1986-02-12

Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I rise again with regard to an issue that I have raised before on the floor of the House of Commons under Standing Order 22 as well as in Question Period. 1 am urging the Government of Canada to take some positive action with regard to the Canadian shipbuilding industry.
Members ought to know that on August 2, 1984, the Atlantic Progressive Conservative caucus met and discussed the issue of shipbuilding. At that time they promised: "A top priority of the Progressive Conservative Government will be to create a more viable and prosperous shipbuilding industry".
That was on August 2, 1984. Since that time nothing has taken place with regard to the shipbuilding industry in this country. All we have had is the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) give various platitudes, but again no action. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) talks on the one hand about jobs he wishes to create when he in fact is secretly dealing behind the scenes with individuals to buy ships offshore, depriving Canadians of jobs in our shipbuilding industry across the country.
I find the actions of the Government to be totally irresponsible. A major sector of our economy is the shipbuilding industry. I cannot understand why the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion, and the Minister of Transport cannot proceed with some action in this matter.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member's time has expired.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, it is a week since the Philippine elections took place, and the National Movement for Free Elections, which is an independent citizens body of a half million volunteers, has declared
Corazon Aquino the winner. Cardinal Sin said that this movement is doing its best to restore freedom to the Philippines, yet the Government Commission on Elections has Marcos ahead. However, the Commission is Marcos-controlled.
The Legislature which is doing the final count is Marcos' controlled. Whom are we to believe? U.S. observers have told President Reagan that they must be wary of Marcos' claims to victory.
Now is the time to speak out for freedom in the Philippines. It is incumbent upon the Canadian Government to put pressure on our friends, the Americans, to send a very strong message to Marcos that he must respect the results of free elections in the Philippines.


USE OF TAX REVENUE
Mr. Ross Belsher (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, at the moment it seems that the price of gasoline is on the minds of many B.C. residents. My constituency of Fraser Valley East is no exception.
Recently the Valley Times newspaper handed me petitions from over 4,000 residents. All of these Fraser Valley East residents are concerned about the cost of gasoline in Canada in comparison with the United States. They think that our tourism industry would be strengthened if both the federal and provincial levels of Government lowered their rates of taxation on gasoline.
All of the petitions unanimously endorsed the suggestion that both levels of Government should find alternate sources of revenue. Unfortunately, none of the petitioners nor the various constituents to whom I have spoken have put forward any suggestions on what other sources of revenue are available to the Government. It seems that it is very easy to tell the Government it should or should not follow a particular course of action, but it is far more difficult to suggest alternatives.
For example, I doubt if the majority of Canadians would be enthusiastic with someone suggesting that their incomes should be taxed at a greater level in exchange for everyone being able to purchase cheaper gasoline. No matter what kind of taxation is levied, the Government needs as much revenue as possible in order to pay off our massive deficit.
I have the distinct impression that the average Canadian does not realize the effect which the budgetary deficit is

February 12, 1986
having on the treasury of the Government of Canada, Over one-third of the federal Government's income is used to pay for the interest charges on the national debt. This is the predicament we inherited from the previous Government. We are now desperately trying to correct it.


FISHERIES
Mr. Morrissey Johnson (Bonavista-Trinity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to shed some light on erroneous statements made by the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) with respect to cod fishing in Newfoundland.
For many years succeeding Liberal Ministers of Fisheries gave away 3,700 tonnes of northern cod to the Spanish fleet in spite of its over-fishing record. Now that the quota has been repatriated, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) has decided to allocate it to where the need is greatest, namely, 2,000 tonnes to the Harbour Grace Plant, and 1,700 tonnes proportionally split among FPI, National Sea, and the Independent Offshore Group.
Special consideration of Harbour Grace was justified because of the employment potential for a large part of the Trinity-Conception area. Existing assets of the Harbour Grace plant had been inadequate to interest a buyer acceptable to the receivers, so the plant was in danger of not being re-opened.
This special allocation, Mr. Speaker, was not unique. The Hon. Pierre deBane did the same thing for the closed Georgetown plant in PEI in 1983 or 1984. We have even kept that allocation available, but no one has come forward who is prepared to re-open the Georgetown plant.
The previous Liberal Government kept Atlantic Canadian fish plants open through multi-million-dollar bail-outs with taxpayers' money. Our Government has demonstrated in Harbour Grace that by judiciously allocating the resource and creating an hospitable climate for foreign investment we can encourage the expansion of opportunities for Canadians.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address the recent ruling by the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) to have pension income included when making application for unemployment insurance benefits.
This ruling clearly discriminates against Armed Forces members who have served for 20 years or more and are still actively looking for work but collecting a pension. These people are still making contributions to the unemployment
insurance fund. The Minister should consider waiving this rule completely for Armed Forces personnel or, at the very least, increasing the amount allowable per week before deductions commence on unemployment insurance benefits.
This ruling also discriminates against those individuals who have opted for early retirement and to make way for younger employees. They would collect unemployment insurance as a cushion for one year. There are many individuals who take advantage of early retirement after putting in 40 years and more. Many of them were told that as long as their claims were in before the new regulation came into effect, they would be exempt. Of course they soon realized on January 5 that this was not the case.
This misleading information coming from the Minister's own Department led people to believe that if they took early retirement, before January 1, 1986, they would be exempt from having their pension benefits included when making application for unemployment insurance. It is simply not fair that these people should suffer when they acted in good faith on information obtained from the Government.


