particular constituency.
Therefore, it is important in this debate today, and subsequently, if necessary, that we hear from individual Members of Parliament, particularly those not on the government side, whether they feel the Government's proposed changes in the rules actually improve or retard their ability to do their work as they see it. My approach, and that of the Official Opposition to this debate, is one which is sympathetic to parliamentary reform. However, our members want to discuss openly here in the House of Commons the extent to which the Government's proposed changes in the rules do, in fact, bring reform in the sense of enabling them to do their work in a more vigorous and effective way.
Last June, acting on the basis of the Special Committee's initial recommendations, a number of provisional revisions to the Standing Orders were adopted. Some of these have caused many individual MPs from both the Government and Opposition sides great concern. One problem arises from the decision to do the committee stage of consideration of legislation in legislative committees rather than in Standing Committees. This has led to an incredible proliferation of committees and committee meetings, placing an almost impossible burden on Members wishing to specialize in particular subjects. It is not an infrequent occurrence that meetings of more than one legislative committee or of a Standing Committee considering
Standing Orders
matters falling within the same general subject area are held at the same time or so close in time to one another that Members concerned are either physically unable to attend meetings or to prepare themselves properly for meetings. It has also happened that the subject under consideration in the House has conflicted with committee consideration; this situation cannot continue.
If the Government wants to enhance the role of the individual MP, I do not think continuing this proliferation of legislative committees and meetings is the way to do it. The private Member of Parliament needs time to reflect, to prepare and to talk to individuals and groups concerned with the subject matter being looked at in committees on which that Member serves. This cannot take place if there are so many committee meetings that the MP is spending all his time at meetings or running from one to the other. To do real committee work the Member must have available to him adequate time for preparation, reflection and contact with the public. The Member also needs time to be able to participate in debate in the House itself, take part in the work of his caucus, attend to the problems of his constituency and meet with interest groups or individuals that want to meet with that Member.
In the United Kingdom only a fixed, a limited number of legislative committees may sit at one time. There are only so many queues or slots for those committees. As a result, Bills are apportioned and scheduled to legislative committees whose meetings are set up so as to minimize conflicts for Members. Some adaption of this queue system will have to be put in place here if the system is to have a chance to work and continue.
Frankly, this is a problem that was not anticipated when the provisional rules were adopted last June, but unless some correction is made that is satisfactory to Opposition Parties, the difficulties that have arisen threaten the continuance of the whole procedural package or the adoption of further changes.
I will have more to say about the proposals regarding committees and the motion before us, but before leaving this point I would also like to say that for any new proposals to be adopted the Government must make a formal commitment right now that it will be willing to join with the Opposition Parties in making adjustments from time to time during the 10-month experimental life of any changes proposed should further unforeseen problems arise. Yes, the Government's proposals are for an experimental period of only 10 months, but we also know too well that even one week is a long time in politics. The commitment I have sought must be made formally in the House of Commons during the course of this debate.
Dealing with the proposals that are before us, 1 would like to comment briefly on the proposals dealing with Private Members' Business. For many years, private Members have been frustrated by the system presently in place whereby it is possible for any determined group to prevent any given private Member's proposal from ever coming to a decision. It is highly desirable that at least some degree of relief from this restriction be found, and I know that this is the intent of the Governments proposed changes to the Standing Orders regard-

February 11, 1986
Standing Orders
ing Private Members' Business. However, this is not to say that the method for relieving this frustration should be contrary to the fundamentals of our system.
I am seriously concerned that the system now proposed, even with the changes that have been made since the draft Standing Orders were tabled before Christmas, still could be manipulated in such a way that it would contravene the principle that the Government of the day should and must take responsibility for the process by which important decisions on issues of major national concern are taken, and, even more importantly, the principle that all such proposals are given the fullest possible consideration at all stages before the House is asked to pronounce its final opinion. The proposal as it now stands may still, although not intentionally, threaten these fundamental requirements.
Five hours of House time at the second reading stage of many important legislative initiatives may very often be sufficient, whether the proposal is that of the Government or of a private Member. However, I think Members would agree that it would be clearly inadequate on some issues, and this is especially true regarding issues of great social importance on which decisions will be permitted td depend on the personal views of Members as opposed to Party positions, and on which quite naturally they would require more time than usual for explanations of individual courses of action.
I do recognize that the proposal would require that any item once debated would go to the bottom of the priority list thereby giving opponents and proponents alike a period of weeks if not months in which to alert the public at large as to the nature of the proposition. This, however, does not fully meet the guarantee required that issues of great national import receive the full and complete consideration of the House.
Why do I say this? While there is a maximum number of hours provided for consideration of a proposal at second reading and at the post-committee stages, there is no minimum time.
What is proposed is that 20 Private Members' Bills be selected by lot to have some priority and the committee on Private Members' Business will select six of these which will then actually come to a decision by vote after limited debate. This committee would understandably be composed of a majority of Government supporters, and it will be able not only to select the six Bills that will come to a vote but to determine how much debate they will be allowed on second reading stage up to a maximum of five hours.
The Government's proposal to ensure that there is adequate time for public input on each of these measures is based on the premise that each measure will receive five hours of debate, but this is not the case. This is not what a close reading of the revised proposals to amend the Standing Orders tabled late last week actually say. The committee can decide to give a measure, or all six of the measures no more than one hour's debate each on second reading stage. In that case, the Government's proposal to stretch out the time for consideration
through a rotation system to allow the public to become informed and state its position will not come into effect at all.
The Government's proposal, therefore, on this aspect of Private Members' Business, must be changed so that every one of the six measures which will be selected for super priority and be allowed to come to a vote get the full five hours of debate, unless there is unanimous consent by the House to do differently. In short, the five hours must be a minimum and not a maximum time for debate on second reading.
As well, there is no guarantee whatsoever in the proposed Standing Orders regarding how one of these items selected for super priority might be treated in committee, and that Government supporters will not try to ram it through in only one or two committee meetings. These problems are compounded by the element of the proposal whereby the House itself would have no opportunity to debate or alter the decision of a Private Members' Business committee with regard to which items must be brought to a vote and how long they may be debated. There is no procedure in the proposed Standing Orders covering this, and in my view it is not enough to say that the House can change anything by unanimous consent.
Let me be frank. This system, even with the changes made, leaves open the potential for abuse either through manipulation of committee work or other forms of perhaps inadvertent connivance by a Government not willing to assume its responsibility for presenting controversial measures to Parliament. For the proposal for Private Members' Business to be one for which our support could be expected, there must be at least one further change made of the kind about which I have talked. There must be no way for a Private Members' Business committee to decide that a measure selected to come to a vote will receive only one hour's debate in the crucial second reading stage.
I would like now to turn to the proposal for the report stage that, if improperly used, could render that stage redundant and could seriously impair the rights of Members to bring important issues before the whole House for determination. I am seriously concerned about the proposed "Note" to be added to Standing Order 81(10). The report stage is intended to be a final appeal to the House as a whole from a decision of a limited group of members; or, in the case of matters of procedural dispute, from decisions by persons of less experience, knowledge and sophistication than those, with all due respect, we may find in the Chair and at the Table in the House at present.
In my view the present proposal is too strongly phrased. I fear it could be interpreted in a way which would be too rigorously restrictive. If the "Note" were to be interpreted literally and rigorously applied, then our legislative process would be seriously unbalanced and would be considered to be most unfair in its operation. It would certainly be inconsistent with our system of checks and balances and the desire to enhance the role of Private Members, not to mention the role of opposition Parties, for whom presenting amendments is a
February 11, 1986

crucial way to formally state how they think the Government's legislative proposals could be improved and to force the Government to take a stand on their alternatives.
I would now like to turn to the proposals in the Government's motion with respect to standing committees. As 1 indicated earlier, I have some serious reservations concerning the over-all thrust of the recommendations of the Special Committee with regard to committee structure. I welcome the proposals which would enhance the powers of Standing Committees to initiate investigations on subjects of their own choosing.
As someone who has had the honour of serving in the House in almost every conceivable capacity, including as a private Member in Opposition, as a Private Member on the Government side, as a committee chairman dealing with one of the most important things with which a committee can deal; that is, the decennial revision of the Bank Act, as a Private Member who had once been in Cabinet and was then out while his Government was still in office, and now as House Leader of the Official Opposition-I think I have some perspective which I can honestly bring to these deliberations.
As I have said, while I welcome proposals which would enhance the powers of standing committees to initiate investigations on subjects of their own choosing, I have my personal doubts about the utility of having many small standing committees going about their diverse activities while the legislative work in their fields is parcelled off to separate ad hoc legislative committees.
I believe that if the committee system in place since 1968 were to have the enhanced terms of reference proposed by the special committee, and as set out in the Government's proposals we are discussing today, then they would have greater potential for achieving the goals which we desire. Members wishing to specialize in particular areas may do so in the type of framework I have mentioned without the risk of defusing their related activities on legislative, expenditure and policy matters, whose consideration would be divided between separate standing and legislative committees. I am concerned that the system set out in the proposal could-and I hope it will not if it is adopted-lead Members off on tangents and away from the major issues of the day. In this way they would be diverted from addressing important matters in their chosen fields of interest when they are brought before the House by the Government in the most tangible and meaningful form of parliamentary consideration-the form of legislation.
Everyone recognizes that the most effective and powerful committee system in any deliberative body in the world is that employed in the Congress of the United States. I point out that in Congress there is only a single system of large standing committees, each with a comprehensive mandate over not just investigations but Government expenditure and legislation. In the process each makes ample use of subcommittees.
As I have said, from my own experience here in a whole range of capacities I cannot help but wonder whether the proposed new system will not prove to be merely a way of diverting Members from the real issues when presented in the
Standing Orders
form of Government legislation. In the long run, unless we are very careful, it could be more frustrating than helpful.
There is no assurance from this Government that when a standing committee is holding an inquiry into a subject that the Government will wait until the inquiry is over before presenting legislation to the House and to an entirely separate legislative committee. The Government has given no assurance that when a standing committee is reviewing a Government policy or an administrative decision it will not go ahead and act in any event before the committee completes its deliberations. An example of this is the way this Government first refused any committee hearings with respect to the sale of de Havilland to Boeing and then later caved in and agreed to hold hearings. However, it said it would not take into account the evidence or conclusions of those committee hearings. It then went ahead and to all intents and purposes closed the deal to sell de Havilland to Boeing two days before the committee completed its work. That is not a very good example of how what the Government is proposing will actually work.
At this point I may as well indicate my Party's and my serious concern about the proposal to limit the kind and number of questions which any Member may have on the Order Paper at any one time. The Government has not taken up the Special Committee's quid pro quo of permitting members of committees studying Estimates to submit a fixed number of written questions in advance, nor has the Government shown any interest in improving the speed with which written questions are now answered. As a result, this new limitation on seeking information could seriously impair the rights of Members to seek information on Government activities. We hope for real assurances from the Government with respect to this matter, not merely in the form of promises but in the form of tangible evidence in the way it tables answers to questions which are now lying on the current Order Paper, in some cases for more than a year.
Also, Mr. Speaker, since you, under the current and proposed rules, can direct someone asking a question during the Oral Question Period to put it on the Order Paper, the Member of Parliament to whom this direction is made can be completely frustrated in his or her efforts, if that Member already has four questions on the Order Paper and the Government is stalling in answering them. That outlet which the rules provide will really be limited.
There are many other areas touched upon by these proposals: the timing of Routine Proceedings, the method of taking divisions, the making of Orders in the House, the provision of a registry of a Member's external travels, and many other important issues. I am sure my colleagues will be addressing all these matters, and others, during this debate.
With respect to the proposal for a registry of a Member's travels outside the country, and the payment for those travels by other Governments or non-governmental organizations, we think there is a major gap. There is no requirement to list trips paid for by the Government when the Government sends Members abroad to represent it, or includes Members on its official delegations; nor do trips taken abroad by Ministers and
10668

February 11, 1986
Standing Orders
paid for out of public funds have to be included. This means that the proposal in the form presented today for a registry of a Member's external travel could largely cover travel by opposition MPs, which would give a distorted and perhaps unintentionally misleading picture, since the large amount of travel by Government MPs allegedly on behalf of the Government, or through being a part of Government delegations, would not be included.
With respect to the taking of divisions and the length of time bells can ring before a vote is taken, the Conservatives, when in opposition, argued that the ability to control how long bells ring before a vote is taken is important for an Official Opposition to get a Government too secure in its majority to at least listen-not necessarily to change its legislative proposals in question, but at least to allow more time for debate, to allow committee hearings, or to divide a complex Bill into several simpler and more clear-cut propositions in individual Bills. If the potentially unlimited ringing of bells as a possible parliamentary tactic by an Opposition is to be given up, then surely the Government has to confirm at the very least that it will not abuse its majority and prevent the adequate consideration of major legislation and major administration proposals.
I also want to say that the measure before us would give the Speaker new authority to have Members leave the House when they are what we call being "named". However, the proposal before us goes far beyond what is recommended, if I am not mistaken, in the report of the special committee. It not only says, Mr. Speaker, that you can suspend an Hon. Member from the service of the House without motion for the balance of the day, but also if this happens on a second occasion you can do so for a period of five days without any recourse or appeal to the House as a whole. I must say, Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to you, and all future incumbents of the Chair, that this goes beyond the recommendation of the Special Committee, and we certainly think it is excessive.
If these proposals, like any reforms, are to work, it will depend on a great deal of effort and good will, especially on the part of the Government. On this point, I look at this Government's track record and, contrary to what the Government House Leader has said, it is not encouraging. I have already mentioned as one example the way in which the Government handled the de Havilland case without due regard to Parliament.
There is an even more troubling indication of the Government's intentions and purposes. I refer to what the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said in Montreal just yesterday, as reported in a Canadian press dispatch. The Prime Minister was talking about his good friend, Ronald Reagan, the President of the United States, when he said, and I quote: "He doesn't have to face the House of Commons every day. It's an almost ideal situation". Let me repeat that. The Prime Minister, who should be the first among Parliamentarians, said in Montreal last night when speaking of Ronald Reagan: "He
doesn't have to face the House of Commons every day. It's an almost ideal situation".


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: If this is what the Prime Minister, who is and should be the first among Parliamentarians, thinks about Parliament, how can we have any real confidence in the Government's intentions with respect to these reform proposals and the way in which the Government would operate if this, or any other package of reform, were to be adopted? If the Prime Minister is going to ignore the Canadian people by ignoring their elected representatives in Parliament, and if he is secretly hankering for the U.S. presidential system, let him be more forthright. Let his Government propose changes in Parliament which will establish not just those changes he wants but all of the checks and balances of the presidential and congressional system.
By the way, Mr. Speaker, what happened to the supposed interest of the Government in lessening the necessity for the confidence of the House to be at stake every time the Government presents a proposal? That is not in these proposals anywhere at all and was not, as far as I recall, anywhere in the speech of the Government House Leader. Let us be frank, if the private Members' role is to be enhanced, one of the prerequisites is that the Government make a formal commitment that it is going to have much less recourse in insisting that the confidence of the House and, therefore, the future of the Government is at stake when Government measures are proposed. That is not a problem in the American system which is liked so well by the Prime Minister. After all, those members stay for a fixed period of time no matter what happens to the Government's legislation. But we have nothing from the Government House Leader on this matter.
In our House of Commons, the Opposition Parties as well as individual private Members have to be able to check and hold to account the executive in order that its actions be properly scrutinized, in order to be able to alter Government legislation and in order to present and have considered meaningful alternatives. The Prime Minister cannot surreptitiously or openly try to weaken the existing parliamentary system on the one hand and, on the other hand, have his House Leader talk about strengthening the role of private Members and of Parliament itself.
The Government House Leader talked earlier this morning about how his Government wants to make Parliament once again the centre of the real consideration of the great issues of the day. But this is not what the Prime Minister said yesterday in Montreal. He said just the opposite. And who speaks for the Government? In our parliamentary system it is still the case that first and foremost it is the Prime Minister and he has just, in effect, cancelled out the well intended, I trust, words of the Government House Leader.
The first step to real parliamentary reform is for the Prime Minister and his Ministers to commit to be in Parliament regularly and frequently to answer to the House, and they have a lot to answer for already.
February 11, 1986

The Official Opposition and I favour parliamentary reform, real reform, but we received the latest version of the Government's package only late last week and a more detailed study of these proposals has raised new and serious questions in our minds. These questions have been enhanced in concern and intensity by the intemperate and troubling words of the Prime Minister last night. We believe in parliamentary reform but these new questions have been raised and we have not yet received the answers.


Mr. Caccia:: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) on his excellent speech. I would like to refer him to the "Note" which appears on page 1666 wherein you, Mr. Speaker, seem to be put in an extremely difficult position when it comes to the report stage of a Bill. The Speaker is expected to judge and determine motions which are of exceptional significance and to determine whether or not they would warrant further consideration at that report stage. Would the Hon. Member for Windsor West care to comment as to the difficulty the Speaker would encounter in making such a political decision?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the very concept of a committee is that it is a smaller body to which a question is referred by a larger body. The committee is subordinate to the larger body. The proposal of the Government turns that on its head, because it states that normally the House as a whole will not be able to overturn decisions of what is supposed to be its subordinate body on matters of procedure, and normally will not be able to deal with questions which came before the committee in the form of amendments. As I have said, I believe this turns the basic concept of what a committee is on its head.
It might be argued that there is an escape clause for the Speaker to avoid the problems mentioned by the Hon. Member because the direction to the Speaker has the word "normally" included in it. But what does "normally" mean? It means that the usual, customary, every-day practice is to do what is in the instructions. Therefore, every time a report stage comes forward, there is a risk that the incumbent of the Chair, the Speaker, will have to make a decision-which can well be attacked as being political-to not allow an amendment ruled out of order in the committee to be argued and considered again on its acceptability from the point of view of the rules in the full House, nor in allowing the House as a whole to take a look at an amendment which was presented in the committee.
The Speaker already has the authority, which he uses, to group amendments, and this has saved a lot of time on report stage. It seems to me that we have to give serious consideration as to whether the need is simply a more active use of the authority the Speaker already has to group amendments, rather than putting the Speaker into what could be an untenable position of making decisions which will inevitably run the risk of being considered political because they deal with the merits of amendments as well as their acceptability under the rules rather than some mechanical grouping or organization of the debate.
Standing Orders
I think there is peril in this amendment for the rights of the individual Member of Parliament and for Members organized in Parties to have their views considered formally in the form of amendments. Perhaps, in the long run, there is an even more serious threat to the position of the Chair and the appearance and reality it must have of complete impartiality.


Mr. Taylor:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make one or two quick comments and then ask the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) a question. The remarks of the Hon. Member reminded me of the words of the philosopher: "All is yellow to the jaundiced eye". This reform package may not be perfect, but it is so much better than anything we have had before that every Hon. Member should be dancing with joy. We are not saying it is perfect, but it is certainly a tremendous move forward.
With reference to questions on the Order Paper, l would like to remind the Hon. Member for Windsor West that I had a question on the Order Paper from 1980 until 1985 and never got an answer. At least we are moving ahead with the answers to questions on the Order Paper. My question was not too difficult. All I wanted to know was how many defeated Liberal candidates had been invited to the dinner for President Reagan. It was a very simple question, but I could not get answer in four and a half years.
The last point I would like to make has regard to Private Members' Bills. The proposed reforms represent a tremendous advance in this area. I look forward to the day when we will no longer be talking out important Bills. The Hon. Member mentioned that we should have a minimum period of debate. I would like him to enlarge on that. If no one wants to discuss a Bill, why require a minimum time for debate? If Members do want to discuss it, they can continue for the maximum time, but to impose a minimum time would be defeating the whole purpose. People would be talking simply for the sake of talking. Would the Hon. Member enlarge on what he meant when he said that there should be a minimum time for debate on Private Members', Bills?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member who just spoke showed why it was important for me to make the comments which I made previously. He himself has raised what could be a problem, which we on the Opposition side have identified, with respect to the proposal regarding Private Members' Business. Under the Government's proposal the Private Members' Business committee can select six measures of the 20 that are selected by lot, which will be decided upon through a vote. A majority of Members on that committee can say that one of those six measures need only have one hour of debate, or may have a maximum of five hours.
The Hon. Member's House Leader has recognized the concern of opposition Members that the proposal for bringing Private Members' Business to a vote could be used to slip through the House, without adequate debate, a major matter which, first, should be one for which the Government at least takes the responsibility of bringing before the House and.

February 11, 1986
Standing Orders
second, there is assurance that it has at least as much debate as a minor Bill normally has under our rules when presented by the Government.
The way this is written, if the majority of the members of that Private Members' Business committee agree, the protection which the Government itself said is necessary to prevent something from slipping through the House without adequate debate of at least five hours, those five hours being strung out over a series of weeks, will not take place. If the Private Members' Business committee formed by a majority, in this case, of Government Members, say that a measure needs only one hour of debate, the protection which his own Government House Leader says is necessary will not come into play. The very first time debate on second reading on one of these six measures comes up in the House there will have to be a vote after one hour, if that is what the committee has decided. There will not be rotation with the other measures which require debate before coming to a vote.
1 urge my hon. friend to look at the real concern which I have expressed, not simply because I have expressed it, but because his own House Leader has agreed with what I have said. I, in a constructive way, have been trying to point out a way to help the Government better achieve what it feels is necessary to achieve.


Mr. Nunziata:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) a question about the proposal with respect to the power of the Speaker to name Members of this House. The Member for Windsor West indicated in his comments that he believed the proposal was excessive. I agree with the Member and I have some very serious concerns about the proposal which, as I understand, was not a proposal by the committee, but was a government proposal.
In my view, Mr. Speaker, there is no greater right of a Member of Parliament than to sit here in the House of Commons. That right is the result of being elected by one's constituents in a general election. That is the greatest right, and 1 believe that that right should be taken away in only very extraordinary circumstances. Who should have the right to remove a Member from the House? Ultimately, the electors in any particular constituency should have the right to remove a Member from the House. In my view, only the House should have the ultimate right to remove a Member between elections.
With all due respect, Sir, this proposal gives you ultimate authority to decide whether a Member should continue to sit in the House. I do not think that is right. Given the fact that it is on ultimate right, only one's peers in the House should be given the authority to remove one from the House. Under the present system the Speaker can name a particular Member and, on motion, that Member can be removed from the House or suspended for the day. One's peers have to make that decision. The Government is proposing that the Speaker be given the authority to name a Member without resort to motion, not only for one sitting day, but for up to five days on a second naming.
Will the Member for Windsor West expand upon his comments with respect to his position that this proposal is excessive? Does the Member agree with me that the ultimate authority to suspend a Member from the House should rest with other Members in the House of Commons?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, there are arguments on both sides. As a practical matter, the suspension by the Speaker of a Member for the balance of a sitting for alleged misconduct in the House is almost automatic now. The custom is-and I have never seen it happen differently-that when a Speaker names a Member the Government House Leader automatically moves a motion to support the Speaker and all the Government Members vote with him. As a practical matter, a proposal limited to the right of a Speaker to have someone suspended from the House for the balance of a day's sitting does not really change what is happening now. However, it will prevent the naming of a Member and the vote on that naming from blanking out a Question Period, if the incident takes place during Question Period. I think we would agree that for all Members, especially Members in Opposition, the ability to question the Government is something very important and precious.
Finally, I repeat what I said in my speech, that I do not believe there are grounds for giving the Speaker, the incumbent of the Chair, the right to suspend a Member for five days during a sitting on being named a second time. I believe that is excessive, although I can see arguments pro and con for the Speaker being able to name someone on his own accord for the balance of a day. I believe the Speaker in the United Kingdom House of Commons can do that at the present time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments have now terminated.