DISASTERS
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Mr. Speaker, the tragedy of the railway accident near Hinton, Alberta, should be sensational enough for the media in their drive to be first with the news, for increased circulation, and advertising revenues. However, when the media continue to report for days afterwards speculations and opinions, unsupported by any verified evidence, as to the cause of such a tragedy, then it becomes a trial by media.
News reports are encouraging conclusions in advance of evidence, by way of innuendo, inference, supposition and unsupported opinion as to the cause of the accident. The public statements made by individuals with some responsibility in the matter come out as self-serving and, to be blunt, as protecting their own rear ends. The statements are then wildly reported by the media when the media have neither the time nor capacity to investigate and report upon the validity of such statements, or issue disclaimers.
It is now time for the media to cease such unprofessional reporting of speculation in search of drama. It is time for the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) to tell officials of CN, his Department and agencies to shut up and save their opinions and evidence for the judicial inquiry. It is time for all of us to wait for the evidence, findings, conclusions, and final recommendations of the inquiry, without bringing even more distress upon mourning families and an already sad population.
February 12, 1986


Mr. Speaker:: 1 regret to interrupt the Hon. Member, but his time has expired.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put on record this Government's excellent performance since September 4, 1984. Since the election,
585,000	new jobs have been created in this country. Inflation has been maintained at the 4 per cent level for a year and a half, and prices have never been so stable since 1971. Consumer confidence is reaching near-record highs. The retail trade has cashed in on its best Holiday season in years. Oil and gas drilling operations have increased by 25 per cent over last year. Furthermore, the value of manufacturing orders have risen by 14.9 per cent, thanks largely to increases in the producing industries such as the manufacturing and building sectors. Total production has increased by 4.9 per cent over the last year, and by 6.1 per cent since the election. The chartered banks' prime rate is three-quarters of one per cent lower than on election day. The value of building permits has increased by 26 per cent during the first 11 months of 1985, generating $3.7 billion in additional income for the construction industry.
Such is this Government's record, Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of all Canadians.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Lawrence I. O'Neil (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I described for Hon. Members of the House the progress being made by the Government in reversing the economic decline which characterized Cape Breton and eastern Nova Scotia over the last number of decades. Today I want to compliment the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) for his success in addressing the unemployment problems of Cape Breton, eastern Nova Scotia, and Canada's other regions.
Let us look at more facts. Mr. Speaker, did you know, for example, that more jobs have been created in 16 months in Atlantic Canada than were created in total between 1980 and 1984?
In Newfoundland, 6,000 jobs have been created in 16 months, compared with 2,000 in 55 months under the previous Government. The Progressive Conservative Government is creating jobs in Quebec at a rate 13 times faster than the Liberal rate. Since September, 1984, 239,000 jobs have been
Presence in Gallery
created in Ontario and 90,000 jobs have been created in the Prairies.
In Alberta, the unemployment rate has fallen from 12 per cent to 8.5 per cent. In British Columbia, 51,000 jobs have been created. That is a record to be proud of. We are delivering in a big way on our promise of economic renewal, and we will take even more seats.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, we had the visit of employee representatives from the Desbiens plant in the Roberval riding. I must say that when they left, these people were quite disappointed with the attitude of their elected representative and the Minister of State responsible for Small Businesses (Mr. Bissonnette) who, instead of showing interest in the reopening of this plant, found nothing better to tell them than to find new buyers. As though the employees themselves, in such an isolated area, could find buyers, when it is the duty of the elected member of Roberval and the Minister to do his job and defend the interest of his constituents.
In view of the fact that the Prime Minister has confirmed that he would indeed fulfill the promise made in that riding, the people would like to know whether the Prime Minister will keep his word for once and help these people go back to work.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF PARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION FROM ITALY
Mr. Speaker:: May I draw the attention of Hon. Members to the presence in our gallery today of Mr. Romeo Ricciuti, Member of Parliament of the Labour Committee of the Parliament of Italy and leading a parliamentary delegation from that country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