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, this could be a great day for Parliament. I say that it could be because there are a number of conditions attached to that hopeful prediction. My hope arises from the work I have been involved in since being appointed to the Lefebvre Committee on Parliamentary Reform and subsequently the Special Committee on Reform of the House chaired by the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath).
In order for this to be a significant day, we must continue the spirit of flexibility, accommodation, compromise and nonpartisan debate that accompanied this process since its beginning and should these reforms be adopted, Members of Parliament, both individually and collectively, whether in committee or in the House, will have to actively use these new powers to create a new Parliament. They will, as the popular expression has it, have to "go for it".
May I also suggest that what we have here is only half the package of parliamentary reform. The Government House Leader has acknowledged that we are dealing with the procedural half of parliamentary reform and that there are still nearly 30 recommendations of the committee with which to
February 11, 1986

deal. Outstanding reforms include administrative reform of the House, the organization of Parliament Hill itself, the recommendations concerning broadcasting of the House of Commons and sound availability in committees. That was a recommendation in our second report which has yet to proceed. Other recommendations include the expansion of the CBC parliamentary channel into a Canadian equivalent of C-SPAN. I suggest the adoption of these recommendations would go a long way to better informing the public about Parliament. I understand that on Friday the Government House Leader made a commitment to proceed with these recommendations.
Although this motion is a Government proposal, we are dealing with a procedural package which is very close to what the committee recommended. In some ways it is unfortunate that we must deal with this motion as a Government proposal because it may provoke a somewhat partisan debate. However, even members of the committee had second thoughts and wanted the Government to change some recommendations so that dealing with this motion as a Government proposal was unavoidable. Otherwise, it would have been necessary to adopt the committee's procedural recommendations without incorporating any of the changes recommended by committee members and other Members of the House.
It is unfortunate that the Government did not rely enough on experts who were close to the work of the committee in preparing its procedural package. The Government could perhaps have saved itself some problems in attempting to devise the Standing Orders. In that respect, I think the process could have been better. Furthermore, it is important to note that this motion is the result of consultation rather than negotiation.
The Government has demonstrated some flexibility because it has dealt with many of the criticisms we raised last fall. My greatest criticism concerned parliamentary secretaries sitting on Standing Committees. The proposed Standing Orders strictly prohibit this from taking place. In addition, I am grateful that the Government House Leader has dropped his proposal to have the Government define "confidence", in the myriad and convoluted ways once contemplated by the Government House Leader. Thank God for that.
The Government has also demonstrated a welcome flexibility in meeting the objection raised by my colleagues about the description of Private Members' Business as it appeared in the proposed Standing Orders just before Christmas. If those Standing Orders had been adopted at that time it would have been possible for the five hours that might be allocated to a votable item to be allocated consecutively by the Special Committee on Private Members' Business. I understand that this would not be possible under the present Standing Orders and that a Bill which was allocated five hours would be debated one hour at a time with a full nineteen hours of Private Members' Business in between those hours. If I understand correctly, if Private Members' Business could not be dealt with we would revert to Government business. This reflects a concern of my caucus that there be appropriate "political time" for Private Members' Business.
Standing Orders
The committee was also cognizant of the fact that if private Members were to be given the new responsibility of being able to cause a Bill to come to a division and, if passed, become law, the process should have some of the same safeguards accorded to Government legislation. This safeguard gives the public enough time to mobilize and react to certain legislation. Such a requirement to prevent Private Members' Bills from being quickly passed applies to all legislation that comes to the House. Private Members' Business is not being singled out. I am pleased that the Government has moved in that respect.
The Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) made a good technical point, that the possibility still exists that the committee on Private Members' Business could make a bad decision and allot only one hour for a matter that deserves five hours of deliberation. This is something the Government might consider because, without sounding naive, the consideration for the allotment of time for many of these questions depends to a great extent on respect on the part of the chairman and members of that committee for what should be debated for the maximum amount of time. Our committee operated in a co-operative and trusting environment and tended to make recommendations with such an atmosphere in mind. We know that such an environment will not always exist, and I suggest the Government consider the point made by the Hon. Member for Windsor West.
I remind the House that the Private Members' Business Committee is intended to be appointed by the Speaker rather than the Government, and that the chairman of the committee will be someone who is selected from the panel of committee chairmen. In many respects then this committee is not an arm of the Government, although it will consist of a majority of government Members. The concerns of the Member for Windsor West and the Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) warrant consideration, but the success of this proposal ultimately depends on whether we live up to the spirit of the reform or simply maintain the same old attitude.
In this respect I say to Government Members, whether they be cabinet members or backbenchers, that a lot-the future, the vitality and the integrity of Parliament-will depend on the extent to which you allow this reform to work in keeping with the spirit of the reform itself, not letting short-term political considerations get in the way of what could be a very, very exciting new era for the Canadian Parliament. Much depends, as I say, on the attitude the Government takes to these reforms.
I would like to add some caveats about what has been recommended by the Government; concern, for instance, is in order about the Standing Orders having to do with report stage amendments. I am not so concerned about the ability of the Speaker to rule out amendments that have already been considered in committee. That is something the committee recommended, and I stand by that recommendation. In that sense, as I understand it, we are only going back to a system that was in place some time ago.

February 11, 1986
Standing Orders
I think though that the Speaker ought to have a little more flexibility than is given to him by the proposed Standing Orders. The Speaker should be able to look at an amendment that was considered out of order in committee which in the Speaker's judgment was a bad ruling, because there is such a thing as human imperfection. The Speaker should, in my view, have the flexibility to say that, notwithstanding what happened in the committee, something might be brought forward again, even though ruled out of order in committee. I ask the Government to consider that suggestion.
When I ask the Government to consider these things I am not necessarily asking it to consider them in the context of amending the proposal that we have before us today, but to consider these changes on the assumption that they are going to say or do what the Hon. Member for Windsor West asked, i.e. give a commitment that as we move along, even within the experimental period, there be an ability and a willingness to change things and to say: "Yes, we should have covered that, but we did not. Let us change it." I think that is the kind of spirit we need as we enter into this experimental period.
I see the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) is here now. Let me say that I hope the Government will, as we enter into this experimental period, be open to things we discover as we go along. It does not matter how much effort you give to the drafting of these Standing Orders, there is always an odd wrinkle here and there that no one ever thought of, and I think it is very important the Government move with that attitude in mind.
Some of the ways in which the Government's proposal is different from what the committee recommended also need to be put on the record. For instance, substitution on committees. The committee recommended that members be made permanent members of the smaller standing commitees and they, and they alone, have the ability to designate their substitute. That had to do with the notion of building up a sense of tenure on a committee.
The Government has recommended that people who are appointed to these committees be able to name a group of five from which they could draw for substitution. This group of five has to be signified by the whip of the Party in question, depending on which Member is affected. We have two problems. One, we still have the whips involved and that could erode the independence of the member on the committee. Second, we also have the problem of what do independents do. We have an independent Member in this Parliament, at least so called. What does an independent Member do in terms of getting a list of five people to substitute for him on committee? That is just one of a few problems that I wanted to put on the record.
With respect to questions, Mr. Speaker, and this is very important, here is where you clearly run into the dangers of tampering with the package the reform committee put together. On the face of it, limiting Members to four questions on the Order Paper at any given time looks like a very severe restriction of Members' ability to ask questions. I say, I think fairly, that it is more of a restriction on Members who were in
the habit of using the Order Paper for questions. It is not something of which I have done a lot so I probably will not feel it as much as other people who have been very successful at using this route for calling attention to issues, but the committee agreed to that, Mr. Speaker, because there was a trade off. We agreed because at the same time in our package we allowed for Members to submit 10 written questions on the Estimates on whatever committee they happened to be working. It was the trade-off, a quid pro quo or whatever it is called. I think the Government has made a mistake in tampering with that recommendation. It made the package more unacceptable to people who were looking to find things wrong with it by giving them a kind of legitimate thing on which to hang their hat. I do not know why we could not have gone ahead with the 10 written questions proposal.
I am glad to see some of the cleaning up that has been done on previous proposals that were adopted. Some of the problems came, admittedly, because the Government adopted the committee's recommendations holus-bolus, particularly the problems that came with legislative committees. The committee had recommended that legislative committees be made up of 20 members. The Government adopted the committee's report and so we got legislative committees made up of 20 members.
We have now in these new Standing Orders, if they are adopted, more flexibility. We could have larger legislative committees. I hope we do not, Mr. Speaker. I hope that a 30 member committee will be used only for constitutional amendments or something like that. I hope we will see smaller legislative committees. I also hope that whoever speaks for the Government next will say why there appears to be no attempt to establish some sort of traffic control with respect to legislative committees.
Does the Government have some process in mind which could be reached between the Parties outside of the Standing Orders for limiting the number of legislative committees, or is this just an oversight? I hope the next person who speaks for the Government will indicate what the Government intends to do about a problem that I believe was raised by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) having to do with the proliferation of legislative committees.
Finally, some advice to the Government on today's proceedings. If these proposals are adopted, if the spirit of these proposals is lived up to and if in the coming weeks and months the appropriate changes are made when we discover things that were not apparent to us when we passed the Standing Orders, we will be entering into a whole new area of parliamentary politics, a whole new parliamentary process.
I think the Government should consider that it is all right for the House to take the time it needs to have everything said that Members feel should be said before this proposal comes to a vote or to an agreement, whatever the case may be. I hope that is something we could do unanimously or at least by consensus. I think it is very important that it not only be seen to be done that way but that it genuinely be that. For that reason I encourage the Government to listen carefully to the various reservations that, Members have about the proposal
February 11, 1986

before them. I hope the Government will do what it can immediately in terms of actual changes, or commitments that it will be possible for changes to be made. The Government should do what it can about that today.
I also encourage Hon. Members on my right, in the Liberal Party, to see their way through some of the understandable reservations which come from their day-to-day dealings with the Government and to seek a higher ground. 1 encourage them to try to see this process through to completion. As one who has been involved with it-it seems since time immemorial-I hope we can bring at least one important stage of parliamentary reforms, and there are others to go, to completion today.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to enter the debate very briefly. I realize 1 only have a few moments, and I will not take many more than that. I should begin by complimenting the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) for the tremendous role which he played in this major initiative in parliamentary reform. I pay tribute as well to all members of the committee, to the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) who played a very significant role in developing what is an historic intervention on behalf of parliamentarians with regard to the evolution and reform of our institution, the House of Commons, and, of course, to the very distinguished Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) who has led, with great leadership and sensitivity, Members of the House of Commons to unanimous recommendations with regard to the reform of this fundamental institution. I salute his leadership and the great distinction which he brings to himself and to the House with this report on reform of the House of Commons.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Hon. Members will recall that in the Speech from the Throne the Government outlined its intentions to embarks upon a process of parliamentary reform in the following words:
First, you must critically examine the relationship of Parliament with the people of Canada. Members of the House of Commons will be asked to approve the appointment of a parliamentary task force on reform ... The central focus of this task force will be the enhancement of the role of the private member. From that perspective the task force will examine and make recommendations concerning the powers, practices, organization and resources of the Commons.
I would remind the House as well that in September, 1985,1 announced a broad package of reform initiatives, including a review of Order in Council appointments by a standing commute of the House. Last fall, again, the Government announced a register of interests by Members of Parliament and a proposal for a register of lobbyists. Let me point out that the amendments before the House represent a consensus reached after consultation with representatives of the Opposition Parties.
Standing Orders

Those, Mr. Speaker, were the specific recommendations formulated by the Committee. I admit that 1 was impressed by the role of a Member of Parliament when I came here for the first time in September 1983, which makes me a very junior Member compared with a Member who has now been sitting in the House for twenty-eight years, and 1 am referring to the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), and there are many more. I was greatly influenced by some of my reactions and observations, and that is why 1 decided to take action shortly after I was sworn in as Prime Minister. Let me explain:

One of the first things which struck me as I entered the House of Commons for the first time, as Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, was the fact that this represented democracy, these were the leaders of communities across Canada and yet, in point of fact, the Member of Parliament had less influence in the decision-making process in this town than an Assistant Deputy Minister of any given Department. The erosion of influence and authority which has taken place over the years, as the bureaucracy usurped the executive functions in the decision-making process of the Member of Parliament, was something that had to be arrested and turned around so that once and for all there was a reaffirmation of the principle, dulled over the years, that this House, even with its imperfections, stands tribute to the nobility of the parliamentary system and is the authority of the elected Member of Parliament over the executive at all times and in all circumstances.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: I make no pretence as a relatively new Member of Parliament to great understandings of some of the arcane rules which have governed our conduct over the years. I know that people watching us from time to time have difficulty understanding why certain things take place, as do I. I know that most people would agree, for example, that the way Question Period has evolved, and television in the House, have both served to distort and detract from the tremendous contributions in committee made by the backbench Members of Parliament, the contributions which they make to enriching the parliamentary process. However, that is life, and that is the way it has evolved and nothing will change it.
This will throw more light on the parliamentary process. It will enhance and strengthen our democracy, as do initiatives such as that brought forward by the Hon. Member who preceded me. The basis of parliamentary reform-all we are trying to do, and no one says that it is perfect-is to respond in some ways to the present situation.
[ Translation]
-the heartfelt concerns, because they were indeed heartfelt, the concerns 1 read as formulated by my hon. friend from Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie), who, 1 am sure, was speaking for many Members of this House. I found a passage

February 11, 1986
Standing Orders
quoted in the very beginning of the McGrath Report on Parliamentary Reform, and it was quoted from something Mr. Blaikie had said:

I think one of the reasons why a lot of people run for Parliament is that they feel they have something to say. I always thought that if I could just get to say these things in the House of Commons, that would be significant, it would matter... However, since I have come to Ottawa, everything I say is suspect, if it is listened to at all. So there is this incredible frustration. What ought to be the pinnacle of exchange of ideas is in fact the black hole in which nobody listens to anybody.
I could not have said it better myself.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: I think that comment points out the frustration, and it is a comment tinged with realism. What the Hon. Member was saying to the committee and to all Members of the House of Commons was: "Help me and my colleagues elevate parliamentary debate; help us make once again the Parliament of Canada that instrument of magnificence it once was and can become again, if the role of the Member of Parliament is enhanced". Somebody once said in the House of Commons that Members of Parliament are nobodies when they get outside the House. I say that Members of Parliament are somebodies inside this House and outside this House at all times.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: I want to say to my hon. friend that that was not a partisan comment. I can understand. If the term was used, I did not construe it as pejorative because in point of fact the erosion which has taken place over the decades and over the years with regard to the attributions, the responsibilities, the influence and the power of the Member of Parliament, has served to diminish the Member and, in so doing, has served to weaken the House of Commons, and when the House of Commons is weakened, democracy suffers.
What we have tried to do, imperfectly no doubt, is to reach out to the best instincts of Members of the House and say as a new Government, as we did: We can do better. We can arrest the decline of the House of Commons and we can elevate debate. We can make the role of Members more meaningful. We can make certain that Members participate in a substantial way in the decision-making process. We can make sure that when a Member of Parliament from Winnipeg, the North Shore, Cape Breton or Vancouver Island comes to Ottawa, he or she comes to Ottawa to set great questions of national policy, not to respond to the whims of bureaucrats. That is what happened and that is what now must be reversed.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: I think, as I look at it, Your Honour, we have let the symbol of democracy slip. We now have an opportunity to accept this tremendous document of reform, brought about by the Hon. Member for St. John's East, the Hon. Member for Papineau and their colleagues from the
NDP. I say to you, Sir, that though imperfect, this is a splendid document, the acceptance of which will bring honour to the House of Commons, will bring honour to each and every Member.

But above all, it will bring honour to our Canadian democratic system and to all those who are a part of that system.


Mr. Speaker:: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, today is a day of triumph for human rights activists. Today is the day that gives hope to all who work from depth of heart and genuine concern on issues of man's humanity towards his fellow man. Today is a lesson learned about respect for conviction, personal strength of courage, and ability to cope with intolerance when one's firm belief in the right to practise one's religion freely and the right to rejoin one's family, wherever they may live, is not respected.
Today is a day of celebration as we witness an end to injustice with the release from Russian internment of Anatoly Shcharansky. We rejoice as he crossed to freedom rejoining his wife Avital.
Today we are witness to an act of faith, of hope, and of tenacity by thousands of people throughout the world who took heart with the signing of the Helsinki Accord, but lost hope as the Soviets disregarded their responsibility and obligations as co-signators.
As an early activist and organizer of public demonstrations in the interest of Soviet Jewry, as a member of the Interfaith Task Force of the Canadian Jewish Congress, I take this opportunity to thank the Parliament of Canada, its senior Ministers, and individual Members of Parliament who have brought the issue of Anatoly and of Soviet Jewry to the attention of Soviet ambassadors, leaders at the United Nations, as well as in the Soviet Union.
Today Canadians may take pride in knowing that their efforts have sensitized the Soviets to the importance of the
February 11, 1986

issue of human rights and the emigration of Soviet Jews in the eyes of the western world, as well as leading to the release of Anatoly Shcharansky.



FINANCE


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, as you know, the New Democratic Party has been asking Canadians to make their views known on our tax system through the Tax Probe 86 Task Force chaired by the Hon. Member for Kam-loops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis). What they have found so far is an existing tax system that rewards the rich and punishes middle and low-income earners. For example, advertisements appearing in the Financial Post, the Financial Times and The Globe and Mail, inserted by companies such as Wood Gundy, tell wealthy Canadians that they are able to arrange their tax reports so that they will pay no income tax on an income of $42,000 through the use of the dividend tax credit and other deductions. They can own a cruiser with 100 per cent borrowed funds generating $165,000 in tax deductions over four years. They can invest $12,500 in a hotel and receive a 60 per cent tax write-off in one year and the balance in the next.
The Task Force also knows that the average Canadian family is paying $1,000 a year more from the tax changes in the last Conservative Budget, and that single unemployed Canadians will be paying federal income tax on as little as $7,000 received in unemployment insurance benefits, that is presuming that they still qualify to receive UI. No wonder ordinary Canadians are telling Tax Probe 86 that they want a tax system that is simpler, fairer, and more efficient. That is exactly what this NDP task force will be recommending to Parliament in the months ahead.



THE MONARCHY


Mr. Reginald Stackhouse (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, this year is the thirty-fourth anniversary of Queen Elizabeth's accession to the Throne and means her reign in Canada has been the longest in Confederation. In a time when monarchists are becoming fewer, her hold on the affection of Canadians has become more secure. When we patriated our Constitution a few years ago, there was no challenge to continuing the monarchy in Canada. One reason for this was the Queen herself. During these 34 years she has been a model of service to country and devotion to family. She has exemplified the virtues of toleration and adaptability that have made Canada an island of stability in a world of turbulence.
Where other rulers must flee in the night, she remains welcome to our shores. From coast to coast Canadians know
this is a better country because we still say "God save the Queen!"


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. William G. Lesick (Edmonton East):: Almost daily Canadians read newspaper stories about criminals who have been released on parole and repeat violent offences similar to those which they committed previously. We heard the other day of a Scarborough man, on parole after serving 26 months of a 7-year sentence for manslaughter, violently raping a former girlfriend. On the same day we heard of a 19-year-old drifter on probation for sexual offences who attacked and raped a woman beside her three-year-old son. Such sexual offences are violent, despicable acts of human barbarism. In many countries, such acts carry the death penalty.
In Canada today many criminals are being released with little evidence of true reform, and mandatory supervision and parole regulations often allow criminals to get back to the streets where they are a threat to our society.
This Parliament should deal effectively with this issue. We have a moral obligation to initiate effective and compassionate programs for victims not only of rape but of many other serious offences which leave permanent scars on the victims. In many cases Canada's criminal justice system forgets about the suffering of victims. If we believe in justice, fairness, and the law, we owe our society not just prevention but compassion for those who suffer from the acts of barbaric human beings.



HUMAN RIGHTS


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate and offer my best wishes to Anatoly Shcharansky who was today released from the Soviet Union. Anatoly Shcharansky is a leader of Soviet Jews whose role in that country of monitoring the Helsinki Final Accord brought him into direct conflict with the Government and led to his imprisonment.
The courage and bravery of this one individual who endured the pressures of the entire Soviet system to change the principles for which he stood, are a symbol not only for Jews around the world but for people everywhere who believe that basic human rights cannot be trampled. His is a triumph of the human spirit.
I wish also to pay tribute to his wife, Avital Shcharansky, who has for the past eight years travelled around the world so

February 11, 1986
many times to meet with world leaders and with concerned people everywhere, on behalf of her husband and Soviet Jews. Her travels also brought her to Canada where she and her husband have thousands of friends and supporters. Her long journey on behalf of her husband is now over, and I think we all wish her and her husband a period of peace and rest.
However, the long journey for Soviet Jews who have been denied basic rights of movement, of association and of religious freedom, is not over.
[ Translation]
There are still thousands of Jews in the Soviet Union. I think the Government of Canada and governments throughout the world should continue to pressure the Soviet authorities, so that Jews living in that country are treated fairly, as human beings, which includes having the right to emigrate if they so desire.

We do not know yet if Mr. Shcharansky's release marks a change in Soviet policy toward dissidents, but today we can hope and give thanks that one man's agony is at last over.




Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, I too want to say something about today's important news concerning the release of Anatoly Shcharansky. The release of Mr. Shcharansky today took place in the context of an exchange of spies between the Soviet Union and the United States and he was inappropriately included in this category.
It is of course true that the only offence Mr. Shcharansky ever committed in his life was his insistence in the Soviet Union that the Accord reached at Helsinki be observed. Mr. Shcharansky is anything but a spy. He has set an example for the world of what it means to be a courageous human being in pursuit of human liberties.
We in the Canadian House of Commons note Mr. Shcharansky's release with a great deal of pleasure. Many of us remember meeting his wife some years ago here in Ottawa when she visited our country as a part of her international attempt to obtain the release of her husband.
I conclude by simply observing that the release of Mr. Shcharansky is an important landmark for human liberty in the Soviet Union. We want to underline, however, that there remain thousands of other citizens in the Soviet Union who would like to have the same liberty. The Canadian Government, and indeed myself, on behalf of Canadians have in the past year presented a list to the Soviet Union of other citizens we would like to see obtain freedom.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member's 90 seconds have expired.



REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION


Mr. Lawrence I. O'Neil (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to comment on the economy of Cape Breton and eastern Nova Scotia. It is important to understand one thing about this region, and that is that the economic problems of the region were not created in the last 15 months. The problems were created over the last 20 years under the Grit Government that preceded us.
When I grew up in the region there was an unemployment rate of 40 per cent in my home town. The Liberals only knew how to pass out grants, just enough to get through the next election. They succeeded for years; but in the process they destroyed the confidence of these people, never giving them a chance to prove themselves-never deciding to push ahead in a meaningful way with determination to solve the problem.
Our Government has decided to solve the problem. We have achieved a remarkable level of success. For example, a major plant has been announced for Richmond County in Cape Breton, the first major private sector announcement in decades-that's progress! Another major announcement is set for Guysborough County in the near future, the first in decades for that region. That is also progress. We are proving that there is another way-a better way.
We are funding construction of a nautical institute to the tune of $18 million. We have committed $150 million to Sydney Steel. We have committed $40 million to clean up the tar ponds in Sydney, and millions more have been committed to the community of Glace Bay for community improvement and to replace a fish plant. These are the facts.
I want to assure the Grits, who are delighting in the hardship of these people, that they are accountable for having neglected-


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to advise the Hon. Member that his time has expired.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT


Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, Hon. Members must realize that economic development is one of this Government's priorities.
The economic development of New Quebec is a particular challenge, not only because of the size of the region but also because the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement and the Northeast Quebec Agreement have established unique systems that affect the ways in which we can provide for
February 11, 1986

economic development in New Quebec. These two agreements were the first two native land claims settlements in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to be able to inform Hon. Members that work has started on co-ordinating economic development in New Quebec. Representatives of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development are now negotiating with representatives of the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion so that the native people in New Quebec can take better advantage of the Regional Economic Development Agreement between Canada and Quebec. Meetings are also being held on a regular basis with the Cree, Inuit and Naskapi to discuss opportunities for economic development.
Mr. Speaker, our greatest hope for economic development in New Quebec lies in the energy and the will to succeed of the native people themselves. Hon. Members may have read in the press about the entrepreneurship and successful business ventures of the Cree in Quebec. Their holding company, Creeco based in Val d'Or, manages funds for vast commercial enterprises, and they have some very ambitious projects in aviation and construction. Activities are co-ordinated by a regional Cree organization which has recently been given administrative responsibilities by the Department of Indian Affairs and Norther- Development


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



LIBERAL PARTY


Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I am proud to announce in the House today that the New Brunswick Liberal Party has just won a great victory in the by-election held in Edmundston yesterday, a riding considered to be a Conservative bastion and a barometer of electoral trends, which makes this Liberal victory even more significant.
The rise of the Liberal Party in New Brunswick, like that of the Liberal Party across this country, proves that people have confidence and identify with the Liberal Party. The poor performance of the Progressive Conservative Party, both provincially and nationally, has made people realize that this party no longer meets their expectations.

Yesterday's Liberal victory in the provincial by-election in Edmundston is an example of what will happen throughout New Brunswick when the provincial Tories dare to call a general election.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions


Fernand Robichaud: The Liberal candidate, Roland Beaulieu, easily defeated his Tory rival by a two-to-one margin. It is truly a remarkable victory and a tribute to the leadership provided by Frank McKenna.
The people of New Brunswick are coming to a new era-an era of responsible leadership under Frank McKenna.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mrs. Pauline Browes (Scarborough Centre):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians were outraged and horrified to learn that a 15-year-old boy in Scarborough will receive three years' punishment for killing three people. The three-year sentence for three murders is, I believe, a travesty of justice. Yet under the Young Offenders Act that is the maximum allowable sentence.
What kind of signal does a case like this send to young people across Canada? Does it tell them that killing is wrong and that criminals are severely punished for crimes they commit? What do we as lawmakers say to the victims of crime who suffer the traumatic consequences of criminal activity? What do we say to the relatives of the seven-year old girl this boy brutally killed?
The Defence Council in this case was quoted as saying: "As a human being, I have difficulty with the sentence. Three years for three murders is hard to accept". Indeed it is.
I applaud the Solicitor General (Mr. Beatty) for the commitment he has made to reform the sentencing provisions in the Young Offenders Act and I urge him to pursue those reforms as quickly and expeditiously as possible. Canadians can wait no longer.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance I direct my question to the Prime Minister. In last year's Budget the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister proposed the largest tax increase in Canadian history, and most of it was hidden; hidden gas tax increases, hidden family allowance cuts, and hidden deindexation of the tax system. Will the Prime Minister give an undertaking to the House that there

February 11, 1986
Oral Questions
will not again be these types of sneaky tax grabs but that the Minister of Finance will be open and straightforward in his approach to taxes?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance is always very open and straightforward in everything he does. These are, of course, value judgments which have to be exercised and articulated, and in so doing the record indicates whether one is right or wrong. I can remember when the Minister of Finance stood here on November 8, 1984, and made a very important Economic Statement. The Leader of the Opposition predicted that as a result of that statement and economic policy there would be a loss of some 100,000 jobs. In point of fact 580,000 jobs have been created.


GAP BETWEEN THE RICH AND THE POOR
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I want to present not a value judgment to the Prime Minister but a statistical fact, namely, the growing gap between the rich and the poor. Last year's Budget exacerbated that gap by exempting wealthy Canadians from capital gains and allowing the deindexation of the system to work in their favour, while imposing the largest tax increase ever on average Canadian families. Will this year's Budget further exaggerate and exacerbate that gap between the rich and the poor, which is not a value judgment but a fact?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I cannot consider or contemplate anything more difficult or more inappropriate than the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition using the term "poor". It ought to be used in reference to someone who does not have a job. That is the most important element of our society. It is to this we have directed our attention.


John Edward Broadbent: Wait a minute.


An Hon. Member:: More important?


Mr. Axworthy:: Why don't we try old people, those over 65?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I will just give you, Mr. Speaker, two indications of two elements of society. When we came to office
85.000	of our elderly were not entitled to the benefits which were added by the new Progressive Conservative Government in the autumn of 1984. Those widows and widowers now receive substantial benefits from the Government of Canada.
With regard to the unemployed, on the month of January
129.000	new jobs were created. That is the largest number since Statistics Canada started to compile records in Canada.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has just given a new definition of the poor which does
not include the elderly, widows or single-parent families. Truly, an extraordinary definition!


INQUIRY IF CONSERVATIVE BUDGET WILL AGAIN ENLARGE GAP BETWEEN THE RICH AND THE POOR
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I shall repeat my question: Will this year's Conservative Budget once again widen the gap between rich and poor in Canada? That is the question!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is wrong once again. 1 did not give a new definition of the poor. 1 said that people without jobs were among the least well-off in our society. And we are trying ... 1 know the Liberals are against job creation, but we support it. Mr. Speaker, I have spoken to 85,000 widows and widowers who were not eligible for federal income supplements and who have been included in the plan as a result of Government intervention.


Mr. Malepart:: What about single people?


Martin Brian Mulroney: And furthermore, 580,000 Canadians have found jobs since this Government was sworn in.


REQUEST FOR FIVE-YEAR ECONOMIC PROJECTION
Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance I will ask my question of the Prime Minister. Could the Prime Minister assure us that the Minister of Finance will break with the unfortunate precedent he set last year of not giving the hard data and five-year projections which underlie his Budget? In other words, will he ensure that we have the data underlying assumptions on economic performance, including interest rates, oil pricing, and the projected rate of inflation for five years?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the data supplied by the Minister of Finance will indeed be accurate and, I think, helpful. It will be reliable, and we will not add $200 million to it while walking into the House of Commons.


TAX ON OIL
Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister may not know that the Royal Commission on Financial Management and Accountability said that the only way a Government can be held to account is through providing five-year projections. We set that precedent. We went with five-year projections.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: That is revisionist thinking.
February 11, 1986


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please, both sides. Order! Just a question, please.


Donald James Johnston: I will go straight to my question; I think the point has been made. With respect to oil pricing which should be in those projections, will the Prime Minister ensure that no part of the lower oil price, which should be of benefit to the consumers of Canada, will be skimmed off by the Minister of Finance in his forthcoming Budget?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, that is a chintzy question which is unworthy of my hon. friend. All he need do is wait for the Budget and I think he will be well pleased.


FAIRNESS OF BUDGET MEASURES
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my question pertains to the budget announcement of the Minister of Finance. Canadians will recall that last year the Minister of Finance assured us that the Budget would be fair, and in fact we got a Budget which increased taxes on ordinary Canadians, whacked pensioners, and provided special loopholes for the rich. Will the Prime Minister assure us that the Budget which will come down later this month will in fact be fair, and will he live up to that commitment?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, not only will the Budget be fair, it will be effective. In November of 1984 my hon. friend said that in terms of jobs the net effect of the program during the next fiscal year would unquestionably be a net loss of between 50,000 and 100,000 jobs. In point of fact 450,000 jobs were created, so the Hon. Member was slightly off again.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I know it would come as a great shock to the Prime Minister's system, but I do wish he would try to answer the questions he is asked today.


LIMITED PARTNERSHIP LOOPHOLE
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister did depart from his script about jobs long enough to say that the Budget would be fair. There is one special loophole in the tax system now associated with limited partnerships which provides millions of dollars in tax benefits to people who use it. In the case of the Western Pulp Partnership, this specific loophole provided $100 million in tax write-offs. Will the Prime Minister assure us that this kind of unfairness will be removed from the tax system?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I know that the NDP gets twitchy when it sees good job-creation figures. The NDP does not like prosperity, but Canadians like prosperity, and they are going to get a lot more of it with this Government.
Oral Questions


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: With regard to tax fairness, I agree that my hon. friend and I, during the television debate, were the only two of the three Leaders in favour of it.


John Napier Turner: That's not so.


Martin Brian Mulroney: In point of fact this Government has shut down more loopholes that were introduced by the Grits for their fat friends, and we brought in a minimum tax whereby
100,000	rich taxpayers who never paid a nickel in tax now have to contribute to the national welfare.


John Edward Broadbent: The Prime Minister is getting close. He almost answered the question that time.


REQUEST THAT LOOPHOLE BE ELIMINATED
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the specific loophole that I mentioned was described by the Minister of Finance himself as a benefit: "Available only to a small circle of taxpayers and one which jeopardizes the integrity of the tax system". He simply went on to eliminate advance rulings but kept the loophole in place.
Will the Prime Minister assure us that the Government will not simply be content with removing rulings but will remove the loophole so that we can have some fairness in the system?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, we always take my hon. friend's representations seriously in this and other areas. I do so again in regard to the specific observation that he makes. However, I know he will want to acknowledge in the House at his next opportunity that the Government has shut down more tax loopholes than any other Government in Canada in a comparable period of time, ever.


THE BUDGET
Mr. Raymond Garneau (Laval-des-Rapides):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister.
Since the fall of 1984, a task force of senior officials and representatives from the private sector, chaired by the Deputy Prime Minister, has been analyzing Government programs in terms of any Budget cuts that would be feasible.
Considering that this work was done with public funds, could the Deputy Prime Minister give this House the assurance that he will table a copy or copies of the reports of his task force before the Budget is brought down as scheduled on February 26?

February 11, 1986
Oral Questions


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. gentleman is a bit confused. The program review task that was mandated by the Prime Minister in September, 1984, was not for the purpose of cutting expenditures-


An Hon. Member:: Slashing.


Erik Nielsen: Nor was it slashing. It was a management exercise determined to identify and eliminate overlap, duplication, and to provide more effective service to the Canadian public of a wide array of programs throughout the entire Government.


REQUEST THAT REPORT BE TABLED
Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, this is all very interesting, but the Deputy Prime Minister did not answer my question.
And if it is all as neat and clean as he appears to be saying, does he intend to table a copy of this report in the House so that the general public and Hon. Members will know whether he is telling us the truth?


Erik Nielsen: Well, Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the translation of the last part of the hon. gentleman's question came across accurately but I can assure him that at the appropriate time, in the appropriate way, all of the information that has been so laboriously gathered by mixed study teams of private sector and public sector individuals will be made available for the judgment of the public.


Raymond Garneau: Twenty-five years from now.


FINANCE
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. He will be aware that various accounting firms and tax advisers are outlining to their clients ways and means of beating the minimum tax. Will he indicate what steps he or the Minister of Finance is taking to ensure that ways are not found around the minimum tax so that every taxpayer of upper-income means will pay a fair minimum tax?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that anyone can give a guarantee in regard to the ingenuity of Canadian tax specialists in that regard, but I can assure him that, in response to observations made not only by my hon. friend but by many members of this Party, that we will be taking steps to ensure that the full degree of fairness is
exacted in regard to those taxpayers. If my hon. friend has any suggestions I would be happy to hear from him.


USE OF LIMITED PARTNERSHIPS TO AVOID PAYMENT OF TAX
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is also for the Prime Minister. I do have a suggestion I would like to pass along. The SRTC, when it was brought to the attention of the Minister of Finance, was closed off as a loophole. The Minister has now been alerted that the limited partnership provision in the Tax Act is being abused by countless-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Having found in Tax Probe 86 that firms across the country are now finding ways and means of using the limited partnership to avoid tax-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Nelson Andrew Riis: -what is the Government going to do about it?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Order. I will allow the question because it was heard. May I remind Members that preambles to supplementary questions are not appropriate.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, if my hon. friend is betting on the ingenuity of the accounting profession in this regard, I will bet on the integrity and the ingenuity of Michael Wilson.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


WESTERN GRAIN TRANSPORTATION ACT
Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Is the Minister aware that CN and CP are not keeping their promises of capital investment in the west or their commitments for investment in the west made at the time of the rewriting of the Crow rate legislation?


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: I told you they wouldn't.


André Ouellet: If the Minister is aware of this, is he now ready to withhold payment under the Western Grain Transportation Act?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the Member somewhat answered his own question. There is a provision within the legislation to ensure that the investment takes place.
I think that in fairness though the Hon. Member would agree that with the downturn in traffic, particularly in grain traffic, the capacity problem does not exist in the same magni-
February 11, 1986

tude as it did a few years ago. Given CN's cash flow difficulties-


Mr. Benjamin:: And CP's.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -and CP's, there may be a sort of deferral. I do not think that, in any way, shape or form, will relieve them from the commitment and obligation that they have in the long term as a result of the passage of the WGTA.


FUTURE OF CN INVESTMENT PLAN
André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Are we now to understand that because of government cuts CN will not go ahead with its investment plan in the west, thereby very substantially jeopardizing double-tracking and a series of commitments to modernization and computerization that will improve efficiency and, above all, safety?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the matter has absolutely nothing to do with Government cuts. It has to do with the reduction in the flow of traffic.
As a matter of fact I believe CN grain traffic movement is down by some four million tonnes. That represents a $100 million loss in revenue. Surely the Hon. Member should be aware of that.


TOURISM
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Tourism. He said today at his press conference that high gasoline prices were an irritant to American tourists when they considered visiting Canada, for example, to see Expo 86.
Is the Minister aware that the Manitoba Motor League in the Minister's own province has been advising Canadians when they are going out west to Expo that they should travel through the United States instead of Canada because of the high gasoline prices in Canada?


Hon. Jack Murta (Minister of State (Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of that. I would not necessarily say it is irresponsible of the Manitoba Motor League, but I clearly think it is not a good way to promote tourism in Canada by having Canadians travel through the United States on their way to Expo.


An Hon. Member:: What about market forces?


Jack Burnett Murta: What I said in my press conference today is that there is not, from a point of view of American tourists, one single thing that would deter them from holidaying in Canada, and gasoline fits within that parameter.
Oral Questions


REQUEST THAT MINISTER ACT TO REDUCE PRICES
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Let me remind the Minister, Mr. Speaker, that these are Canadian tourists. Will the Minister do more than just sending a wimpy telex to the oil companies, as the Minister of Energy did, go to bat in Cabinet for the tourist industry and get these outrageous gasoline prices lowered right away?


Jack Burnett Murta: Mr. Speaker, the Government has done more and is doing more at the present time for the tourist industry than any other Government in the history of the country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jack Burnett Murta: We have put into place what I believe will be a first-class advertising campaign in the United States. We have more research information on the American market at present that will be targeted specifically to Americans. We will have more Americans, and more tourists generally, in Canada this spring, summer and fall than we have had in years.


AIR SAFETY
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. The Minister will be aware that last week in Washington two expert witnesses, appearing before the first U.S. congressional hearing on the Arrow crash at Gander that killed 248 servicemen, testified that deregulation in the United States air industry is the underlying cause of inadequate maintenance, inadequate training, and decisions to defer maintenance in both charter and scheduled airlines.
Given this evidence, will the Minister now agree to delay the implementation of deregulation of Canada's transportation systems, as promised by him for April, until the Standing Committee on Transport has been given an opportunity, denied until now, to examine fully the relationship between declining safety and U.S. airline deregulation?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Hon. Member knows that there are views counter to that one. I would ask the Hon. Member to consider the statement made by the President of the Airline Pilots and Owners Association which indicated there had been a significant improvement in aviation safety in the United States with the advent of deregulation.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: No, it didn't.


SAFETY INSPECTORS-AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I am interested in developing a Canadian view before we commit ourselves to a possibly very dangerous course.

February 11, 1986
Oral Questions


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Why do you keep referring to the United States then?


Brian Vincent Tobin: Does the Minister agree or disagree with the Auditor General of Canada, Mr. Kenneth Dye? In his last report to Parliament he said with respect to safety inspectors that "none of the regions of Canada was able to inspect all the carriers in its jurisdiction at least even once a year".


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to point out that that happened during a Liberal regime, and we are trying to correct that situation.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear?


INDUSTRY
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. During the election campaign the Prime Minister told the residents of Desbiens in Quebec that he would go there himself to settle the problem related to the closure of the pulp and paper plant. Here is my question: The residents of Desbiens had to come to Ottawa, they are now in the House with us this afternoon, and they want to know when the Prime Minister will live up to his August 8, 1984 political commitment to the people of Desbiens.


Hon. Andre Bissonnette (Minister of State (Small Businesses)):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the Government did make a commitment to the people of Desbiens. Last May we offered $4,598,000 to the company and since then the management have asked us to wait because they are seeking new partners to get those people back to work.


INSISTENCE THAT PRIME MINISTER TAKE ACTION
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, the people of Desbiens have been out of work for 50 months already. When will the Prime Minister live up to his August 8, 1984 political commitment to those people?


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member knows that displays are out of order.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: What display? That is a newspaper clipping.
[ Translation]


André Bissonnette: Mr. Speaker, this is a good example of someone who
does not listen to the answer. We made a commitment and honoured it. We made a firm offer and I sincerely hope the people of Desbiens will find a partner. That is what we ask for. The funds are available and we want to help those people.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Bill Attewell (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The Minister will know that three Members of this House visited Moscow last year to see the mother of Anatoly Shcharansky.
All 274 members of the Canadian Parliamentary Group for Soviet Jewry rejoice in Anatoly's release today, to be reunited with his wife, Avital.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bill Attewell: Will the Minister indicate what new initiatives he will take to help liberate the tens of thousands of refusniks and prisoners of conscience whose basic human rights are being violated by the U.S.S.R.?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, let me take the opportunity to express on behalf of the Government of Canada how welcome is the news that Anatoly Shcharansky has been released.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: I also pay tribute to the several Members of the House, past and present, who used the influence of their offices to try to encourage the Soviet Union with regard to this case and the broader case raised by the Hon. Member for Don Valley East. With regard to his specific question, I have had meetings within the last week with representatives of the Jewish community in Canada who are particularly concerned about the situation of Jews in the Soviet Union. We are looking at all effective ways in which Canada can try to secure the release of more Jewish persons from the Soviet Union. I emphasize-and I think it is shared by all Members of the House-that we want to focus upon practical efforts, practical infuence which Canada can bring to bear.
February 11, 1986


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Jean Chretien (Saint-Maurice):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Today, many Canadians are concerned about the situation in Central America. Yesterday, the four Ministers of External Affairs of the Contadora countries and four other Ministers of External Affairs from other Latin American countries made representations to the United States, asking it to stop helping the Contras in Nicaragua and to resume bilateral talks with Nicaragua.
Does the Secretary of State for External Affairs intend to make representations to Mr. Schultz, the U.S. Secretary of State, and ask him to be more flexible so that we can get lasting peace in Central America?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Government has always tried to urge the United States to take a position that could lead to a successful outcome with the Contadora group.
We intend to continue in this vein, and today, I want to take advantage of the fact that Mr. Wagner, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Peru, who attended yesterday's meeting, is here in Canada, to get first-hand information on the talks that took place yesterday in Washington.


POSSIBLE OPENING OF EMBASSY IN NICARAGUA- GOVERNMENT POSITION
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Does he intend to take advantage of the Budget period to ensure that funds will be earmarked for opening an embassy in Nicaragua, considering that hundreds of Canadians are now putting pressure on both the Minister and other Members of Parliament to make this positive gesture as soon as possible?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, this is a situation where we intend to follow the example of my hon. friend, who did not open an embassy in Nicaragua while he was Minister of External Affairs.
We think that the present arrangement is quite adequate as far as Canadian interests are concerned, and we also believe that as far as spending priorities go, ours should be to give aid directly to the people in Central America who are in need.
Oral Questions


CANCELLATION OF KATIMAVIK PROGRAM
Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Youth who, last week, defended the elimination of Katimavik by saying that during her regional consultations throughout International Youth Year young Canadians indicated their support for the sacrifice of such programs in the name of deficit reduction. We have looked at those consultation papers, and there is no mention of deficit reduction. Would the Minister indicate to the House what consultation process she referred to and just which youth recommended the elimination of Katimavik?


Hon. Andree Champagne (Minister of State (Youth)):: Mr. Speaker, the many young Canadians who want a promising future, not a nine-month future, who want full-time jobs with the skills required to take an active part in the economic life of this country, those are the young Canadians we consulted, that is what they told us this year, and that is one of the reasons why we made the hard decision announced some time ago.


INQUIRY IF GOVERNMENT WILL ANNOUNCE LESS COSTLY YOUTH PROGRAMS
John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Minister wants to name three. She keeps suggesting that Katimavik is too costly. Would she tell the House whether there are other less costly youth programs lasting nine months?


Andrée  Champagne: Mr. Speaker, we created close to 80,000 jobs for young people over the past year. That is what matters to them, that is what they want. That is important to the Government and we intend to continue.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Should either an insurrection or a coup follow the final announcement of the Philippines presidential election, what actions can the Canadian Government take to assist the 1,500 Canadians known to be in that potentially explosive country?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, let me make it clear, first, that we believe there is no reason for anyone to come to the sort of

February 11, 1986
Oral Questions
conclusion which was part of the premise of the Hon. Member's question. Canadians are watching the electoral results in the Philippines and are trying to come to an assessment about the consequences afterward. I look forward to having the opportunity to consult with a Canadian Senator who is a member of the observer team. There is always-


Ms. Copps:: Why didn't you send him yourself?


Charles Joseph Clark: There was-


Sheila Maureen Copps: You refused to send him down as an observer.


Charles Joseph Clark: I think I heard something, but it was only Hamilton East.


André Ouellet: What a shame from a former Prime Minister.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


CANCELLATION OF KATIMAVIK PROGRAM
Mr. Roland de Corneille (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that Katimavik is the responsibility of the Hon. Secretary of State, he might want to correct the confused reply of the Minister of State for Youth last week and explain to the House and the people of Canada why, without prior consultation with the Katimavik board and staff, he broke faith with thousands of young people who had already applied for the program by cancelling this award-winning program one full year in advance of the end of the contract.


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Secretary of State of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, my colleague's interest in Katimavik is commendable, but I would be more impressed if he were as convincing in deploring the fact that his Party responsible for the unemployment plight of young Canadians which has forced us to discontinue programs-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I wish Members opposite were as energetic in creating jobs for young people as they are in discrediting programs for 2,000 youths. My colleague the Minister of Employment and Immigration has invested in excess of $200 million to create jobs for youths. That is what we have done and what we will continue to do.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER RECONSIDER
Roland de Corneille: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister, given the abysmal performance of the Minister of State for Youth, who last week clearly demonstrated her lack of understanding of the program, now reject her advice and agree to reconsider it at least, after receiving advice from people who are competent?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, the decision concerning Katimavik is final. We thought we would be better advised to invest in job-creation programs, and that is what young Canadians want. After that we will see, we are now holding consultations. I appreciate the fact that the the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie supports our employment programs, and I simply want to say that we will make further studies. But again I would suggest that young people want us to spend money to create jobs, and that is what we are planning to do.


HOUSING
Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour, responsible for Housing.
The Minister often says he wants to consult with everybody about housing. Is he going to meet with the Front commun sur le logement social, which consists of 85 community organizations from across Quebec, and which has asked to meet with the Minister before he signs an agreement on subsidized housing programs with the Government of Quebec?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, to my knowledge I haven't had that request, but I would certainly be interested in meeting with anyone involved in housing in Canada. During our consultation we met with some 21 national organizations, of which the Hon. Member is quite aware. I could name some of them: the National Anti-Poverty Organization, FRAPRU, the Native Council of Canada, the CoOperative Housing Foundation of Canada, the CLC, the Canadian Home Builders Association and the Canadian Real Estate Association.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Supplementary question.


TELEGRAM SENT BY ORGANIZATION
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Since the Minister says he has not seen the telegram that was sent by them on January 15, will the Minister arrange to meet with them if I send him a copy of that telegram, before he signs an agreement with the Government of Quebec about social housing?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I would not want to comment on a telegram I have not seen, but
February 11, 1986

1 would be interested in seeing the telegram if the Member would like to forward it to me.


INDUSTRY
Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister, and I think he should answer it, because his credibility is at stake.
The Prime Minister will recall that in the summer of 1984, he gave his word to the people of Desbiens that he would settle the problems existing in that area.
In May 1985, not only did the Prime Minister give his word but he signed a letter to the people of Desbiens, giving them the assurance that he would continue to-
Mir. Speaker: Order. Please, does the Hon. Member have a question?


Jean-C. Lapierre: What does the Prime Minister intend to do to keep his promise and honour the letter he signed, now that the people of Desbiens are discouraged since they did not get the positive answer he promised them.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think the answer given by the Minister of State (Small Businesses) applies here. However, I would also like to point out a very important fact, and that is that since the election,
156,000	new jobs have been created in Quebec, which means they were created at thirteen times the rate the Liberals were creating jobs.


POSITION OF PRIME MINISTER
Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, these statistics are not doing the unemployment rate in Desbiens any good.
I may remind the Prime Minister, and in fact I would like to ask him about the attitude taken by his Minister, the Secretary of State, who is threatening-


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry. If the Hon. Member has started a question I cannot hear it because of the noise of his colleagues. May I hear the question, please?


Brian Vincent Tobin: He asked a question, smarten up or-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Out, out!
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Does the Hon. Member have a supplementary question immediately, please?


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is very simple: I want to ask the Prime Minister what he intends to do. At this very moment, absolutely nothing has been done. They announced a project that turned out to be a dud.
This is what I want to know: Does the Prime Minister intend to keep his word, yes or no?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Yes!


RAILWAYS
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: I have a question directed to the Minister of Transport. I wonder if the Minister of Transport would agree that it would be a shame if the recent tragedy in Hinton were allowed to cast any kind of shadow over the future of passenger rail service in Canada, and whether he would take this opportunity to reaffirm the future of passenger rail by announcing today the date for the purchase of the new transcontinental equipment. We know the locomotives have already been purchased, but regarding the transcontinental coach equipment, when will that be announced?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I can indeed reconfirm this Government's commitment to a viable rail passenger service in this country. As I indicated yesterday, we will be introducing rail passenger legislation in the House in the next few days. As the Hon. Member has indicated, some locomotives have been ordered, others are being called for tender. With respect to the purchase of the new rolling stock there are still some engineering and other details that have to be worked out. 1 regret the delay, but it certainly is not a lack of good intentions on the part of the Government but, indeed, the logistics that we have to go through.


VIA RAIL
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, also with respect to the future of VIA Rail, I wonder if the Minister could tell the House, and particularly Winnipegers, whether or not the plans for the VIA Rail maintenance shop in Winnipeg are nearing completion, ie. are they nearing the state of being no longer deferred? I would like assurances from the Minister that what I have heard about the next shop being constructed in Vancouver isn't true and that-

Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Order, order. This is a little long.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the Hon. Member that every step necessary will be taken to ensure that VIA will operate in a safe and reliable fashion in offering good service to Canadians from coast to coast.


AIRPORTS
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. There is great concern in Montreal that the Government will transfer all commercial jet flights from Dorval to Mirabel, causing great inconvenience to the travelling public and seriously harming businesses that are related to the air travel business. Will the Minister make a commitment that no decision will be made in this matter until a committee of this House has had a chance to study all options in consultation with the public in Montreal?
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I always thought the Hon. Member was an ardent supporter of Mirabel. I can assure him and other Members of the House that we will be meeting with the representatives of the area around Dorval. As the Hon. Member has indicated, it is a very serious matter and I can assure him it will be looked at in an equitable and balanced way.


REQUEST FOR COMMITTEE REFERRAL
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): We are discussing parliamentary reform and the Minister knows that the great majority of Members from Montreal are on the opposition side and not on the government side. That is why I asked him if he would refer this matter to a parliamentary committee where all parties in the House can look at the options and discuss them with the businesses and the travelling public in Montreal. That is my question.
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, while I do not want to minimize the importance of the issue, it might have been more appropriate to refer the whole question of Mirabel to a Standing Committee before it was built.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Government Members are now costing their own time. The Hon. Member for Athabasca.


FISHERIES
Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries. The Minister will know that the present regulations at the federal level do not allow provincial authorities to set the mesh size or net size for freshwater fishing in provincial lakes. The Minister is working on this. When will the decision be made to allow the local authorities to set mesh size?


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, in the context of discussions on the administration of the freshwater fishery arising out of our meetings in Halifax at the First Ministers' Conference, this is an important issue, a question of joint jurisdiction, and the delegation of such authority is at the provincial level. I will take the Hon. Members' suggestions as an important representation.


CROWN CORPORATIONS
Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has turned over control of an important segment of the Canadian economy to the Americans when he sold de Havilland to American interests. Now it has come to light that he is seeking his advice on privatization from American companies. Will the Prime Minister put a stop to hiring Americans to advise the Canadian Government on how to turn over the Canadian economy to the Americans?


Martin Brian Mulroney: The Hon. Member is outdoing his Leader he is wrong on both counts.


NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Science and Technology. Is the Minister prepared to rescind the $30,000 grant that one of his regional officers gave to the Grand Canal Company the other day in view of the fact that the decision was apparently made without the Minister's knowledge or approval?


Hon. Frank Oberle (Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, I must assume that the Hon. Member knows that the National Research Council operates independently from the Ministry and at arm's length. I report on behalf of the Research Council to Parliament. I have no authority to direct the Research Council to retrieve that money, nor do I believe that the money was wasted.
February 11, 1986


CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORTS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions presented by Hon. Members on Monday, February 10, 1986, do not meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



POINT OF ORDER


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Chair must admonish the House or individual Members from time to time. I would like to ask your advice, Sir, with all respect, as to when it has become a display for an Hon. Member, namely the Hon. Member for Yorkton Melville (Mr. Nystrom), to wave in the air a Xerox copy of a newspaper clipping unless he was displaying something that none of the rest of us saw?


Mr. Speaker:: With equal and due respect, 1 advise the Hon. Member to read our rules and practices on this matter. It is not unusual for Hon. Members to have notes in their hands but it is clearly against the rules of the House to hold up any matter in any way for display.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Come on. I have a further point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member may wish to read the rules.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, in that event, Sir, on the same point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Then it would seem to me that the Chair will be required-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member asked me a question and that is my response. If the Hon. Member wishes to pursue it further, he should pursue it with me privately.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Lethbridge-Foothills):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a petition signed by just over 250 citizens of my riding who want Parliament to act decisively on pornography and obscenity.
Order Paper Questions


Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, it is again my duty to table a number of petitions from people in Moncton, who have heard about hundreds of thousands of jobs being created. New Brunswick has seen none of this yet, but they would be delighted if they heard that jobs at the CN shops in Moncton will be protected.


John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present today a petition signed by somewhat over half of the residents of the community of Big Trout Lake, Ontario, stating their dissatisfaction with postal service in their community and seeking a remedy thereto.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, question No. 481 will be answered today.


Ms. McDonald: Since World War II, how many deaths in Canada were attributed to tobacco related diseases?


Mr. Bud Bradley (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Supply and Services):: Statistics Canada reports:
Since tobacco usage is not reported as a cause of death on death certificates, Statistics Canada is not able to provide the number of deaths attributed to tobacco.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, 1 ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), on a point of order.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, i rise on a point of order. Since the House adopted Bill C-255 yesterday, I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary if we could proceed with question

February 11, 1986
Standing Orders
No. 386, dated May 31, 1985, which asks for information the House has approved and the Government was supposed to provide, and I am referring to the actuarial tables and everything that involves for future pension plans, so that we know where we are going and what the rates are. The Government approved the Bill yesterday, and so I think the Parliamentary Secretary should now make the requisite information available to the House.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member will know that we are presently debating a change to the Standing Orders which will cut down on the number of questions on the Order Paper and will allow for faster answers. We would hope to have the support of his Party in this very important manoeuvre.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Hnatyshyn:
That the proposed amendments to the Standing Orders, laid upon the Table on Thursday, February 6, 1986 (Sessional paper No. 331-7/37A) be adopted and made provisional Standing Orders of the House.
Provided that, unless otherwise ordered;
1.	the said provisional Standing Orders shall be in force from 11.00 o'clock a.m. Monday, February 24, 1986 until the House adjourns on the last sitting day in December, 1986;
2.	and further to the Order made on June 27, 1985, the provisional Standing Orders thereby adopted shall continue in force during the same period; and
3.	the Clerk of the House shall be authorized and instructed to print a revised and renumbered edition of the Standing Orders integrating the provisional Standing Orders and making any necessary amendments in consequence thereof, or relating thereto in respect of the Standing Orders concerning Private Bills, and to make such changes to the Order Paper and Notices as may be required.
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Just prior to the lunch break at approximately 10 minutes to one, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) appeared in the House and made a speech which lasted about 10 minutes. As I understand it, on the basis of the unanimous consent which was given in the House, it was agreed that Hon. Members would be permitted to have a 10-minute question and comment period after every speaker. I am asking for the opportunity now to ask the Prime Minister questions, and if he is not here, to make comments on the remarks of the Prime Minister.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member will know that we have ruled on this matter before. In fact, the unanimous consent that was requested earlier did not apply to all Hon. Members. 1 think the Hon. Member may be confused. It only applied to the first three speakers who are not normally subject to that practice.
When a Member is not here after lunch break or upon resumption of a debate there is a difficulty but if the Hon. Member reads the Standing Order he will find that this clearly contemplates questions, comments and responses. It has therefore been the view of the Chair before that it is difficult to imagine how one could have responses if the Hon. Member is not here. Therefore, as a matter of practice and habit in the past, the question and comment period has not been allowed. That is the way it has been ruled by the Chair in the past.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member has put his point. I have found that he has no point.


John V. Nunziata: I would ask the Chair to cite the rule.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member would like me to cite the rule. It would be in order for the Hon. Member to cite the rule in raising his point of order. However-


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) knows that I am standing on a point of order raised by her colleague. It would be difficult for her to raise a point of order while I am responding to another Member.
May I refer the Hon. Member to Standing Order 36(1) which reads as follows:
Unless otherwise provided in these Standing Orders, when the Speaker is in the Chair, no Member, except the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, or a Minister moving a government order and the Member speaking in reply immediately after such Minister, shall speak for more than twenty minutes at a time in any debate. Following the speech of each Member a period not exceeding ten minutes shall be made available, if required, to allow Members to ask questions and comment briefly on matters relevant to the speech and to allow responses thereto.
This matter has been ruled on many times. This is not a new ruling. The Chair has ruled before that it is not possible to put questions to an Hon. Member who is not here.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a separate point of order. Today I received in my office a document entitled Projected Order of Business which referred to Government Order No. 81. At the bottom of Government Order No. 81, it says the following:
-all speeches are subject to a 10-minute question and comment period.
I would like to take this opportunity to comment on a speech made-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I told the Hon. Member exactly what our rulings and traditions have been. Therefore, shall I recognize the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. February 11, 1986

Penner) on debate or does the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) have a separate point of order? Debate.


Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, parliamentary reform is certainly a noble concept to contemplate. It is one to which everyone rather readily gives all of the appropriate lip service. However, I have noticed that there was always a certain degree of surprise and even amazement when ideas for parliamentary reform have to be put into practice or implemented because it turns out that this means change. Today, it means changing some of our Standing Orders, the rules by which we conduct ourselves in this place from day to day.
One can certainly speak of parliamentary reform in most eloquent and, perhaps, poetic terms, but when it comes to changing the Standing Orders it is rather more prosaic, mundane and down-to-earth. It is surprising how quickly enthusiasm for parliamentary reform can be replaced by a certain measure of reluctance to proceed.
That reminds me of something which was said of a certain leader of the day. It was said of him that he loved people; it was individuals he could not stand. We love parliamentary reform, but we seem to have trouble with our Standing Orders and changing them. I want to say to the House that we badly need some changes.
The Canadian people certainly are not overly impressed by the way in which we conduct ourselves in this place and how we conduct what they consider to be the important business of our nation. Now that we have television they have witnessed or heard about some rather strange happenings in this place. For example, they have seen the storming of the Chair. There have been long bell-ringing incidents and questions on the Order Paper, inquiries from Hon. Members, which are not answered for years. There are petitions which are read, petitions containing the signatures of our constituents with respect to matters of concern, grievances. The constituents ask: "Whatever happened to that petition? What became of it?" We have no answer to that question expect to say that it went missing in action.


Mr. McGrath:: Limbo.


B. Keith Penner: That's right, limbo.
Then there are the Members of Parliament who do not occupy the front benches of the Government or Opposition and who often appear to the Canadian people to be mere spectators to all which is taking place, either cheering or jeering as the case may be.
It is certainly exhilarating to talk about reform. It is a kind of mountain-top experience, but we now have to get down into the valley of reality. We have to try to revise some of our Standing Orders. When we do that, the approach suddenly becomes not so high sounding. Rather, there is a good deal of suspicion and uncertainty. Questions are asked such as, what is in these rule changes which will aid the Opposition in doing
Standing Orders
what it is supposed to do? What is there in these rules which will further strengthen the hand of Government? Are there some hidden snares which we have missed and which are designed to trap political Parties, especially those in opposition?
Have you ever noticed, Mr. Speaker, that there seems to be a failure to ask other important questions such as, what is best for Parliament? How can we restore to this institution the type of respect and dignity which I believe it deserves? That was the approach taken by the committee headed by the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) who has been given praise for the outstanding work he has done for this House. When the members of the committee did their work they were not trying to pit opposition Parties against the governing Party but to do something for Parliament and something for the Members of Parliament. They wanted to find out how we can better enable Members of Parliament to serve their constituents and to work for the national good.
There is a danger in this House for members of political Parties to become too self-serving. I do not think there is anyone who will speak in this debate who is seriously seeking to destroy or undermine the partisan nature of this place. That is too silly to even contemplate. We know that the Government was elected to govern, and it had its supporters. It was elected to propose policies and programs of legislation to Parliament. The Opposition is here to ensure that the Government is accountable and to attempt to change the Government's course of direction when opposition Members or Parties consider that course of direction to be undesirable or disastrous. In that there is bound to be a clash. It is sometimes noisy and emotional. Sometimes it is not all that pleasant to observe. However, I tell Hon. Members that it is a lot better than fighting in the streets. We know that there can be excesses. There can be excesses in our partisanship. Therefore, our rules are designed to strike a fair and appropriate balance between the Government and the Opposition and among all political Parties.
In all of this there is one important aspect which may be forgotten, that is, the Member of Parliament. They want to exercise at least some degree of influence over public policy. They want to and are able to innovate and initiate. Those persons who are elected to this place need some room to live, more and have their being. That is what the McGrath Committee report was trying to achieve. Of course, nothing would help more than if we had some major attitudinal changes. However, leaving that aside, it cannot be brought about by any rule changes. Therefore, we must get on and do the best we can with our Standing Orders.
The Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet), who was the representative from our Party on the McGrath Committee, and I have considered carefully and seriously the entire package of changes to the Standing Orders. We have looked at them with care. The Hon. Member for Papineau will speak for himself on the specifics, but our general view is that there are more pluses than minuses in these proposed changes. It is our

February 11, 1986
Standing Orders
view that this is a positive approach and a positive response to parliamentary reform.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I hope that is both the good news and the bad news.


B. Keith Penner: I suppose the Government House Leader wonders whether the bad news is yet to come. Of course we will suggest some modest changes. However, over-all we think that it is a good package of revisions contained in the proposals which have come from the Government.
For example, I ask Hon. Members to consider Standing Order 1, with which probably few Members and many Canadian people are not aware. Up until now, in seeking precedents for our procedures we have been limited, or restricted, to those practices which have been established in the Parliament of the United Kingdom. This revision to Standing Order 1 will allow us to draw upon experience elsewhere- elsewhere in Canada and elsewhere in the Commonwealth where parliamentary institutions are alive and well and flourishing but are somewhat different. That is a positive change. It will help us all a great deal as we evolve. Parliaments must evolve. They cannot just stay the way they are. They have to undergo continuous change.
I would now like to speak about the issue of the bells. I am delighted to say that if we adopt the changes to the Standing Orders, as I am convinced we will, we will then solve the problem of the long bells. The long bells are of rather recent history in the Parliament of Canada and I think that problem came about as a result of many factors. Some day some one will write the history of the long bells, I suppose, but I believe there was excessive partisanship involved and some poor judgment from many different quarters. Now that is behind us, or should be very shortly. I believe that at the time the problem should have been nipped in the bud but it was not. It was allowed to become a blunt and rather crude instrument for expressing our position to something proposed by the Government. Worse than that, it made the Canadian Parliament something of a laughing stock, a joke. Imagine having bells ring for days on end and Members of Parliament not coming to their seats to divide on a question which had been put to it? Whoever heard of such a practice?
The provision for the ringing of bells had always existed so that Members of Parliament, under certain difficulties, bad weather or having to travel great distances, could get back for a vote. Sometimes there were reasons for the bells to ring for many hours but it had more to do with geography than with opposition to a particular proposal before the House.
Perhaps even worse than those items I have mentioned, the long bells became a precedent for others. I remember being in the province of Manitoba at a time when that Parliament was in the midst of a bell ringing crisis. The issue was the extension of linguistic rights to the Francophone minority of Manitoba
and I arrived there for a parliamentary conference in the midst of the ringing of the bells.
We now have a proposal for up to a 30 minute bell, and it does not have to be that long. If there were some good reason why the division could not take place, if, for example, we had a minority Parliament and Members of Parliament were caught in a snowstorm in Toronto and could not arrive for the vote and there was some danger that a Bill or other measure would be lost, there is an allowance in the proposed Standing Orders for the division to take place the following day before six o'clock. That is a plus for Parliament and for Hon. Members of this House.
Reference has already been made to the power of the Speaker to name a Member without having to seek a motion of the House. I entirely agree with the Opposition House Leader that when a Speaker names a Member for creating disorder, in fact the decision has already been made and the placing of a motion before the House simply delays getting on with the business of the House. It should be in the power of the Speaker to name that person and that person should, having been named, leave the House of Commons for the remainder of that day.
This particular rule among our Standing Orders is a vestige or remnant from the days when the Speaker's rulings could be appealed. That is now no longer possible except in this one case where a Member is being named. So we accept that proposal.
I would, however, say to the House Leader that 1 believe, along with many of my colleagues, that if the same Member is named on a subsequent occasion in the same session, it is excessive to ask that Member to leave the Chamber for a period of up to five days. That in my view is, or could be, an excessive penalty, and I would like the House Leader to perhaps consider that particular point.
I know that some of my colleagues have not been happy with legislative committees. I take a different view. I believe that the introduction of the system of legislative committees has been a positive step for this House and for Members of Parliament. It really means that standing committees, which now have their own work schedule agreed to among the various Members of the Parties in the committee, will not have their work schedule interfered with by having a Bill introduced which they must deal with expeditiously. They will be able to carry on with their work schedule as they wish. The legislative committee can then focus its attention on a particular statute following second reading. It can insist that those public witnesses who appear before it come with specific matters related to the clauses in the Bill. I beleive that the chairmen, in co-operation with the clerk of those legislative committees, should be careful to instruct witnesses that they are not there to render broad and general briefs about the state of the nation. They are there to talk about that Bill. I believe that the chairman of the legislative committee should call the witness to order if he or she ranges widely over many subjects.
The concern of my colleagues has been that we are over-taxing the legislative committee system. There are too many. We
February 11, 1986

need a traffic control system. 1 am not going to dwell on that. Members on the Government side have made the same point. It is not something which needs to be put into our Standing Orders. It is a matter of some sort of scheduling system which can be worked out among the House Leaders.
I am also pleased with the Standing Order which states that parliamentary secretaries will no longer be members of standing committees. I believe that very frequently when standing committees look at a particular issue or problem to which they have agreed they will study for a particular period of time, that partisanship tends to subside and to be put into proper perspective and the issue or problem becomes paramount. These committees become what I would describe as "issue oriented". The parliamentary secretary certainly has a role in the legislative committee, because it is a Government Bill in most cases and he or she would want to be there to protect the position of the Government. However, I believe, we want to reduce the level of partisanship in the standing committee and have it involve itself more in important public policy issues. The parliamentary secretary would have less of a role there than he would in the legislative committees.
I would also like to say that it is a plus for committees to be able to review Order in Council appointments. We all recognize that in a parliamentary system-and this is not a congress but a parliament-that we do not have the power of a veto. I think it is a great step forward to have a committee examine an appointee for competence. That will help in a great way to discourage the more unsavoury and objectionable aspects of patronage.
I will simply conclude with two brief points. First, I am delighted that this is an experimental approach to changing our Standing Orders. We will see how it works. There are bound to be some problems and difficulties. There is now a Procedure and Organization Committee to which Members of Parliament can refer difficulties and problems as they go along. But having carried out the work of an important parliamentary reform committee and having implemented some of those recommendations and Standing Orders, once they are approved, no one in this House should believe our task is finished. The reform of Parliament has to be what is sometimes referred to as "an ongoing process". I think we have to continue to attempt to improve that which we are doing. We have to continue to examine our procedures, asking at all times those very basic questions, is it good for Parliament? Does it make Parliament a more effective instrument for serving the public's well-being? Can we represent our constituents better? Can we do a better job for this nation?
If we keep those ideals in mind when we get to the practical aspects such as amending our Standing Orders and changing the administrative arrangements, I believe that over a period of time we will have a Parliament in which Members can take a great deal more pride. As well, those who watch us will be able to say that Parliament is serving them well.
Standing Orders


Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, 1 do understand that an effort is being made to have as many members of the committee as possible comment on this report. Since I was not a member of the committee, I hope Members will accept that I have a serious interest in the issue of parliamentary reform. I support the fact that progress has been made in the discussions among the House Leaders of the three Parties and that some of the difficulties which were perceived when the matter was discussed with the caucuses have been resolved, allowing this piece of parliamentary reform to go forward.
I think the members of the McGrath committee should be congratulated for the work they have done. I hope that people across Canada recognize that this is part of a genuine effort by the House of Commons to move forward and to respond to the criticism of people who say that we are redundant, stuck in the mud, or cannot come to grips with the problems we will face in the future.
I was looking at the report of the Macdonald Commission today. It talks about the need for flexibility and the need to be more adaptable to change. I do not agree with a lot of its remedies, but I think the problem it describes is a very valid one. I think that the House of Commons, an institution of which I am a recent Member, but nonetheless for which I have a great deal of respect, must be able to adapt to change. I hope that this is the beginning of a process of change rather than the final episode.
In speaking to people in the country I find it difficult to explain what we do. This could be remedied by greater television coverage. It is difficult to explain to the public why only 30 or 40 Members of the House are here discussing this particular and important issue. Most of the other Members, I hope all of them, are in fact working right now in their constituencies, in committees, attending meetings with groups, doing work on behalf of their political Parties, which is part of their job, handling correspondence, and so on. Members are working even when they are not in the House of Commons, but that is often difficult to explain.
If the House is seen as degenerating into an overgrown kindergarten, as constantly bogging down because of the use of the rules to ring the bells and bring proceedings to a halt, or to engage in what the public views as procedural obfuscation, and, on the other hand, if the House or its committees are not seen as coming to grips substantively with important issues such as equality for women, the impact of technological change and the future of multicultural minorities, then we will become increasingly irrelevant and increasingly perceived as being unworthy of the many millions of dollars spent every year in order to maintain the Parliament of Canada.
I want to read one section from the proposed draft rules. 1 recognize that these may have changed a bit. It seems to me that this is one of the most important parts of the changes which are now taking place. This package contains some things which would enable the Government to speed up some proceedings of the House. It contains some measures which private Members want, such as the provision for Private

February 11, 1986
Standing Orders
Members' Bills to be voted upon even without unanimous consent. The fact that the passage of the Private Members' Bill of the Hon. Member for York-Scarborough (Mr. McCros-san), which relates to reporting of public pension funds, was such a rare occurrence indicates that that private Members' procedure was bogging down. That matter was under anxious discussion over the course of the last few weeks.
According to the draft Standing Orders, the standing committees will have the following role and mandate: They will be empowered to study and report on all matters relating to the mandate, management, and operation of the Department or Departments of Government which are assigned to them from time to time by the House. In general, the committees shall be severally empowered to review and report on the statute law relating to the Department assigned to them, the program and policy objectives of the Department and its effectiveness in the implementation of same, the immediate, medium, and longterm expenditure plans and the effectiveness of implementation of same by the Department, and an analysis of the relative success of the Department as measured by the results obtained as compared with its stated objectives. It goes on to mention other matters relating to the mandate, management, organization, or operation of the Department as the committee deems fit.
That is a wide-ranging addition to the powers of the standing committees. My experience in the Ontario Legislature before I came to this House was that the Estimates procedure was sufficiently prolonged that it allowed the kind of study which is consigned to committees in these Standing Orders with regard to Estimates. Under federal procedures the Estimates process does not permit that. Often the Minister, the deputy minister, and the other senior officials of a Department may only appear before a committee for one or two sessions, for perhaps five or six hours. That is simply not enough time to study the role and mandate of a Department, its program and policy objectives, its relative success, its long-term expenditure plans, etc.
The limitation of Estimates consideration in this House to a short period from the tabling of Estimates around the beginning of March until the end of May, also puts a constraint on what committees can do. Members find themselves running from one committee to another in order to raise a few regional issues which they did not have a chance to raise in the House of Commons. I believe that with smaller committees and a broader mandate we have the potential for having more powerful committees, which is one of the purposes of the reform.
I want to appeal to the people here in the House in the hopes that having that appeal on the record will have some influence on the future. The spirit of these reforms must be respected. In the Committee on Regional Development we had a fracas over how deeply we would look into the sale of de Havilland. We know from such experiences that the spirit of giving relatively free powers of inquiry and investigation to standing committees will be thwarted if government Members use their majority to prevent initiatives which will come from the Opposition. There will have to be some give and some take. I do not
pretend that everything the opposition Parties will want to do will be accepted, but there will have to be some acceptance of their initiatives. These initiatives must not be thwarted because a Parliamentary Secretary feels a bit uneasy, or the Minister does not like the committee poking around in what is going on in the Department or, God forbid, because a powerful deputy minister mutters between clenched teeth to get the committee off his back.
We are looking for ways of redressing the balance between a powerful executive and a powerful administration on the one hand, and a House of Commons which has had more and more difficulty in having its views enforced and in having a genuine influence on public policy. I have been around long enough to know that not every representation made by a committee, even one acting with unanimity, is going to be accepted by the Government or is going to have impact on the bureaucrats. However, many of those representations will have an impact, albeit delayed.
With regard to the spirit in which these reforms are going to be put forward, we must look at some of the practices of committees as well. When there is disagreement in a committee it should become a convention of the House to allow opposition Members more than a few lines in the committee report to express their point of view. There should be, de facto, a form of minority report which can be reflected in the report of the committee rather than Members having to communicate directly to the press. In order to work in the spirit in which these reforms came about, if difficulties are discerned in the next 11 months, the Government must not use its majority to stifle action to make changes where problems are perceived.
I would now like to take a few minutes to comment on one or two specific items. It is not clear whether standing committees will continue into the period of a new session or whether there will be a hiatus every January when a new session begins due to a rule which prevents committees from continuing because the Striking Committee will not have had a chance to meet.
I commend to Members the difficult experience we had with the Standing Committee on Regional Development which was seized with the matter of de Havilland before Christmas but then had to be rescued from oblivion by an agreement between the House Leaders at the eleventh hour on the final day before we rose for Christmas. If that had not occurred, the committee would not have been able to meet until the third or fourth week of January.
According to the old rules, beginning in January the committee did not exist until the Striking Committee recommended its coming into force, it had organized itself, chosen a chairman and finally got down to business. Without any assurance of being able to continue, we were unable to make arrangements for organizing witnesses prior to rising at Christmas, and that certainly contributed to some of the difficulty and confusion in the work of that committee.
February 11, 1986

If the rules do not address this situation I urge that they be changed so that next January or the beginning of the next session, the committees and their membership be prolonged until such point as the Striking Committee has recommended a new set of names and that report has been adopted by the House of Commons. That would ensure continuity for 365 days of the year.
I am pleased that legislative committees will not be required to have a minimum of 20 members. When one considers our other responsibilities, I hope that many legislative committees may be a lot smaller.
I believe that the requirements in the proposed Standing Orders that legislative committees be struck at the time of first reading will lead to confusion. Journalists will write that there is a proliferation of committees and that the traffic is too heavy. I believe two alternatives can be considered, if not now, then after a year's experience, in order to lighten the traffic of legislative committees.
First, we should agree that no more than a certain number of legislative committees should be working at one time. For example, perhaps the maximum number of legislative committees could be six. If there is a seventh or eighth piece of legislation before the House which has passed second reading, it should be put on hold until one of the six current inquiries has been concluded.
Second, I believe that the legislative committees should be struck at the time second reading is concluded rather than being struck after first reading. A 24-hour or 48-hour delay is all that is needed for the legislative committee to begin its work. If urgency is essential, there is no problem with the House Leaders or the Striking Committee informally deciding who is likely to be a member of the legislative committee when second reading is concluded. This would clear the Order Paper of lengthy lists of members of legislative committees that are not due to meet for many months, until the particular Bill that has been given first reading finally gets through second reading stage.
Third, on an experimental basis I think we should require the presence of Opposition Members for a quorum for a committee or, failing that, the consent of at least one opposition Member for a committee to work and act as though it has a quorum. For example, if no Opposition Member can be present for a meeting but agrees that the work of that committee can proceed where a quorum is required, I suggest that there should be written consent in the hands of the clerk at the beginning of a meeting.
I am concerned that section 78 will mean that committees will be open to misrepresentation with respect to their spending. These committees are faced with large amounts of fixed costs with respect to clerks and staff. As I mentioned in December, there is a cost of some $ 1,000 per staff person per meeting. Those are fixed costs rather than discretionary costs which the committee can control. While it is not in the Standing Orders, I suggest that this matter be considered in order that the committees be tagged with the discretionary costs that they have entailed and not with the fixed costs.
Standing Orders
I want to reiterate my concern about the scheduling matters. I hope that smaller committees will mean a great deal more flexibility as to when they meet so that there are not artificial distinctions which force them to meet in the evenings when I believe most committee members would prefer that they work during the day. Furthermore, I believe it is in the interest of public scrutiny that the press have access to the work of committees during the day.
The television arrangements should be revised quickly in order to permit a radio feed to committees and to allow selected committees, which may be selected in consultation with House Leaders, a committee of chairmen or the liaison committee, to meet in a committee room that can accommodate television cameras to record their operations. Those televised meetings could then be broadcast over the parliamentary channel, perhaps when the House of Commons is not meeting.
I have some real concern about the handling of questions. It is proposed that a Member have a right to no more than four questions on the Order Paper at any one time. The Table Officers are being given the right to decide whether a lengthy question should be divided, which means that a Member who thinks he or she has 4 questions may have 10 or 15 questions, depending on the discretionary decision of the Table Officers.
Members usually ask for a response within 45 days, which effectively means that over the course of a year a Member will have a right to a maximum of 35 questions if the Government answers within 45 days. If those questions are relatively short because of a decision by the Table in the interest of getting replies from the Government, I suggest we have unreasonably interfered with the right of opposition Members in particular to use the parliamentary question as a means of eliciting information from the Government. While I am not suggesting that this right be unlimited, one might consider giving an allotment of questions to a caucus in addition to the four questions per Member so that the caucus can decide if it wants to give further questions to a Member who has depleted his or her allotted questions. In any event, I suggest that more flexibility is needed in this area.
I also question the requirement that all petitions should be in a form which is acceptable to the Table and that they be first considered by the Table. I believe we are far too restrictive about petitions. If people want to say in simple words that they petition the House of Commons, that is all that is required for a petition to be acceptable. I am not against a requirement of 25 signatures or a minimum number of signatures, but we should not inhibit the public's right to petition Parliament by restricting them to medieval, anachronistic or archaic wording.
I hope that my arguments are helpful. I recognize they are of minor importance, but what is of material and major substance is that we are making a determined step forward in an attempt to reform this place. I hope that determination continues not just for the life of this Parliament but for the life that all of us hope to spend in this Parliament in future decades.


Mr. Speaker:: Are there any questions or comments?

February 11, 1986
Standing Orders



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 46, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The Hon. Member for Etobicoke North (Mr. Pennock)-Canadian Broadcasting Corporation-Broadcasting of song lauding suicide; the Hon. Member for Drummond (Mr. Guilbault)- Textiles and Clothing-Commission's recommendations- Government position; the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Parry)-Corporate Affairs-Marketing of photographic developing machines.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Hnatyshyn:
That the proposed amendments to the Standing Orders, laid upon the Table on Thursday, February 6, 1986 (Sessional Paper No. 331 -7/37A.) be adopted and made provisional Standing Orders of the House.
Provided that, unless otherwise ordered;
1.	the said provisional Standing Orders shall be in force from eleven o'clock a.m. Monday, February 24, 1986 until the House adjourns on the last sitting day in December, 1986;
2.	and further to the Order made on June 27, 1985, the provisional Standing Orders thereby adopted shall continue in force during the same period; and
3.	the Clerk of the House shall be authorized and instructed to print a revised and renumbered edition of the Standing Orders integrating the provisional Standing Orders and making any necessary amendments in consequence thereof, or relating thereto in respect of the Standing Orders concerning Private Bills, and to make such changes to the Order Paper and Notices as may be required.
Mr. Albert Cooper (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am pleased to have an opportunity to participate in this debate today-one for which I have been waiting for some time-and to review the work that has been done in the past as well as an opportunity to move ahead with some of the most significant reforms that have faced the Parliament of Canada.
Let me first begin by commenting briefly on the comments made by the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner). I was very pleased to hear the very positive approach he took to the report and to the initiative with which we are dealing today.
1 also want to thank my constituents for their patience in allowing me to work on this subject. When I first started
working on parliamentary procedure some five years ago, they found it a little difficult. They could not see immediate results and often questioned me about why I was spending so much time and effort on a subject that did not seem too practical.
What we see today is a demonstration of our commitment to this subject and to Parliament. We see the potential of the House of Commons, the potential of Members of Parliament and the potential that all of us have if we are given in which to work and the right kind of environment in which we can put forward ideas and suggestions. Hopefully we can make a positive contribution to our country.
I want to pay a tribute, as others have done, to the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath). As the Chairman of our special committee, there is no doubt he provided dynamic and aggressive leadership. I have to say that in my six years on the Hill it was a committee on which 1 have enjoyed serving more than any other committee. The work was very exciting. I enjoyed the debates and the strong, tough arguments that took place but not on a partisan basis. It was not at all uncommon to see the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) and I together against the Chairman or someone else together with me against the Chairman. It was a group of Members who were trying very hard to put the best interests of Parliament and of their country before their own. It was the most exciting and dynamic experience of which I have ever been a part. I appreciated working with the Hon. Member for Papineau who represented his Party on the committee. His contribution was a very good and lively one.
I want to mention also the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) who represented the New Democratic Party. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) referred to the Hon. Member this morning. I thought it was significant that he recognized the work that the Hon. Member contributed to the committee.
Let me thank the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn). He had a tough go in the negotiations, but he stuck with us on the issue and, as a result, we have the debate today.
Last let me come to the Prime Minister. I sincerely believe that if it were not for his commitment to parliamentary and procedural reform, this debate would not be happening today. He stuck by us. He fought. He had tremendous courage throughout the debate and the discussions. I can remember the naysayer saying, when the report was first tabled, that the Prime Minister would never accept it, that he would never let it happen, that he would let it die.
But the Prime Minister did not let it die. He aggressively pursued the matter and encouraged the Hon. Member for St. John's East. He aggressively encouraged other members of the committee and Members of Parliament to pursue the issue and to get on with what he saw as a really important opportunity for parliamentarians.
The Prime Minister was willing, as he has admitted time and time again, to suffer some personal embarrassment to allow private Members or back-bench Members to stand up in
February 11, 1986

this House and make the kinds of motions and statements they want to make and to pursue legislation they want to see pursued. He feels that is the kind of Parliament we should have. I respect and admire his leadership on that issue.
I want to touch on some of the work that I particularly enjoyed and think is important. I do not mean in any way to diminish other parts of the report. I want to highlight the parts for which 1 have a particular fondness. The area of committee work is one. Since arriving on Parliament Hill, I have spent quite a bit of time in committees. I have found the committee work to be one of the most profitable areas for a Member to work in. So often we found ourselves frustrated by a system that was cumbersome and that made our work futile. Very often we did not feel we were accomplishing the kinds of things that we as Members of Parliament wanted to accomplish.
The first change this report recommends that 1 think is important is to give committees more freedom and scope to look into matters that concern them. They can also get more involved in the legislative and drafting process. That is significant. I know the time spent on that part of the committee review was spent in very serious discussion which had a lot of implications. We felt strongly that we wanted to see the committees in the Parliament of Canada play a much more dynamic and unique role in our institution.
Another element important to the committees was the ability to hire experts. Often, as committee members, we felt frustrated by the process. We did not feel that we were backed by adequate expert staff to deal with the experts we face on various issues. I am sure all of us at one time or another in committee have dealt with witnesses we did not feel qualified to question. As a result, some of our work has not perhaps been the kind of work we hoped would come forward. With this provision, Mr. Speaker, we will see some changes made to the committee process. The whole question of Order in Council appointments is significant. When we looked at this area we looked at what the Americans have done and how they have dealt with it. We felt strongly that in Canada we, as Members of Parliament, must have the right to look at the people who are receiving some of these very important positions, which affect the policy and the direction of our nation. Up to now these appointments have been made and this policy has been exercised with virtually no scrutiny by Parliament, with no questioning of competence, expertise or ability of the person called upon. With this change, we will see quite a difference in the type of appointments that come through.
Individuals who accept an appointment will know they may well face a scrutiny of their abilities and their talents. There will be more hesitation in accepting an appointment simply because of the salary, the status or whatever goes with a particular job. It is certainly our goal and my goal to see good quality people coming forward for jobs. People will be put under scrutiny, and we will have better people to fill these important roles.
Another area that affected the committees to a certain degree, certainly one committee of the House, was the whole
Standing Orders
business of reviewing regulations. Those have been a constant thorn in the side of Members of Parliament. Some Members have distinguished themselves over the years by looking into regulations. But they often faced frustration and futility. Now we will see some changes.
The committee wanted to see smaller committees. We wanted to see committees shrink in size. In today's bigger and better society, it seemed to be a little twist out of the ordinary, but my experience is that it is a good idea. The committee that drafted this report resulting in the motion we are dealing with today, was a small committee. One built very strong relationships with the people one worked with. This tends to break down partisan lines. We reinforced and encouraged each other to do better and more thorough work, even though in some cases it was a little uncomfortable. After the adjustment period through which all of us will have to go after the introduction of these new rules or new ideas, it will be one of the most significant changes. The net result will be that committee members will be trying hard to get on that particular committee and will be struggling to keep their membership.
I think we will see better work as a result.
Another area which has been fairly topical today is that of written questions. It has been a constant frustration for Members of Parliament on all sides of the House to have to sit around and wait for an answer which may or may not ever come. It begins to feel like something one does to use up a little time and pass the day. None of us want to waste our time that way. I am pleased to see those changes coming forward.
I should like to refer to a situation in the last Parliament which struck me as being somewhat frustrating. One of our Members died and, after a period of time, there was no office or staff on the Hill to represent his constituents. As a result, neighbouring Members of Parliament tried to pick up the work. However, the truth of the matter was that constituents in a riding in Canada had no representation in the House of Commons for a considerable time. That has happened in the past, and I think it must cause all of us as Members of Parliament some concern. I am pleased to see that we are extending the staff provisions for six months so that constituents will have a chance to come to an office and talk about their concerns. No one should be in a position of having nowhere to go or having to know someone else to deal with. Although it is a very small reform in some ways, it will mean a significant difference to a number of people if such circumstances arise again.
Mr. Speaker, you have been given much needed power in terms of the disciplining of Members. I am sure the Speaker will find that power to be difficult to use at times and will be somewhat uncomfortable. However, the truth of the matter is that we feel very strongly that the Speaker, in order to establish authority in the House of Commons, has to be able to do something without relying on someone else to pass a motion or an amendment. Throughout history Speakers have been left in rather uncomfortable positions at times, and we certainly do

February 11, 1986
Standing Orders
not want to see a repeat of that. This is why we went ahead with the provision. It will be a difficult situation. References were made earlier this morning to some of the implications and some of the dangers. Members of Parliament elect the Speaker because we have confidence in the individual. This means we will also have confidence in his or her ability to use that new power.
Another area which has been much talked about over the last little while is the whole area of confidence. It was one area with which we as a committee found it difficult to come to grips. I am sure most Hon. Members know that we ended up having a discussion about it but not making a direct recommendation in the report in that particular area. We want to see the whole concept of confidence being removed except in extreme cases such as the Budget and particular Bills or laws which are important to the Government of the day. We wanted to see an ability on the part of Members of Parliament to vote according to their consciences and on behalf of their constituents from time to time. We wanted to see that practice develop a little. Of course it is the kind of thing which will be an uncomfortable transition for Members of Parliament. We can change the rules, but to change attitudes is another story. There has been a very strong hesitancy on the part of Hon. Members over the last little while to vote against their Parties, and for very obvious reasons. The minute Members do that, they are targeted in the press as mavericks or as being at odds with their Party or with the leadership of their Party. As a result, Members who may have felt very strongly about a particular issue were not prepared to take those kinds of risks. In order for this to come about, there will have to be a change in the attitude of each of us in this institution. There will have to be a change as well in the attitude of the Government or of the Cabinet of the day. In addition, there will have to be a change in the attitude of the press to ensure that it does not set up the individual as some kind of martyr or maverick who is about to take on his Party and fight his leadership. If we really want to see the free vote come to Parliament, it can only come when it is accepted as a legitimate role and responsibility of a Member of Parliament in certain circumstances.
I should like to talk for a couple of minutes about a subject of which I am very fond, that is, the whole area of Private Members' Business. When I was elected to the House, I felt strongly that I could do some positive things or take some positive action, not simply sit back and respond to the legislation placed before me or react to the debate which someone else put on the table. I wanted to be able to play some kind of role or to take some kind of leadership in the issue. With these new private Members' provisions, for the first time we as Members of Parliament have a real opportunity to do that. The first thing we will do is to have our Bill selected in the draw. Then we take the motion or Bill we want debated before a committee of our peers, Members of Parliament. Then we argue why our particular Bill should come to a vote. I love the dynamics of that. I love the opportunity for Members of Parliament to appear in front of a group of back-benchers, such as the individual who is making the presentation, and say
that the issue is an important one and why they think it should go forward. The decision will be made by our peers, the very people with whom we work in this institution, the very people who are faced with many of the same problems and frustrations. I see it as a very dynamic opportunity. It will change our attitude toward the House of Commons and our attitude toward the kinds of things we want to accomplish.
It was made clear this morning that it puts tremendous responsibility upon the members of the committee. The members who will be making the decisions will be faced with some very tough ones. They will have to decide the criteria upon which they want to make a decision. The decision cannot be based upon personal attitude or upon personal ideas about a particular Bill. They will have to look at more than that.
I see that my time is running out, but I should like to refer to the idea that I can now have a Bill come to a vote in the House of Commons. I am not faced with standing and making a speech, only to know that no one is listening, no one cares and no action will be taken on it. I feel that for once there will be an opportunity to make a contribution, to put something forward and to see it come to some sort of resolution. This does not guarantee that I will win, but it gives me a chance to see something I have done come to a vote. As a result, Members of Parliament will now have a much more direct influence upon what goes on. They will be able to provide some leadership. They will be able to test some of their important ideas. They will be able to do a number of significant things.
I should like to touch quickly upon something that I mentioned earlier. It has been said that one can reform the asylum but that it is tough to change the inmates. That is what we are faced with. We can make the kinds of changes to the institution we want, but until those reforms really become a part of what we are doing, we have a real problem on our hands. There is a change in responsibilities.
The first change will affect Members of Parliament. If we do not make those changes in attitude and use our new freedom and influence, there is no point in changing the Standing Orders. Second, the Government or the Cabinet has to respect the input and ideas of individual Members of Parliament, because it may find that those individuals with new influence and power can suddenly put pressure upon the Government. I think it will change the dynamics of the way in which Parliament works. Third, as I mentioned briefly before, the press itself will have to change the way it looks at Members of Parliament working in the House.
The most important thing that I can say is that this is a significant day for Parliament. We are seeing changes that are profound and that will change this institution and the way we think about ourselves and about our role as Members of Parliament. I am looking forward to passing this motion and stepping into the new period, the transition and the test time, to have the kind of Parliament that I think all of us hope for, dream for and work for.
February 11, 1986


Sheila Maureen Copps: The Hon. Member talks about attitudes being the tool which will bring the new changes that he foresees in Parliament. I wonder if he could elucidate for us what he sees the role of Cabinet to be in this particular new system. If you look at some of the recommendations in the original McGrath Report, for example, on the issue of Order in Council appointments, you will find that the commission suggested that Order in Council appointments would be subject, not only to review, but also to a decision-making process through Members of parliament, that is, if Members themselves did not agree with the specific appointment they would have the power to overturn that appointment.
I could be wrong and perhaps the Chairman could elucidate this further for me, but in the current Bill that is before us we have the power of review, however, there is no power to overturn a Cabinet decision. Frankly, I think that if we believe that this particular document is going to lead to a parliamentary reform, in essence we are buying a pig in a poke, because we do live in a parliamentary system. The Cabinet, the executive of the asylum, remains the same. The ordinary inmate may in fact be more democratized in the process, but as long as we have a Cabinet that is the bottom line, and a Cabinet that is the chief decision-making corpus of the asylum, then the heart, the soul and the guts of the asylum remain untouched. Maybe I am a little more cynical than others, but I think that, as long as we are governed by the parliamentary process and governed by the Cabinet process, this notion of attributing more power to private Members is, indeed, an illusory notion. 1 would hate to think that we would be making all of our efforts in parliamentary reform with the illusory notion that more power is being given to the private Member. I think that more power to the Private Member will not accrue from this particular Bill because we are still stymied by the role and the authority vested in Cabinet, and specifically in the Prime Minister's Office. I wonder how this Bill addresses those specific concerns?


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I would like to try to address the Hon. Member's comments for a moment, if I can. First of all, I want to start where she left off. She said that she does not see this particular motion changing the dynamics or the role of a private Member of Parliament. I can say that, after having worked on this report, having spent five or six years looking at what happens here, I think we are facing more significant changes to the role of a private Member of Parliament than we have ever seen in the Canadian House of Commons.
Now, if we talk about the committees' role, for example, the advantages that the committees have; the expanded power, the expanded ability to look into subject areas, the expanded ability to hire expert staff, the expanded ability to go ahead with the kind of work that I think is important, those are the kinds of things that really will change the dynamics of Members of Parliament in this institution, that is, to go back to the specifics that the Hon. Member referred to, the veto power of a committee in dealing with Order in Council appointments. I should point out that, as I recall it, in the original report there were some 64 appointments that would be subject to veto.
Standing Orders
Now those have been changed. A colleague from her own Party, I think it was the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner) talked about this particular subject at length. One of the comments he made-and I think it is a very relevant one-is that we are not in a Congressional system where you have the difference between the executive versus the Congress, and as a result the executive can make the appointment, but we have the opportunity to review it. The question that I put to the Member is this: If the Cabinet comes forward with a recommendation for an appointment but then that particular individual receives a highly critical and negative report from the committee, then I think it would have the same impact and the same power as a veto itself. Even though we could have gone to that extent-and we did talk about it in our original report, but there were some dangers to that, as was mentioned by her colleague from Cochrane-Superior-in fact, with this kind of an opportunity to come forward with a negative report or a critical examination of an individual, we are taking a very dramatic step forward, and certainly a step that I know very, very few people on the street expected to see taken. So we have made significant progress. This is a dramatic change. We are going to have time to test it, we are going to have time to see how it works, but it is certainly a step in the right direction, and I am sure the Member herself would not deny that.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Hon. Member. I have a press report here that quotes the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). It reads as follows:
It's true that he makes fine speeches and I really like him. His media relationships are more distant, more sporadic. He doesn't have to face the House of Commons every day. It's an almost ideal situation.
The person quoted is the Right Hon. Prime Minister, and of course he is referring to President Ronald Reagan. It would suggest to me that the Prime Minister does not hold our system in high esteem. I would like to ask the Member who spoke for the Government about certain comments made by the Prime Minister during his speech just before the lunch hour. As he knows, the Prime Minister made a very rare appearance in the House to make a speech. He appeared at ten to one, knowing, of course, that the House would adjourn at one o'clock, and then did not reappear at three o'clock in order to give Government Members and other private Members an opportunity to question him.
I would like to ask the Member if the Prime Minister is truly serious about enhancing the role of the private Member, and if he is really sincere about parliamentary reform, why would he say that the President of the United States has an almost ideal situation because he does not have to face the House of Commons every day? Why would he not come back to the House in order to answer questions from private Members? Would you not agree with me that his actions lead one to question his credibility seriously?


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I am really glad that the Member has asked me this question because it really gives me an opportunity once again to talk about the role of the Prime Minister in the reform package that is before us today. If this

February 11, 1986
Standing Orders
Member had taken the time and looked back-he may well have done that-on the history of the reform of the Parliament of Canada, he will know that it is very rare for a Prime Minister to make a commitment and to take the time and have the energy to bring about real reform. This particular Prime Minister has never hesitated, from the day that the motion came forward in this House, to establish the McGrath task force. He has continued steadfastly to make commitments and statements in public about the importance of reform. He has pushed it and prodded it and kept it going until we ended up debating the motion here today. I do not remember the last time that I saw a Prime Minister come in and take part in a debate in the House of Commons without being the lead speaker. In other words, the Prime Minister came in here today, sat in his place and spoke as another Member of Parliament very much concerned about the whole process of parliamentary procedural reform. He talked about the importance and the dynamic need for Members of Parliament, private Members of Parliament, back-bench Members of Parliament, to take part in what is going on.
There is an old expression which says that actions speak louder than words. The Member has been around here long enough to know that from time to time quotations that appear in newspapers, on the radio or on television, are not necessarily in context, are not necessarily accurate. The thing that really counts, and it counts to every Member that is in this House of Commons, is not so much what we say but the actions. The Prime Minister, more than any other parliamentarian, has demonstrated his desire and his fight for real reform in Canada.
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): I want to start by saying that I do not believe that everything in the package of rule changes before us is reform, and consequently to oppose some of these items is not to oppose reform. I would say about two-thirds of the package of rule changes is good, and I would describe it as reform, and I am ready to support it. However, some major proposals in the package were not even recommended by the special committee of which the Hon. Member who just spoke was a member.
As the Hon. Member and others have said, we can make all the changes in the rules that we like, but if the attitude of the Members with respect to those rules does not change, we will not have much meaningful reform. If the attitude of the Government with respect to the role of Parliament does not change and if the attitude of government back-benchers and opposition Members does not change, we are not going to see very much reform despite the technical changes to the rules that have been proposed today.
We know that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and some of the Ministers very often make great rhetorical statements about this or that, but they end up doing exactly the opposite. It was very surprising to read in the newspaper this morning that the Prime Minister said yesterday that, in his opinion, the President of the United States is in the ideal
situation because he does not have to go to Parliament. The Prime Minister came to the House today to make a speech in this debate to try to counteract the negative statement he made yesterday, but it indicated to me that he really does not know what this is all about. He is for parliamentary reform, but when very real situations arise in which parliamentary reform should be applied, it is not being applied.
We did not see parliamentary reform applied with respect to the closure of the Gulf refinery in the East of Montreal. We wanted to have that issue examined by a parliamentary committee, but that did not happen. As a matter of fact, the decision was made by one Minister, almost in contradiction with several other Ministers and Members of Parliament from Montreal who were very closely related to the problem at hand, and there was no examination by Parliament. We did not even see the documents that were prepared by the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs touching on that issue, documents which Members of Parliament needed to discuss the matter fully. The same thing happened with de Havilland. We had to push and fight with the Government to get that matter examined by a parliamentary committee. Finally the Government agreed to it, but then it went off and made the decision even before the parliamentary committee had a chance to report.
Just today I asked the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazan-kowski) if he would make no decision with respect to the transfer of commercial jet flights to Mirabel until a committee of the House has had a chance to examine all the options and to consult with the public in Montreal on those options. He would not make such a commitment. The Minister said that the Government, in its wisdom, would do what it had to do and would make a decision. With those kinds of answers to specific questions, one wonders what is really meant by the Government talking about parliamentary reform. As I said, a lot depends on the attitude of all Members on the Government side and on the Opposition side.
I indicated previously that I thought that about two-thirds of the package was good. I think the proposals with respect to petitions are good. In the past, when we presented petitions on behalf of our constituents, we never knew if the Government was going to answer them. Our constituents often asked us what had happened to the petitions we presented in Parliament with respect to family allowances, de Havilland or other issues. The new rule change will oblige the Government to give us some kind of reply.
I also like the proposals with respect to the Private Members' Business. I think it is very good that Private Members' Business will be given more attention and that six Bills will be allowed to proceed to a vote. However, I do have some reservations about which I put questions this morning to the Hon. House Leader. We will be testing this procedure over a number of months. We will have to wait to see how the new standing committee on Private Members' Business chooses the six Bills that will come to a vote. We will want to see if it chooses only those Bills which will cause no problem for the Government or have no great issues associated with them or if
February 11, 1986

the Government will choose all Government-sponsored Bills or only Bills regarding one subject matter. I am willing to give that a chance. On the whole, I think the proposals for private Members' Business are good ones.
I think that the proposals for written questions are good ones and 1 think that the proposal to limit the bells is a good proposal. I would like to remind the House that the abuse of the bells was not started by this Opposition Party but by the Party now in government-


Mr. Holtmann:: Oh, wait a minute!


William Warren Allmand: I was here, my dear friend. While we may have repeated it, we never repeated it to the extent it was used when it was first started. I was here when those bells rang night and day for almost two weeks. That was an abuse and I am glad to see that the rules will be changed to bring that abuse to an end. There has to be another way to oppose the Government when it is hell bent on destruction and on doing something the Opposition thinks is wrong other than ringing the bells forever.
I also agree with the proposal that allows the Speaker to suspend a Member for a day when the Speaker names him for misbehaviour without the requirement for a vote of the House. 1 do not think that a vote of the House should be necessary. We abolished appeals on Speaker's rulings a few years ago, and 1 think it is logical that we abolish the vote on suspending Members for a day when the Speaker names them. On the other hand, although that is quite a step forward, I do not agree that we should be allowed to suspend a Member for up to five days for a second infraction. Perhaps there should be a stiffer penalty for a second infraction, but I am not willing to jump that far in one set of amendments. Let us see how the new rule works. If it works well, then at the end of the trial period we could consider something for those who misbehave more than once in a Session.
Those are some of the good things about the proposals. Now I will mention some of the proposals that I do not believe to be reform. Up until today, I have not been convinced and I am still not convinced, having listened to the debate, that legislative committees spell reform. No one has been able to convince me that by having another layer of committees called legislative committees, we have reformed the House. I would like to relate to the House the experience I had with a legislative committee in the last month.
The legislative committee dealing with Bill C-62, the Bill for employment equity, was composed of 20 Members of Parliament. There were two from the Liberal Party, two from the NDP and 16 from the government Party. During the hearing of witnesses, there were usually between five and six government Members and two or three opposition Members present. There was a core of Government Members and opposition spokesmen who were present for the hearing of witnesses.
Once we began the clause-by-clause voting on the Bill, almost the entire committee was present. However, a large number of Government Members who had never heard witnesses and did not know what the Bill was about sat in and
Standing Orders
simply voted against amendments put forward by Opposition Members without any consideration of what was said during the hearing of evidence and without any consideration of what our arguments were. As a matter of fact, during the clause-byclause voting on that Bill, only three Government Members, the Parliamentary Secretary, the Chairman of the standing committee and one other Member, were au courant with the Bill and the issues. As well, there were two members of the NDP and two members of the Liberal Party who had gone through the whole process. There were as many abuses in that legislative committee as there were in the standing committees a number of years ago when the Party in power simply changed the members present at every meeting and shoved them in simply to vote for the Government's clauses without any regard to the evidence as none or very few of them had heard that evidence.
That was my experience with a legislative committee. I do not consider that to be reform. I consider that to be reactionary and a step backward from what we were doing a number of years ago. People have said that Members of the House of Commons will be Fighting to get on these new standing committees, that they will be small and that they will be dealing with issues. To me, the principal work of the House is legislation. I will want to be on the legislative committees. I will not spend my time on standing committees studying some obscure issue. If there are legislative committees sitting, it will be important for me to sit on those committees. That is where the action will be. To lay a complete new layer of committees on top of the existing layer of standing committees is a mistake. It has not been demonstrated that this is reform. It is something based on the supposition that a certain number of Members on a standing committee will be studying some important questions relating to, for example, employment, and there will be another set of Members examining a Bill put forward by the Minister of Employment and Immigration on employment equity, let us say. It is proposed that there be two completely different sets of Members dealing with the issue and that they will be able to work at the same time. However, that is not possible in a House which has just 262 Members. It might be possible in Great Britain where there are over 600 Members and where the number of legislative committees is limited to five at any one time. It will not be possible in our House of Commons. Not only have the opposition Parties with their small number of Members found it difficult to man standing committees and legislative committees, but even the Government with its large membership has found it difficult. As a matter of fact, the Government keeps rotating them around without really knowing what is going on, as I just pointed out with respect to the legislative committee on Bill C-62 which deals with employment equity.
We have seen the system working for a few months now. I do not think it has worked well. However, we are now going ahead in a somewhat more permanent way, although it is still not completely permanent. I am willing to bet that it will not work well unless a limit is placed on the number of legislative
10700

February 11, 1986
Standing Orders
committees which can work at any one time, as is the case in Great Britain. There, pieces of legislation have to queue up to to go to one of these legislative committees. That, of course, slows down the process, but there are only a limited number of Members here to study all these issues and all these Bills. Legislation just cannot be proliferated. It cannot be expected that it will be given close attention by Members of Parliament and by community groups which want to comment on legislation which is before a committee. We cannot expect all that to happen with just 262 Members of Parliament. When we take out the members of the Government who sit in Cabinet, and there are about 30, the Chief Government Whip and the Leaders of the Opposition Parties, we are left with a limited number of Members who must work in these committees. As a matter of fact, I met with a member of the Government this past week who told me that he comes to Ottawa only one day a week. He comes on his duty day and spends the other four days of the week in his riding. This is what he admitted to me. He said: "Why should I come to Ottawa? I am not going to sit in those committees and never say anything or do anything. I get more done in my constituency". I really do not know about that situation. We are elected to be legislators. One hopes that if we were to have real reform, then people such as that would have a role to play.
I would now like to deal with the new rule with respect to examining Order in Council appointments in committee. When the Prime Minister first made his promise on the matter during the election campaign I thought he was proposing something similar to the American system. However, what has been put to us for consideration is that we consider the appointment after the fact, after it has been made. I am wondering what this will amount to. After all, the person will have been appointed already as, let us say, Chairman of the National Parole Board or President of Air Canada, and we will then call that person to appear before the committee and examine him. 1 think what we will find out is that Government Members will defend the appointment no matter what. Likely, members of the Opposition will attack the person if he or she does not have the proper qualifications. However, if the appointee has the qualifications, then the time of the committee will not be wasted by calling that person before it. What can members of the committee do? Make a report that the appointment was not a good one? Will Government Members really do that the closer we get to elections? I doubt it. I do not consider that much of a reform either.
I would now like to deal with the proposal in regard to the declaration of interest by members of Parliament, and especially the requirement to list trips which we take abroad. I am quite willing to list all the trips that I take, not only those sponsored by non-parliamentary associations and by my political Party but all of them. In putting forward this proposal I do not know why the Government has not made it necessary to include all trips which are taken by Government Members with their Ministers to conferences such as those held by the OECD, the ILO or all sorts of other ones which are held around the world. We frequently see planes flying off with two
or three Government Members. Now and then a member of the Opposition will be taken along, but that is a rare occurrence. Why not make it a requirement to declare all these trips? By the way, this proposal did not come out of the special committee chaired by the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath). I believe it must have come out of the office of the Government House Leader, or somewhere else.
It was proposed in committee that there be more votes which would not be considered votes of confidence. That means that the House could vote on certain matters and defeat a clause in a Government Bill, or even defeat a Government Bill, without putting the Government in jeopardy and without having the Government resign because of the defeat. If the rules were changed in that respect, then it would be more likely that Members would express themselves as they really believe the issue dictates and not simply as their Whips want them to. There is nothing in the package of proposals that is before us on that issue.
It is said that the new standing committees will be free, that they will conduct in-depth studies and issue reports in which will be put forward what the committees really believe should be done. I have my doubts in this respect. If those reports are made to the House and are subject to a motion for concurrence, then Members can always move concurrence in the report of a standing committee, for example on employment and immigration, and I can move concurrence in the report of the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, but the majority of Members on those committees will not feel free to make reports which are contrary to Government policy, despite what they have heard from witnesses in committee. If this is the case then there will be no free vote; or a vote on such reports would involve confidence in the Government when concurrence is moved and voted upon. We will be watching this matter during the trial period to see if there is any movement in that direction.
Finally, I was disappointed to see that there is no provision for televising the proceedings of committees. I think this would help the work of committees and give them more importance. If the proceedings were televised, then some of the focus would be taken off the House, especially Oral Question Period.
To conclude, as far as I am concerned the opinions of Members of Parliament with respect to rule changes are not just a matter of party policy. It is something that affects every individual Member of Parliament. I think the rules should be such that they allow Members to dissent from their Parties and still have some provision in the rules for them in doing that. To push my thinking a bit further, I do not think we should make any rules today which would not provide well in a minority Parliament. In the 20 years in which I have been here there have been, I believe, four minority Parliaments. In the first one there were four Parties in opposition and it took only two of those Parties to join together to defeat the Government. On another occasion there were three Parties in opposition, and in another Parliament there were two. When we formulate our rules we must do so in such a way that all those people who are elected will have a fair and equitable chance to
February 11, 1986

participate in debate and to raise their side of the issue. In my opinion that is the real goal of reform.
I think the purpose of Parliament should be to discuss the important issues of the country at length. There should be an opportunity for all sides of the question to be put forward, and then we should vote. We should not debate the matter forever, although it should not be rammed through. There should be an opportunity for debate and an opportunity for all sides of the issue to be made public. In formulating the rules in this respect I do not think we can focus on just the Government Party and on the Official Opposition, or the fact that those two Parties are run completely by either the Prime Minister or the Leader of the Opposition. There has to be room for the individual Member to express himself in opposition to his Party when he wants to do so. That is Parliament. We are all elected in our constituencies by electors who elect us to Parliament for specific reasons.
I agree with about two thirds of what is in this package. There are some important proposals with which I do not agree. I would hope that the Government House Leader and Government Members would reconsider some of the points they have put before us. If they really do believe in parliamentary reform, they should certainly not ram this package through. It should be subject to a wider range of opinions. Our House Leader has been involved in consultations, as well as other House Leaders, but I think this is something that needs more consideration.


Mr. Speaker:: Are there questions or comments? The Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) and then the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie).


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: I rise on a point of order. With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, I think if you read the rules with respect to the time for questions or comments, you will see that it is incumbent on the Chair to recognize a member of a Party other than that of the Member who just spoke, if such Members are rising, which I am doing.


Mr. Speaker:: I appreciate the Hon. Member's point. It is not in the rules that way, but it has sometimes been our practice.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: It is in the rules.


Mr. Speaker:: No, it is not. What I have been doing today is making no assumptions about Party on the assumption that we were talking about matters of parliamentary reform and that Hon. Members would want me to do that.
However, since earlier two questions were put by the Hon. Member for Hamilton East and the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata), I am sure the Hon. Member for Hamilton East is prepared to wait and allow the first question to be put by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie).
Standing Orders


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: I just wanted to say one thing very briefly, Mr. Speaker. I was glad that the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) concluded his speech by speaking about the kind of Parliament he would like to see, because if I had to do the very dangerous thing of singling out any Member of Parliament who, I believe, over the years has embodied the kind of Member of Parliament of whom we want to see more as a result of this reform, then it would be the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East. As a government Member, he was known on many occasions to have expressed an opinion different from that of his Party and to have voted differently from his Caucus. He has acted in this Parliament with the kind of integrity and independence of judgment of which we would like to see more in this place.


John V. Nunziata: That is what the Liberal Party is all about.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Well, that is another matter. What I would like to say is that I hope the Hon. Member could see his way clear to supporting the package, with that in mind.
With respect to the point he raises about legislative committees, I hope that very soon someone from the Government side will rise and say that this matter of putting a limit on the number of legislative committees which can sit at any time is a legitimate issue. It is not a big deal. It is something we can handle by mutual agreement. For God's sake, let someone get up and say that that can be done so that this is no longer an issue.
I think the Hon. Member should also admit for the record that he has not liked the idea of legislative committees from the beginning, and this is part of the problem. It is not something new that has come up as a result of our experience with it. I think he did not like them in principle, to begin with. But I hope the Hon. Member will give them a chance under the ideal conditions, that is, under the conditions which the committee had in mind. We have not really tried them under those conditions. We have tried them in rather anomalous conditions. I hope the Hon. Member would give them a chance to work as we conceive them; then if his criticisms persist, so be it.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, we are willing to give them another chance to prove themselves. I hope, as the Hon. Member suggested, that someone will get up to say that no more than five legislative committees will sit at the same time because I think that is what they have in Britain.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Eight in Britain.


William Warren Allmand: Is it eight in Britain? Well, they have over 600 Members.


André Ouellet: No, no, six.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Well, they have eight slots.


William Warren Allmand: Five or six would be reasonable here. Let me say that the reason I opposed them in principle at the beginning was that I felt that if we develop a number of Members

February 11, 1986
Standing Orders
who become expert in transport, external affairs, defence, employment or the environment, then why should we then decide to send a piece of legislation dealing with that very same subject to another group of Members who are not experts and have not studied those issues? The answer I have received so far is that those people on the standing committee can then all go over and sit on the legislative committee. If that is the case, I wonder then why have the two sets of committees?


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: We will need more experts, Warren. You will have to distribute the expertise. You can't be the only expert forever.


William Warren Allmand: However, I am willing to give it a chance.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I, too, would like to speak in a non-partisan way, and I echo the comments made by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie). I must say, however, that I was in committee with another member of the New Democratic Party, the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy), who said that as far as he was concerned, he did not intend to participate in committees with very few members because he thought it was a waste of his time. He did not see that the job would get done in small numbers. So I believe there is probably a fair degree of concern in all Parties as to how the new committee structure is going to work with 28 potential committees operating.
I would like to ask a couple of specific questions about rule changes as they relate to two issues which are obviously of concern to every Hon. Member. First, with respect to the issue of naming of Members, in the Standing Order we have in front of us, or the projet de loi, it is suggested that the Speaker be given the power to name a Member without necessarily calling a vote on the first occasion. On the second occasion, he can eject a person who is named for one week. I would like to ask the Hon. Member whether he agrees with that proposal since that was not the intention of the McGrath committee?
The second question, I think, relates to private Members' rights with respect to Standing Order 22. Under the current system, all Hon. Members are allowed 90 seconds for a statement under Standing Order 22. It is suggested that that be reduced to 60 seconds, with the intention of hearing more Hon. Members. However, it seems to me that if we are talking about the rights of private Members, and if we are concerned about giving more private Members an opportunity to speak, then we should abandon the current system of having a sort of perceived quota for each Party. For example, in the first 15 minutes of Question Period, approximately six statements under Standing Orders are made by the Government Party, three statements are made by the Liberal Party and two are made by the New Democratic Party. It seems to me that if we are really abandoning the notion of party policy, the statements under Standing Order 22 should be accorded on the basis of the people who are there and their own involvement and interests. I think if you will look at the record, Mr. Speaker, you will find that it has been members of the Liberal Party who have consistently stood up in large numbers on
statements under Standing Order 22. Unfortunately, it is the same Members of the Government Party who again and again rise on those statements. I wonder if the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) could comment on the possibility of throwing aside party lines when it comes to the issue of Standing Order 22 if the time for the statement is going to be reduced to only 60 seconds?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I must say that I think that one minute is too short for statements under Standing Order 22. I would prefer 90 seconds. What I think will happen when we limit Hon. Members to 60 seconds is that all of their statements will be written and there will be no spontaneous statements spoken extemporaneously from one's seat because the Hon. Member will be fearful of being cut off before he gets his complete thought on the record. Everyone will write these statements down and more and more people will read their Standing Order 22. I think that is unfortunate. I agree with the principle of getting more statements under Standing Order 22 in, but I do not think it is a good idea to have them limited to one minute.
With respect to naming, I said in my remarks that I believe the Speaker should have the right to expel an Hon. Member when he names him or her without a vote of the House. However, I hesitate to agree with the new development of allowing the Speaker to expel an Hon. Member for up to five days on the second offence in a session. I would like to see us experiment for a trial period with this new procedure of the Speaker suspending a Member who is named for one day without a vote. If it works, then we can consider going to a tougher penalty on a second or third offence. 1 think we are going too far too fast without really knowing how it is going to turn out at this time, so I do not like the five-day provision at all.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order. The period provided for questions and comments has now expired. The Hon. Member for Argenteuil-Papineau (Mrs. Bourgault).


Mrs. Lise Bourgault (Argenteuil-Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, if I could just comment briefly before I start my speech? I am sure that as far as the proposals by the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps), are concerned, the same could apply to Question Period, so it could be half and half. On this side of the House, we would have more time for putting questions to the Government if I follow the Hon. Member's-
Mr. Speaker, I am indeed delighted to be taking part in the debate on the proposed amendments to the Standing Orders, something we have been waiting for since September. Since I sat on the Special Committee on Parliamentary Reform, I am delighted to see that the Government has decided to support the Committee's recommendations.
February 11, 1986

Mr. Speaker, I must say that if anyone deserves the credit for today's debate and the fact that we are about to see a new Parliament, a new face with of course a change in attitude, the Prime Minister does. You know, when the boss says no, it is hard to change anything in a business. And the House of Commons is like a business. There is a boss, and the boss is the Prime Minister. 1 am sure he will not hold it against me if 1 reveal a caucus secret today, but the fact is that on several occasions in the Conservative caucus the Prime Minister did raise the issue of parliamentary reform. It is almost unheard of. This Prime Minister will rank high in the history of Canadian Prime Ministers because very seldom have we heard about a Prime Minister deciding just like that to transfer certain powers to Members of Parliament. I would suggest he deserves a round of applause from all of us.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lise Bourgault: Mr. Speaker, I must say as well that the committee staff have worked closely with the committee members. I think those people deserve congratulations, because they are the ones who did all the research-including the deputy clerk-and followed the committee, and I can say that without them the committee would not have been able to do the outstanding job it did. I take this opportunity to thank and congratulate them. I am sure they are pleased today to see the Government going ahead with parliamentary reform.
Of course, I have to mention my committee colleagues. And then, Mr. Speaker, the staff have been very patient with me, for as a recently-elected Member every procedural question was something new to me. They were a great help. To them and to all my colleagues I express my appreciation and, I might as well confess, I have become an addict of parliamentary procedure. The chairman of our committee, the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), kept us working very hard, but it was quite interesting. As I said before, I extend personal thanks to the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) who acted as my translator and was of great help to me. Mr. Speaker, I must admit that I am slightly upset over the official response of the Leader of the Opposition. We are talking about parliamentary reform, and the committee was responsible for finding ways to change the Standing Orders just so private Members would play a greater role. Indeed, we are now debating changes to the Standing Orders of the House of Commons because the special committee was given instructions by the Prime Minister to extend the powers of private Members.
I am somewhat disappointed to see that the Leader of the Opposition missed a good opportunity to say at last that it was not because he was on the Opposition side that he had necessarily to be against the Government, and perhaps the reverse is true. I suggest that we all have a sort of conscience to develop on this level. I must say that the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner) and the Hon. Member for
Standing Orders
Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) have in part contributed to lessen the impact made resulting from the reply given by the Leader of the Opposition. Mr. Speaker, his reply was, I felt, a little to partisan-oriented. The more so because for the first time the committee had heard the three party leaders as witnesses, and they were all in favour of these proposals. That is why I was rather disappointed with the answer given today by the Leader of the Opposition.
I am sure that the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) will arrange everything when he rises in the House tomorrow morning.
Mr. Speaker, it is a fact that my Argenteuil-Papineau constituents who watch only the Oral Question Periods, were quite disappointed recently with the lack of decorum. As a matter of fact, they said to me: It is the same as before. How is it that there are so many confrontations in the House of Commons? You just cannot... Well, that's the Parliamentary system. As the Prime Minister was saying, we are not going to change the Oral Question Period and the very biased approach of the various parties.
Personally, I told them that it is the part which presumably the House has to play, and that a lot of work is being done outside the Oral Question Period. But it is very frustrating to try to convince our constituents that we are working very hard, that there is more to parliament than the Oral Question Period. 1 had to tell them: "Personally, I sit on the Standing Committee on Agriculture and on the Committee of Transport, and I have all sorts of work and research to do in connection with that". In the past, when our constituents could not see us during the Oral Question Period, they felt that we were doing nothing in Parliament.
I feel, therefore, that the proposals to enhance the parts individual Members have to play will greatly justify the use of our time here.
Mr. Speaker, I suggest that you will also be satisfied with the latitude you will enjoy from now on in procedural matters. You will therefore be able to set your own precedents and we shall not always be forced to refer to rulings made in the British House of Commons.
I think that, under the new Standing Order 1, Mr. Speaker, you will have the opportunity to give a Canadian character to this House and make typically Canadian rulings. In my opinion, this is long overdue.
As our servant, since, as you are always saying, you are the humble servant of this House, you will have increased powers under the new rules, and from now on, your authority will be recognized by the Members of this House. 1 am certain that you know what I mean, Mr. Speaker, by the word "authority", and the fact that you will now be the boss of the House of Commons, its true boss . . .


An Hon. Member:: The Daddy!

February 11, 1986
Standing Orders


Lise Bourgault: Yes, the Daddy.
Mr. Speaker, as a Government backbencher, I am also very pleased with the emphasis which will now be placed on Private Members' Business.
In French, we say "simple depute", while we say "private member" in English. In my opinion, it is not quite the same. The term "simple depute" does not really translate the notion of "private member". I simply want to point out in passing, Mr. Speaker, that we work for weeks trying to write a motion and have it debated and trying to convince the Government and our colleagues to support our views.
Mr. Speaker, when the Leader of the House proposed a special debate on parliamentary reform some two months ago before presenting these amendments today, I took part in the debate and said that I was very curious about what happens to all the bills and motions moved by private members when, as we say in parliamentary language, they simply die on the Order Paper between 5 and 6 o'clock. The process is quite frustrating.
Mr. Speaker, I think that I am good at selling my ideas. I am interested in the role of voluntary work in our society and I have already proposed two motions in the House on this issue. I can tell you that, under the new rules, I shall rely on my personal staff and my selling ability to convince my colleagues of the Special Committee on Private Members' Business to accept my idea. If it is not accepted, I shall say, too bad, I cannot think that, just because I have introduced a bill, it is the best and is certain to be adopted. We have to be realistic. However, I shall still have the feeling that my bill can go further than with a one-hour debate and that it might have a chance of being referred to the committee for further study. This is something interesting which will benefit the Members of this House. I think that it will also benefit the Government, which will perhaps be able-
I see that you are looking at me, Mr. Speaker; has my time expired? Do I still have between five and ten minutes left?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I am sorry, but- [English]
The Hon. Member will have 10 minutes left for debate when the matter is next before the House.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members, Business.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS   FITNESS AND AMATEUR SPORT ADVISABILITY OF AWARDING EDUCATIONAL BURSARIES TO ATHLETES
Jack Wendele Shields: That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should consider the advisability of awarding educational bursaries to members of teams who represent Canada at the amateur level in international competitions.
He said: Mr. Speaker, let me give some background before I deal with the motion before the House. I want to make clear at the outset that there are athletic assistance programs operating in Canada which use a system of A, B and C carded athletes. Carded athletes can depend on a certain amount of financial assistance to continue their university education.
The reason for my motion arises from my travels throughout my riding last summer. I went to a baseball tournament in Lac la Biche last summer at which a team representing Canada was made up of young athletes from across the country. I discovered that this team was hosting an international meet to be held in Edmonton. They were hosting teams from such countries as Korea, Japan, teams from the college circuit in the United States, Cuba and Mexico. It was truly an international meet. I discovered to my amazement that a number of athletes representing Canada would be unable to return to university that September because they were spending the summer representing Canada in international amateur competition. Most of these young athletes were university students who worked during the summer in order to pay for their university tuition. They gave up their summer to represent Canada in this international competition that they were hosting in Edmonton.
In 1961, the Fitness and Amateur Sport Act was passed to promote, encourage and develop fitness and amateur sport in Canada. There are two program directorates that function chiefly through the provision of financial assistance to national sport and fitness oriented organizations in Canada. The first is Fitness Canada. It initiates and supports research programs and the development of instructional and promotional materials designed to increase public awareness of benefits of fitness. In 1984-85, a total of 86 national associations, special agencies and programs and 18 universities were allocated $7.7 million in federal funding in support of fitness related projects.
The second directorate is Sport Canada which provides funding and services to national sport bodies, amateur athletes, university researchers and sport scientists as well as other members of the sport community. It has an annual budget of some $50 million and is the major supplier of funds for Canadian sport.
Sport Canada funds and works closely with the 85 national sport organizations in Canada, which include the national sport governing bodies responsible for specific sports, arm's-

length agencies such as the Coaching Association of Canada, multi-sport agencies such as the Canadian Inter-university Athletic Union, and specialized agencies such as the Sport Medicine Council of Canada. Its focus is on high-performance sport and contributions to the preparation of Canada's athletes for major international competition. Sport Canada also has an important commitment to the development of a strong domestic sports system which provides general opportunities for Canadians to participate in competitive sport.
Contributions are made to all recognized national sport organizations. These NSOs are eligible to receive core funding assistance in the areas of association management, technical development and high performance sport.
In 1984-85, Sport Canada distributed a total of $35.5 million in financial contributions among its various client associations. National sport organizations are voluntary organizations that are responsible for the development of their respective sport disciplines within Canada and for the preparation of high performance athletes and teams representing Canada in international competition. These are broken down into three groups, and this is where I believe Canada is falling behind. The first group is 27 sports on the 1988 Olympic Summer Games calendar. Those athletes involved in those sports who have A, B, or C carded athlete status are eligible for funds to help maintain the standard of living and continue their education while preparing for that sport. The second group includes 10 winter sports that will be featured at the Calgary Games.
Finally, there are 21 non-olympic disciplines. These include football, curling, free-style skiing, softball, baseball, raquet-ball, rugby, Canada five-pin and Canada ten-pin bowling, white water canoeing, karate, cricket, water skiing, squash, ringette, golf, lacrosse, parachuting, four-wall handball and soaring. Disabled sports are also included in this group.
Athletes participating in these sports are not recognized as athletes for A, B or C card purposes. One can only apply for this status when specifically recommended and can only be eligible for carded status after consideration by a review committee. In most cases these athletes are not eligible for carded athlete status whether or not they represent Canada in an international competition.
For example, those young amateur baseball players who hosted an international tournament in Edmonton last summer were not eligible for any assistance over and above their travelling expenses, accommodation and some pin money. Some of them had to give up a year of university in order to work and earn the money they would have earned during the summer they represented Canada on a national team.
In 1984-85, over $13 million was provided in core funding for the summer Olympic sports. The 10 winter Olympic sports received approximately $5 million in "best ever" programs and an additional $4 million in core contributions. Recent additions to the Olympic sports group include rhythmic gymnastics and synchronized swimming which were added to the 1984 Olympics. Prior to that, can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, the young ladies who participated in the synchro swimming, and
Educational Bursaries
the young ladies and young men who participated in rhythmic gymnastics were not supported in any way by their Government other than through the amateur sports councils until those sports were recognized. We know there were a lot of international meets, particularly in synchronized swimming. These young ladies had to spend all of their extra time and their summer months preparing for those meets. They had to have financial support from their families or they could not participate, and that is a shame.
I have tried to add up all the non-olympic sports where young Canadians would be involved in international competition and did not receive funding to continue with school. At the most we are talking about 210 young athletes. If a $5,000 bursary were awarded to each one of those athletes who made a team and who gave up the normal period in the summer when he or she could earn money to go to university, say $5,000, you are talking about less than $200,000 in total to satisfy a need which I think we have overlooked in the sports area.
I shall not talk any longer because I hope my colleagues will see fit to allow this motion to go to committee for further study. I implore Members to think about it for a moment. It is not a costly item but it is one that would serve a real purpose to encourage young people not only to participate in amateur sports but also to signal to them that we do appreciate their taking time off during the summer to represent Canada in international meets.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to be able to participate in this debate, although I had not intended to speak on this important issue. I do agree with the Hon. Member who put the motion that this is an issue that should be discussed before a committee.
I think there are a number of young athletes who are prevented from participating at the international level or from pursuing scholastic endeavours as a result of the current discriminatory nature which permits funding only of those sports recognized as Olympic designated sports. I think about roller skating. One of the world champions in roller skating came from my own community of Hamilton.
I have some concerns about the specific wording of the motion which reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should consider the advisability of awarding educational bursaries to members of teams who represent Canada at the amateur level in international competitions.
I would like to see this issue dealt with in greater detail in committee because I think there is a slight danger in introducing the notion of educational bursaries into the question of funding at an international level, which suggests athletes and students are necessarily synonymous. That is not always the case in international competition. There may be a number of young athletes who of their own choice or for other reasons have not decided to pursue post-secondary education and who are out in the workforce in the normal way.

February 11, 1986
Educational Bursaries
This motion while it would obviously respond to the needs of students pursuing athletic endeavours on the side would not respond adequately to those people who are pursuing an athletic endeavour in holding down a full-time job at the same time.
My second concern deals with the notion of introducing a kind of bursary system at the post-secondary level which is directed to those who participate in sports. I think we have seen in the United States very adequate evidence to show that often the quality of education or the quality of scholarship decreases as the level of participation in sports increases. This is not always the case and we have many fine athletes who have been able to combine academia and athletics. We also have a situation where athletes are encouraged to go to university. They get degrees in basket weaving and other creative endeavours at the university or post-secondary level in the United States, all the while using that particular bursary as a vehicle to pursue a sports endeavour.
I think it is pretty clear that in Canada, because we have tended to stay away from specific sports targeted bursaries for post-secondary education, we have been able to avoid the trap into which many universities and colleges in the United States have fallen. I think particularly of the college football system in the U.S. In a number of colleges and universities, coaches in particular have so abused the process that some of them have actually been forced out of their particular conferences and divisions. They have abused the process to the point where bursaries led to pay offs and to other under-the-table apportionments to encourage the various football players to go to a specific university.
If you are talking college football, Mr. Speaker, in the United States it is a very serious business indeed. Often the question of scholarship falls by the wayside. That is why I have some concerns about a motion that would tie the question of international competition to the issue of educational bursaries.
Certainly the Member has raised a very valid point about the financial prohibition that is, in essence, placed on those athletes who want to compete internationally, but I think it would be more effective if the Member dealt with that as a specific issue.
The notion of introducing educational bursaries for athletes at a time when transfer payments that the federal Government directs toward provincial Governments across the country are seeing a reduced number of dollars being put into them for the purpose of post-secondary education, would make it pretty difficult for those same universities to then swallow a program where we were directing larger sums of money toward bursaries for specifically designated athletes. That is why I think we should keep the question of athletics and scholarships, two questions, separate and apart.
I believe the merit of the motion presented by the Hon. Member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields), which is essentially to provide some kind of a vehicle for international competition, is valid. It does merit further consideration in a committee setting.
I would, however, reinforce my concern about specifically tying educational bursaries to athletic records. I think that in Canada we have been lucky not to have fallen into the kind of trap of absolute non-academia that we have seen in the United States. We would not like to see our colleges and universities here swamped with so-called scholars who have no business being there. That is the possible sequitor that would result from the adoption of a motion where educational bursaries would be presented to members of teams who represent Canada at amateur level in international competitions. It may inversely force athletes to go back to school when really they have no business or should not or choose not to be there simply because they want to have the funding to be able to carry on their athletic endeavours.
Rather than tying the two together the question is funding for athletes. What we should be looking at rather is a motion that would permit those athletes currently operating in nonolympic designated sports at the international level, which includes roller skating and a number of sports cited by the Hon. Member, to have access to the same level or similar levels of government funding for international competition as are currently available to our Olympic participants.
I know there are a number of sports that are trying and that have tried for a number of years to be recognized as Olympic sports. Obviously participants in these very valid and effective sports are being cutoff from Government funding because they have not been included in the rostrum of accepted and recognized Olympic sports.
While I support the spirit of the motion, I do have some reservations. I would be very happy to see the matter go into committee.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to enter the debate. I agree with the Hon. Members who have spoken before me that this matter should be considered in committee. The Hon. Member has brought before us an important matter which has to do with young people who have an opportunity to represent Canada internationally in sports competition. As a result of a commitment to their sport, such young people dedicate their summers to training and competition and therefore lose the opportunity to earn money for their tuition or for room and board in the fall. I think this matter deserves attention and a response. It makes a great deal of sense that this Private Member's Motion goes to committee where it can be examined in detail. Young Canadians who demonstrate that kind of commitment to sport should receive recognition and support from their government bodies.
However, I do have some questions with regard to the motion, even though I feel it should be examined and studied in committee. We already have some assistance programs for athletes such as the Athletic Assistance Program. One of the limits of such programs is that they focus upon Olympic sports only. Any re-examination of the question of financial support for people involved in international competition on behalf of
February 11, 1986

Canada must raise the question as to why the support is focused on Olympic sports only. Why can we not broaden it to include non-olympic sports such as baseball, softball, lacrosse and others? Why discriminate against those who compete in sports which are not part of the Olympic Games? Those questions need to be addressed at committee.
Also we should look at why the funding or support should be limited to students only. What about young people who compete in athletic events and happen not to be students? Do they not deserve the same kind of support for their commitment and endeavour? 1 think we should look at that as well. In addition, if we were to consider some additional financial support for students or other people in respect of their efforts to represent Canada abroad, any funding for such endeavours should be from new funds. Rather than taking away funds from existing sports programs for amateur sports or fitness, which are skimpy enough as they are, and spreading them thinner, it would be important, if we are to undertake new initiatives, to look at new funding being allocated for new purposes.
I support the motion going to committee for study. I think the Hon. Member has raised a legitimate question. He asked what support we were willing to offer to young people who represent us abroad. Of course that needs to be studied, and there are other questions which need to be answered in the process.

Mr. Speaker, the motion now before us deals with an important issue. Sir, are we ready to help our young students who represent Canada in international competitions? These young people who take part in international competitions miss an opportunity during summer to earn money to pay for their tuition in the fall. Is there something we can do to help those young people and acknowledge their involvement in the world of sports?
Mr. Speaker, this is an important issue, and I want to support a thorough examination of that issue at Committee stage.
But there are questions we want to ask. There are programs already in place to support sport activities. However, existing financial help is focused on Olympic sports. Why not add other sports, is non-olympic sports, while we are looking at financial assistance programs for athletes who compete internationally? Why is our help limited to students only? Why not also help those young who are not student?
Finally, Mr. Speaker, if the motion is referred to Committee for its recommendations to be considered, do we have any assurance that the money that will be earmarked for that purpose will be new money, because existing programs need more funding to reach the goals of concern to us in today's program. When another goal is added to programs, funding must also be increased.
Educational Bursaries
Mr. Speaker, this is a good motion in my view, and it is an excellent idea to refer the problem to Committee for more thorough consideration.


Mrs. Gabrielle Bertrand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that this Government believes in the promotion of excellence in Canadian amateur sport. During fiscal year 1984-85, Fitness and Amateur Sport Canada invested well over $65 million in the promotion of fitness for Canadians and the efforts of our amateur athletes. Sports Canada administers most of those funds, that is $50 million, with a view to supporting our best athletes in individual and team sports, at the national and international level.

Sport Canada receives its mandate from the Fitness and Amateur Sport Act of 1961. Let me refer to that Act wherein it is indicated that it is to promote, encourage and develop fitness and amateur sport in Canada. In the 25 years since the enactment of that Act, sport and fitness have become an integral part of the Canadian way of life. No longer need we fear that proverbial 60-year old Swede. I am sure that all of us saw joggers working up a sweat today during their lunch hour along the Rideau Canal and up here on the Hill. Canadians have become more conscious of fitness and of the importance of a balanced diet. Certainly fewer of us smoke than was the case 25 years ago.

Mr. Speaker, in passing, I would like to mention the Department's major contribution towards improving the general level of fitness in this country. We have all heard about "Participac-tion", and when I look around, I think we all need to get out and get some exercise. However, there are two points I would like to bring to your attention: first of all, the remarkable contribution of our amateur athletes to international sport; and second, the way they are supported in their endeavour by Sport Canada. As we see it, the two go together: individual effort and achievements at the amateur level must have our support if they are to be successful.
However, as is the case in all financing programs, a choice must be made, and we must decide how to support amateur sport in a way that is satisfactory to Canadians. What criteria are we to use? What kind of priorities must be established so that we can manoeuver within the budgetary restrictions we must live with today?
I have said this before and I repeat: Sport Canada's aim is above all to promote excellence in amateur sport. We all believe that Canadians want to help our amateur athletes achieve the highest possible performance levels. And we will always remember with pride our participation in the 1984 Olympic Games!

February 11, 1986
Educational Bursaries
Who can forget the thrill of seeing Gaetan Boucher, Canada's greatest Winter Olympian at Sarajevo, with his powerful, gliding stride and gold medal winning speed on the speed skating oval? There was Alex Baumann, at the Los Angeles Summer Games, with two swimming golds in world record time; Linda Thom of Ottawa, winning the first gold medal for Canada at Los Angeles in shooting; Lori Fung of Montreal, coming from behind to win the all round rhythmic gymnastics gold; Alwyn Morris and Hugh Fisher with the gold in the two-man kayak event; and the magnificent effort of our rowers in beating the Americans in the men's eight with cox event; and so many others: 44 medals in all, 10 of them gold. Canada's best Olympic showing ever.

I would like to take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to announce that one of my fellow citizens who is now in Tignes, France, won the most points for acrobatic skiing in the last few days. I am referring to Lloyd Langlois from Magog, in my riding, who is with two of his fellow Quebecers from Beauport Lake, the Laroche brothers. 1 am expecting more news from France, and even if they do not win the championship, I think I will be as proud as ever of what they achieved during the last few days.
Our international class athletes have worked very hard to reach this level of excellence and they have achieved remarkable results, for instance, at the Commonwealth Games, and also at various other world championships. These young people deserve our unqualified admiration for their good work and dedication to their sport. We must not forget that they often have to compete with representatives from other countries who are heavily subsidized in various ways by their governments.
Sport Canada also recognizes the importance of financial assistance, which should be given to our international-class amateur athletes on a firm and continuing basis, with sound long-term planning. That is how we will be able to maintain the performance of Canadian athletes at international levels. The results themselves are the best testimony to the soundness of this approach. In recent years, Canada has been gradually improving its international performance, which reached its peak at the 1984 Olympic Games.

If we are to maintain and improve on these achievements, we must spend our sports dollars on continuing to develop such excellence. We therefore must support excellence in our young, promising athletes as well as our international athletes at their peak.

To develop this high degree of excellence among our young athletes, Sport Canada subsidizes and is working very closely with 85 sports organizations, and it also provides special
subsidies to Canadian amateur athletes under the Athlete Assistance Program.

Which sports qualify? To qualify for funding, a sport must meet the following criteria: First, it must hold a world championship or a world level competition at least every two years. Second, it must have a year round training program for each athlete or team. Third, it must have a monitoring and evaluation program for each athlete, with monthly reporting to Sports Canada. Fourth, it must have a formal selection process for national teams with published rules and an appeal process. Finally, in the international sports category, its national team or individual athletes must compete in at least two international competitions with at least 20 participating countries each year.

Through the Athletic Assistance Program we now offer financial aid to levels A, B and C athletes. We now have about 140 A-level athletes, which means they rank among the world's eight best in their sports. One hundred and thirty other athletes are at level B, therefore among the sixteen best athletes worldwide. The other 540 under the AAP are at level C, which designates international class athletes likely to qualify for levels A or B. Monthly assistance to athletes amounts to $650 at level A, $560 at level B and $450 at level C.

All that is quite expensive! Still this kind of assistance is a must for our athletes and it is one of the reasons why Sports Canada has recently gained international recognition.

Sport Canada currently spends roughly 10 per cent of its annual budget, or about $4 million, through the AAP. The support services outlined above cost many millions more. The AAP has been very effective and in itself is, we feel, another factor in our international success. Let us not forget, however, the main factor. Living expenses and top quality back-up are not enough.
The dogged motivation, the determination to succeed, have to be credited to the athletes themselves. It is their dedication, their individual sacrifice, their many hours of hard work, that ultimately achieve international results. Excellence is not just a matter of a year or two or slapdash training. It is the result of many hours on the practice field from a very early age. Only in this way can bodies be honed to the highest levels of achievement.
We are not dealing only with bodies and it is an important principle that we also provide for the development of the minds of these young people. All of our elite student athletes are given free tuition at any recognized Canadian educational institution under the AAP. Sport Canada makes sure that our athletes prepare for a lifelong career because life does not stop after athletics. This provision of the Athlete Assistance Plan can serve to introduce another important aspect of the Sport Canada program, the close working relationship with the Canadian Inter-University Athletic Union or the CIAU. [Translation]
The Canadian Interuniversity Athletic Union-CIAU-is the main university sports organization in Canada and includes most Canadian universities. National university competitions in twelve sports are organized each year for the 45 CIAU-member universities: track and field, basketball, football, gymnastics, hockey, lawn hockey, wrestling, swimming, diving, soccer and volleyball. Co-operation between Sports Canada and CIAU enables accredited athletes to train while attending university. Sports Canada and CIAU co-operation also makes it possible for the student-athlete to meet the standards of the program and have access to the best in terms of coaches, training and support services. Canada has chosen to achieve athletic excellence by stessing peak performance of both body and mind.
Now, Mr. Speaker, what is the situation concerning bursaries for athletes attending Canadian universities? Several universities have indicated that they are in favour of these programs. It is unfair that Canadian athletes should be tempted into going to universities South of the border where they often find better facilities and better conditions as far as scholarships are concerned. Why do they decide to attend universities outside their own country? It is getting increasingly clear that
Educational Bursaries
they do so because they are being offered better scholarships. I need only mention our young hockey players who by the hundreds are being awarded scholarships in American universities every year.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to emphasize two points. First of all, within the limits of available funds, we feel that the Athlete Assistance Program is the best way to provide Canadian athletes with an education in a Canadian surrounding and make it possible, if they so desire, to develop as athletes on the Canadian Sports scene. We feel also, just as universities do, that any bursary program the end result of which would be to jeopardize the scholarly achievement of athletes is unacceptable for Canadians. Universities are also very concerned about upholding the value of their degrees. It is not desirable to put together a comprehensive educational bursary program based on academic success of the students without guarantees that these bursaries will go to students whose legitimacy is attested by the Canadian Interuniversity Athletic Union.

We are all only too well aware of the abuses that have taken place in the United States. We do not want to follow that example. We therefore intend to continue our excellent working relationship with the CIAU and will continue to support our athletes through the AAP, co-operation with that organization.
Sport Canada seeks to encourage a balance between athletics and scholarly activity in the lives of our athletes. There must be a place for both academic and athletic excellence in their development. Sport at one end of the scale must carry as much weight as a subsequent career at the other end because, as we have already stated, life after athletics goes on. This is how we help our athletes prepare for both of these aspects of their lives. This is the Canadian way.
[ Translation]
We have already referred to the total cost of these programs, as well as the limited availability of our funds. However, there is another source of financial support which amateur sports in Canada could tap, namely, the private sector. [English]
We have had a good deal of success in our efforts to involve private companies in a partnership with amateur sport. The Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport (Mr. Jelinek) has made this one of his priorities. Recently, he announced the creation of an organization to attract corporate support. [Translation]
Perhaps I could deal now with some sports which are not convered by our programs, but you are signalling that the time allotted to me has expired, Mr. Speaker.
In conclusion, let me remind the House of our athletes' numerous achievements on the international sport scene. From figure skating to swimming and cycling, our athletes have demonstrated tremendous talents. However, without the assistance provided by Sports Canada in very close cooperation with

February 11, 1986
Educational Bursaries
national and private sports organizations, many of our athletes could not have achieved their potential and we could not share today with hundreds of our young athletes the pride and emotion of their performance.
We are eagerly preparing for the Winter Olympic Games in Calgary in 1988 as well as the Summer Olympic Games in Seoul where, I am sure, our athletes will collect a great many medals.
Mr. Speaker, we will do better than ever.


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to comment briefly on the motion put by our hon. friend to have the appropriate committee study the entire question of offering scholastic bursaries to amateur athletes. I believe the discussion merits looking into further. There is no one in the Chamber who would dispute the fact that when we talk about the sporting world and athletes, we find quite often that the unrecognized and valiant heroes in the community are amateur athletes. There are many Rockys in the country who perhaps do not have the training, resources and proper coaching that require the moral and financial support that we as a nation can offer.
Of course, there are pros and cons with respect to tying athletic programs to our educational institutions. That is why, rather than talk this motion out or simply ignore it, we should meet it head on and have a good solid debate so that we may hear from the two schools of thought on this matter and perhaps reach a consensus.
Back in 1980, representatives of various Canadian athletic associations initially approved the entire concept of a bursary for athletics and then rejected the idea of athletic scholarships. In 1981, the Ontario University Athletics Association and the Ontario Women's Inter-Collegiate Association announced a boycott of all national championships involving institutions offering first-party scholarships.
There has been an ongoing debate regarding whether or not we should offer scholarships to amateur athletes. There are those, arguing in favour of it, who claim that athletic awards are an acceptable and desirable practice when funded by Governments, corporations and schools. There are those who say that the primary objective of athletic awards is simply to upgrade the standard of competition. There are those who say that unless we begin to counter what is being offered in the United States, we will lose the cream of the crop of our athletes. They point to the fact that there are over 1,000 Canadian amateur athletes training in or attending universities in the United States at this moment.
On the other side of the ledger, there are those who claim that if we get into the areas the American universities and college systems have entered, then we will also have a litany of abuses including an over-emphasis on athletics at the expense of academic excellence, falsification of student records, federal investigations into fixings of games and so on. They believe that the recruiting of athletes and their subsidization are two totally independent concepts. They also point to the numerous
scandals in the United States where athletes are suing universities for failing to provide a reasonable education after their athletic careers have been long terminated. There is also a fear that universities can become sports factories, if you will, with athletes entering university programs only with a professional sports career in mind and coaches basing success on the number of athletes chosen for the professional ranks.
There are obviously two schools of thought on the issue. There is no one in this House who disagrees with the fact that we should be financially and morally sponsoring our amateur athletes, no matter in what field of endeavour they participate. The real question is: How do we financially aid and support these athletes? Should they be tied down to our educational institutions?
I feel it is fitting that this debate be looked at by parliamentarians. We realize that the athletic associations of Ontario and Quebec, for instance, are opposed to tying athletic performance to university scholarships. Eastern Canada and western Canada have also had a difference of opinion on the matter for their various reasons. Therefore, if there exists a divergence of opinion across the land, then what better place is there than the Parliament of Canada, which is representative of all regions, to focus on the issue? It is not only a federal issue, since we all realize that education falls within the parameters of the provincial Governments. I think the debate should start here. I think that the athletes, the coaches, the sponsors and the numerous volunteers involved in amateur athletics would certainly welcome the opportunity to come before the appropriate committee of this House and present their evidence both for and against.
We should also take a look at the status of amateur athletes right now. There are those who say that athletic performance should not be tied to academics. Yet, they seem prepared to put sporting, especially in the amateur ranks, in the hands of tobacco companies or beer companies. Of course, there are those who say that that is in conflict with the whole issue of training and health associated with sporting activities. So there is a divergence of opinion with respect to amateur sports.
It is high time for us to take a look at the issue in a very real way. We should applaud the Hon. Member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields) who moved this motion. I do not think it should be defeated. I do not think it should be talked out or ignored. That would be the easy way out of an issue which should receive the attention of the House, and through this House the attention of sporting communities in the country. Let them in concert with Parliament set a direction, a vision, for amateur athletics. Let us not lose the momentum which this motion gives us. If it can perhaps trigger and instigate a debate, then perhaps once and for all the matter can be laid to rest. Let us be courageous and respectable enough to take a look at the issue in the context in which it should be looked at. With those remarks I resume my seat and look forward to seeing the motion referred to committee.
February 11, 1986


Mr. Moe Mantha (Nipissing):: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to speak to this motion. I wish to commend the Hon. Member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields) for his interest in Canada's amateur athletes. As he is well aware, I have an athletic background, just as Your Honour has an athletic background. I remind Hon. Members that you were a good Football player playing on the Edmonton football team in the early days. 1 played hockey for years. As Hon. Members know I have a son who plays hockey for Pittsburg. I own a golf course where that recreational sport golf can be played. I have to get that plug in.


An Hon. Member:: Is this a free commercial?


Moe Mantha: I also have another young lad who played hockey for Cornwall. I have two girls who skate, play golf and are participants in the world of sport.
The motion which has been introduced today gives us a welcome opportunity to discuss the state of amateur sport in our country. As we meet here today amateur athletes across Canada are preparing for competitions. A relative few are fortunate enough-perhaps I should say skilled and dedicated enough-to be preparing for the 1988 Olympics. Most sports are seasonal, but training for them is not. It is a year-round commitment, the likes of which few non-athletes can appreciate. It gives me pause to think that Olympic athletes can condition themselves to peak physically and mentally at four-year intervals. Personally, I have difficulty planning more than a couple of weeks in advance.


Cyril Keeper: We can see that!


Moe Mantha: As Hon. Members know, the 1988 Winter Olympic Games will be hosted by Calgary and the Summer Olympic Games will be held in Seoul, South Korea. We are all looking forward to these Olympics, especially after the tremendous results Canadian athletes posted in the 1984 Games in Sarajevo and Los Angeles. Of course, Gaetan Boucher stole the limelight with two gold medals and a bronze. In so doing he established himself as this country's greatest ever winter olympian, not to mention a national hero. While Mr. Boucher was excelling through sheer power and speed on the ice, Brian Orser was winning acclaim for elan and grace. His silver medal surpassed all previous Canadian Olympic performances in men's figures skating.
Our successes at Sarajaevo merely set the stage for the Summer Games in Los Angeles. That is where Canada came of athletic age, taking an incredible 44 medals: 10 gold, 18 silver and 16 bronze-our best results ever. Los Angeles seems to hold some kind of magic for Canada. Our previous best medals total, 15, also came in that California city, but 52 years earlier in the 1932 Olympics.
Some household names emerged from the 1984 Summer Games. There was Linda Thom, whose exciting opening day win in the pistol shooting competition started things rolling. Then there was Sylvie Bernier whose ten straight perfect dives earned her Canada's first ever gold medal in diving. Swimmer Alex Baumann took two gold medals. I might add that he lives in the riding next door to mine in the City of Sudbury. A gold
Adjournment Debate
medal, a silver and a bronze went to the amazing Anne Ottenbrite. Victor Davis shattered his own world record to win the gold medal in the men's 220-metre breaststroke. Cyclist Steve Bauer took a silver medal, as did boxers Willy DeWitt and Shawn O'Sullivan. The two fighters are continuing, and one is from the riding of my colleague, the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway). Ben Johnson won the bronze medal in the 100-metre dash; and the women's relay team took the silver in the 4 by 400 relay race.
The list goes on and on. I cannot begin to do justice to all the medal winners. Suffice it to say that their names are in the record books and that they have given Canadians a lasting sense of pride. The credit for these successes must clearly go to the athletes. However, I think all Canadians can take some satisfaction in knowing that our amateur athletic development programs are paying off handsomely.
Canada has made steady progress on the international amateur scene since the introduction of the Fitness and Amateur Sport Act in 1961. There is no reason to believe that we will not continue to march forward in the years ahead.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 46 deemed to have been moved.

Mr. Bob Pennock (Etobicoke North):: Mr. Speaker, on three separate occasions last month I rose in the House to express my concern over the irresponsibility of the CBC in continuing to broadcast the song "What It's Like to be Dead", in which children expound the virtues of death. When I requested that the Minister of Communications (Mr. Masse) intervene to ensure that this song would not be broadcast again, I was reminded of the constraining provisions in the Broadcasting Act which grant ultimate responsibility for program selection and content to the broadcaster.
I do recognize the need for an arm's length policy and support it. However, as a representative of the people, I feel that the CBC is ultimately responsible to Parliament and to the taxpayers of Canada. Without the taxpayer, there would be no CBC.
I suggest to Mr. Juneau, President of the CBC, that his officials must be more responsible in their choice of program-

February 11, 1986
Adjournment Debate
ming. The song "What It's Like to be Dead" transcends the limits of acceptable broadcasting. Although I appreciate the satirical nature of the Frantics, I know that most Canadians believe that suicide, especially teenage suicide, is no joke nor a laughing matter. The fact that the issue of teenage suicide is satirized at all tells me that we as a society do not comprehend the gravity and scope of this modern social problem.
Do we hear comedy troupes satirize wife beating or child sexual abuse on prime time radio? These are issues which Canadians have come to accept as being serious, serious enough that Governments and social agencies have effectively implemented programs to deal with the problem. I believe that the issue of teenage suicide should be treated in a similar fashion and not as a subject of tasteless humour. When I first started investigating the issue of teenage suicide, I was unaware of the size of the problem and its far-reaching effects on the families and friends of the victims. I decided to investigate speeches in Hansard of past Parliaments. I found to my amazement there has been no substantive debate on this issue since 1970s. As Parliamentarians, can we not let teenage suicide become the taboo of the 1980s, relegating it to the closet and pretending it doesn't exist. It does exist and it is a problem.
Let us consider some of the alarming statistics. Teenage suicide is up 400 per cent since 1970. Suicide is the leading cause of death among teenagers in Canada. More Canadians take their own life than die from either diabetes or sclerosis of the liver. Canadians are more likely to commit suicide than Americans. Research shows that of the people who commit suicide only 5 per cent have a history of mental illness. The Quebec Suicide Prevention Centre estimates that the suicide rate could be 10 per cent to 15 per cent higher when "doubtful" accidents are taken into account.
Literature on suicide too often focuses on the symptoms and statistics without mentioning the thoughts and feelings of young people who are locked into depression, who are devastated by the loss of a girlfriend or boyfriend, or peer or school pressures. The vast majority of suicidal teenagers feel that their parents and their elders do not understand or appreciate them. Adults tend to view teenage problems as little problems which will go away. It has been said that acne, sexual behaviour, school grades and career choices make it tough enough to be a teenager. On top of that there is a whole new set of pressures facing kids today at the next fragile stage of their lives.
The question remains if there is a problem, what do we do about it? Dr. Dianne Soyer-Solush of the Toronto East General made the following recommendations in a recent report on suicide in Canada: First, to introduce suicide prevention programs in public schools, as is presently done in three American states; second, that courses on suicide and suicide prevention be a mandatory part of physicians' training; third, that national standards be established for crisis centres across Canada. The time has come that we recognize the problem of teenage suicide and deal with it.
Mr. Juneau states, with regard to my complaint: "We would certainly never broadcast material which did constitute such an invitation because all of us recognize that teenage suicide is a terrible thing". I only wish he believed that statement. If he believes it, why would he, in a recent letter to me, condone broadcasting of this song without at least seeking some professional advise or, as I did? As a Government we must be committed, not only to inform people about this problem, but to set aside scarce resources from our Budget to ensure that our actions are effective.
In closing, I support the arms-length principle but, because of it, broadcasters must be more responsible in screening the content of their programming. Radio and TV are powerful mediums. They can alter people's attitudes and perceptions on this and many other issues. The public airwaves should be used responsibly for the good of the people.


Mr. Jim Edwards (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Etobicoke North (Mr. Pennock) has raised a sensitive issue and we are all, I am sure, appreciative of his concern over the broadcast of the song "Neat to be Dead" on the CBC.
However, I would like to reiterate what the Minister of Communications (Mr. Masse) emphasized previously in the House, that is, that broadcasters themselves are responsible for program selection and content subject to the general rules and regulations of the CRTC. Consequently, responsibility for CBC programming matters lies entirely with the CBC's management and board of directors. The Minister of Communications has no direct power of intervention in such matters.
Neither I nor the Minister, and I am sure no Hon. Members, would wish to set the potentially dangerous precedent of restricting the CBC's right to programming autonomy by becoming directly involved in this particular programming matter, as sensitive as it is. Moreover, the Minister assured the House that he would inform both the CBC and the CRTC of the concern about the song "Neat to be Dead" which was expressed in the House. I was pleased to hear that Mr. Juneau responded, although the response was not entirely satisfactory.
I learned, Mr. Speaker, during a recent visit of Finnish parliamentarians to Parliament Hill that one of the regulations within the Finnish broadcasting system prohibits programming which might be injurious to mental health. I do not know whether that sort of regulation would be useful, or whether the CRTC would want to address it. On the other hand, I heard the Hon. Member say that only 5 per cent of those who commit suicide are believed to be suffering from mental illness.
The Hon. Member has certainly underscored the sensitivity of the topic matter and the Minister appreciates his concern. However, Mr. Speaker, I would like us to keep in mind the democratic principle of freedom of expression. The Charter of Rights guarantees freedom of expression for Canadians and the Broadcasting Act itself states clearly: " . .. the right to freedom of expression and the right of persons to receive
February 11, 1986

programs, subject only to generally applicable statutes and regulations, is unquestioned".
Mr. Speaker, having been myself in broadcasting, I can tell this House that decision-making on programming is often a difficult process which involves trying to offer programs which will be as attractive, exciting, dramatic or humourous as the public demands or finds acceptable. It is not always easy to ensure that a specific program will offend no one. If a program makes part of the audience uneasy or is found to be in bad taste, it is certainly not what the broadcasters wanted. After all, Mr. Speaker, whether they are public or private, broadcasters must answer the questions of their audience.
Mr. Speaker, all broadcasters, and I speak from experience, treat their programming responsibilities with respect and with an eye to the future. I am not speaking only about the programs themselves, but also about public reactions to these programs. I believe that the CBC is seriously considering the issue raised by the Hon. Member and that, in so doing, it is taking its responsibilties very seriously.


TEXTILES AND CLOTHING-COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATIONS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, I am rising today to discuss a question asked on January 20 during the Question Period to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens).
My question relates to the report of the Textiles and Clothing Commission and the various comments which I have read or heard recently. I also want to make a few points in this regard.
Over one year ago, on January 30, 1985, I informed the House that the crisis in the textile and clothing industry had continued and worsened for then years because of the massive imports from low-wage semi-industrialized Pacific rim countries.
In its last report published in late December, the Commission states that, during the period from 1972 to 1982, 31,977 jobs were lost in Canada.
Most of these jobs were in Quebec. The Commission also blamed the Liberal Government for not having implemented its recommendations.
On page 84 of its report, the Commission says that the Liberals ignored its recommendation that existing agreements and quotas be extended until the end of 1990.
A new Federal textile policy should contain reference to the fact that imports are not to increase by 13 per cent a year, as in the last four years, when the market increases only by 1.5 per cent a year, and it should be modelled on clause 3 of the
Adjournment Debate
Multifibre Agreement, as is the policy of the European Economic Community to regulate imports.
I also take the liberty of suggesting to the Minister that he should include leather garments in the next agreements, as suggested by the report, and that any unused quotas should be eliminated.
Mr. Speaker, you will know that according to a Quebec Government study, in Quebec only, 30,000 jobs would be lost in the textile and clothing industries, were free to arranged with the United States.
It must also be emphasized that the textile and clothing industries are interrelated, because the clothing industry accounts for 40 per cent of the textile industry's market.
Incidentally, CIRB's Chairman, Mr. Tsai, mentioned last week in the Board's fourth and most recent annual report that it will have committed $267 million during its mandate.
The Industrial and Commercial Development Program is the second feature of CIRB's mandate, and its goal is to consolidate and diversify the economies of areas that are strongly dependent on the textile, clothing and footwear industries. The subsidized companies will invest a total of $358.4 million, including $97.1 million in contributions from the Industrial and Commercial Development Program. CIRB's contributions that have been approved since the inception of the program should help create 4,834 direct jobs, 672 of which would be in Drummondville.
Also, in 1984-85, restructuring plans for 100 businesses have been approved representing $134.1 million in investments with $39.4 million in financial help from the CIRB.
The textile industry is doing its share in the area of modernization, with respect to technology as well as management and creativity. Let me remind you that over the last decade, upwards of $2 billion have been invested with the purpose in mind. The industry is asking that the multifiber arrangement be implemented with more firmness and closer monitoring. This objective, coupled with a wiser use of macro-economic policies, will enable the private sector to plan and invest with confidence.
In my constituency, people are striving to find solutions for improving productivity in the textile industry genrally. Indeed, constituents of mine have take the initiative of requesting a feasibility study for a center for applied research in textiles. Also, constituents of mine are now doing that survey with a sampling of 200 industries. It must be hoped that such a project well not be doomed by improper decisions, as was the case under the previous administration.
Further more, I would like the Minister to consider imposing an overall quota on imports from all countries, under section XIX of the GATT.
Should there be further plant shutdowns, think of the cost of retraining those workers under the Labour Adjustment Ben-

February 11, 1986
Adjournment Debate
efits Program. It should be said that subsidies are given to grain, milk and red meat producers because those products are considered necessities of life. Then, we could very well subsidize clothing which is also a necessity.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would humbly submit to the Minister a proposal to include in the long term plan he was referring to on November 29, 1984, one aspect that the inquiry failed to mention, namely a labelling policy that might inform consumers as to the nature of the product and the origin of the garmen they are purchasing.


Mrs. Monique B. Tardif (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, this evening I would like to answer a question by the Hon. Member for Drummond (Mr. Guilbault) concerning the implementation of recommendations made by the Textile and Clothing Board.
Mr. Speaker, first of all I can assure my hon. friend that the Government is fully aware of the importance of the textile and clothing industry for the Canadian economy, and especially for the economy of the provinces of Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba and Nova Scotia. In fact, one or both of these sectors are represented to some extent in all our provinces. Textile and clothing ranks second in Canada in the manufacturing sector, after food and beverages, and provides direct employment for
172,000	workers, while shipping products estimated at more than $10.5 billion. Quebec alone has over 96,000 workers in this sector. The clothing industry is concentrated in Montreal, where it represents 24 per cent of all manufacturing jobs. Many other Quebec communities, including the riding of Drummond, depend to a large extent on the textile and clothing industry. The clothing sector is also of considerable importance for Winnipeg, where it represents 17 per cent of all jobs in the manufacturing sector.
Considering the very substantial contribution of the textile and clothing sector to our national and regional economies, the Government has committed itself to maintaining a viable textile and clothing industry in Canada. To do so, the Ministers responsible have met several times with representatives from both industries to discuss the negative impact of the sudden rise in clothing imports from countries with low production costs that occurred in 1983 and 1984.
In addition the Textile and Clothing Board was asked to carry out an exhaustive investigation in the situation of those two industries, and it eventually made public the report mentioned by the Hon. Member.
The main conclusion of the TCB report is that imports from countries where wages are low or where industries are government-supported are causing serious damage to Canadian producers and that the situation can only get worse in the future. This situation can be explained by the fact that the clothing
industry is labour-intensive and that our workers are much better paid than those of Asia, South America and Africa.
The main recommendations of the report are aimed at improving Canada's import restriction system within the multifibre agreement to which our country is signatory. As my colleague pointed out, this agreement is due to expire at the end of July this year. But we expect it will be renewed. It provides for negotiations between importing and exporting countries to arrive at bilateral textile and clothing agreements with which both parties can live. The TCB also repeated an earlier recommendation urging the Government to freeze import levels by implementing worldwide quotas under Section XIX of GATT so as to prevent further damage-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the Parliamentary Secretary, but her time has expired. The Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Parry).


CORPORATE AFFAIRS-MARKETING OF PHOTOGRAPHIC DEVELOPING MACHINES
John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, if the Parliamentary Secretary is able to finish in 30 seconds, she can do so.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There are no points of order at this time. I have already indicated that I regretted to inform the Parliamentary Secretary that her time had expired.


John Edmund Parry: Thank you for setting me straight, Mr. Speaker. I always appreciate your guidance.
It is a sad duty for me to raise in this forum the question of the developing machines marketed by the now notorious Key Independent Systems in Canada. It arises out of my question in the House on November 29, 1985, concerning the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, although the Minister was not present at the time and 1 had given advance notice of my question. The answer which I received from the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn) was that the Minister would get back to me with a response. Indeed that happened, but not in any way which I could deem satisfactory or not in any way which shed any light on this very sorry story of the swatch which the company had cut through independent businesses in Canada and the damage which has been done, not only to its own reputation but to individual entrepreneurs in several parts of the country.
The response which I received from the Minister just five days later indicated that the matter was under examination and that it would be inappropriate to comment further. At this time it is very appropriate to comment further because it is now the second anniversary of the information, as I understand it, being laid which led to the initiation of the investigation by the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs of the operation of Key Independent Systems and its financial part-
February 11, 1986

ners in the retailing of these machines, namely, the financial subsidiary of Societe generate, one of the largest banks in France. Perhaps unfortunately for some of my own theories it is now effectively under the control of the French Government.
The history has been a long, sorry one, and that is why I feel it is incumbent upon the Parliamentary Secretary to let the House know, as we are all eagerly awaiting it, the action which the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Cote) has taken and will be taking.
It appears that as a result of the non-performance of these machines, which were marketed with guarantees and with promises of performance that were glowing and which have now turned out to be extravagant and even false, approximately 40 businessmen in Canada have gone bankrupt. I think that it is sad, a tragedy which is deserving of Government examination, and certainly deserving of government intervention. Indeed, the aggrieved owners and former owners of these machines have formed an association. They have an executive director. That is surely an indication of the damage that was done. It was stated in a letter from the Solicitor General (Mr. Beatty), that KIS advertised that a company developing 30 rolls of film a day would reap $100,000 a year in profits. A London, Ontario company which averaged 29 rolls a day is now bankrupt. I could go on, although I do not want to use up the time that way. There are several similar examples of people who did their utmost to keep these machines working, replacing defective parts with higher grade materials, following all the service recommendations and instituting additional preventive and restorative maintenance of their own, but who still could not get anything like the performance out of these machines that Key Independent Systems was promising.
There are further marketing scandals related to that company. It has apparently been marketing a key-cutting machine in Ontario, which Ontario Hydro has not approved for connection to the provincial electric utility. It has apparently been bringing in used machines from the United States for sale in Canada as if they were new. We know that the financing contracts were sold instantly by the company to Societe gene-rale, the finance subsidiary. It appears from the statements by the Ontario KIS owners association that-through what means we do not know-somehow this company has been replacing its Canadian personnel with personnel imported from France. That is something that the Government, although it does not fall within the purview of the responsibility of this particular Ministry, should be concerned about.
The lending practices of this financial subsidiary should be investigated. Apparently there was some guaranteed agreement between the finance subsidiary and the parent, Societe generale and the KIS company in France, that forced the financing company to finance these machines, thus effectively interposing a third party-who presumably acted in good faith though not with the best of judgment-into the deal between KIS systems and the Canadian independent businessmen who were still using those machines. What is even stranger and
Adjournment Debate
even more worthy of attention by the Government is that once the original investigation had started, it was found that there was nothing in the legislation that could be used to stop either the financing or the sales practices of this particular company. Those are the questions I would like to put to the Parliamentary Secretary, and those are the questions to which many small-businessmen and women deserve answers.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Domm), I have been asked to respond on his behalf to the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rai-ny River (Mr. Parry) and to the concerns expressed by other Hon. Members regarding this matter.
KIS Minute Canada sold a number of photo-developing machines to business people across Canada which were purported to be capable of processing a certain number of films in a given time. Many of these businesses were dissatisfied with the equipment sold to them and have indicated to the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, and to the media, that poor service for the equipment and machinery malfunctions prevented them from achieving the capacity of the equipment claimed by the company. Many of these purchasers have formed KIS owner associations and are actively pursuing redress through civil litigation and other means. The company maintains that the equipment can produce at its rated capacity and has identified KIS owners who are satisfied with the equipment.
The Department is also aware of complaints by KIS owners alleging that there was improper use of testimonials by the company, and that sales representatives of the company have misrepresented the earning potential of the machines. The Director of Investigation and Research under the Combines Investigation Act is examining these allegations in relation to the misleading advertising provisions of the Act. As you know, the confidentiality provisions of the statute prevent the disclosure of information related to the consideration of such matters. Accordingly, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on the nature or progress of the director's examination. However, I can indicate that at the conclusion of any inquiry, the director may refer the matter under Section 15(1) of the Act to the Attorney General of Canada (Mr. Crosbie). It is he who determines whether or not charges should be laid.
The Hon. Member should bear in mind, however, that if a prosecution were to ensue, it would take place before the criminal courts. Consequently, each element of an offence would have to be established beyond a reasonable doubt. This requirement can place a difficult burden on the conduct of inquiries.
I can also state that Departmental officials have met with some of the complainants to review their concerns. I can assure the House that the matter is receiving a careful and complete examination of all the facts available. Should charges be laid

February 11, 1986
Adjournment Debate
against KIS Minute Canada or its principals, the Minister will be pleased to inform Hon. Members.
[ Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Therefore this
House stands adjourned until 2 o'clock tomorrow afternoon, pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.31 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Wednesday, February 12, 1986