February 12, 1986
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Last month the Minister of Employment and Immigration implemented a very callous decision to disqualify from full unemployment insurance anyone who receives a pension. I want to ask the Prime Minister to overrule the Minister of Employment and Immigration and restore equity to the system. It has been a very callous, unfair decision involving hundreds of thousands of Canadians.


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the Minister of Employment and Immigration, and 1 have both responded to that identical question two or three times last week, as well as a number of times in previous weeks.


Mr. Deans:: Not very well.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I will repeat the answer to the question, but I think the Hon. Member could look at Hansard and find the answer there. The simple answer is that this proposal was put in the November 8 statement. It has been referred subsequently to the Forget Commission. We are awaiting a report of the commission and we will make our decision following that.


CALL FOR REVOCATION OF DECISION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Minister and his colleague have made the decision before the Forget Commission has had a chance to report. I direct my question again to the Prime Minister. The Deputy Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs have written the Minister of Employment and Immigration to protest the heartless nature of this decision. In that circumstance, will the Prime Minister restore some unanimity to his Cabinet, and also restore some justice to the system, by revoking that decision of the Minister of Employment and Immigration?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, let me clarify what the Hon. Member said in the preamble to his second question. I said, quite clearly, that this was introduced in the November 8 statement. Subsequent to the November 8 statement the Forget Commission was appointed, and once appointed we referred this matter to the Forget Commission. The Forget Commission has been established-if the Hon. Members want to listen to the answer to the question I would welcome their attention. The Forget Commission has been established to review a wide range of matters in the unemployment insurance system, one of which being this particular matter.


REQUEST THAT DECISION AFFECTING UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS BE REVOKED
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the decision was already in effect before the Forget Commission's report, and I repeat that once more, the Government has betrayed Canadians. There are people in this country who have been paying unemployment insurance premiums for 30 or 40 years and who cannot receive their benefits now because they have to retire sooner than they expected. Are the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister going to revoke this cruel and unnecessary decision?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I indicated that this problem-

This matter has been referred to the Forget Commission, as I have indicated, and we will await the report from the Forget Commission prior to making a decision on this.


Ian Deans: Well, you made the decision.


EFFECT ON ARMED FORCES PERSONNEL
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. We learned this morning that the Minister of National Defence and the Secretary of State for External Affairs both wrote to the Minister of Employment and Immigration protesting this cut in unemployment insurance benefits for Armed Services personnel who take early retirement. Since the Prime Minister is ultimately responsible for all policies of the Government, and as this is a cabinet decision, why is he persisting in this unfair and callous decision when he has appointed the Forget Commission to study unemployment insurance? Why does he not settle the problem between his Ministers, withdraw the issue and refer it immediately to the Forget Commission? Only he can answer this question, not the Minister of Finance.
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member who has been in this place for many, many years-


John Napier Turner: And for many more years.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I think he is showing how many years he has been in this place. What we have understood from the comments made by the Hon. Member as well as other Hon. Members is that there are a great many very complex issues and problems that are related to the unemployment insurance system. The Hon. Member has referred to one of them, but he knows that there is a wide range of problems that must be dealt with. That is the reason the Government established a Royal Commission for the first time in many years to look at the unemployment insurance system. We will deal with these matters in an objective way, based on full and

complete analysis, rather than adopting the Hon. Member's shooting-from-the-hip approach on one particular issue. He knew that he identified only a very small part of the issue when he raised the question.


CABINET POLICY
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, it is not acceptable that the Minister of Finance should answer this question. There has been a dispute between Ministers and only the Prime Minister can answer for his entire Cabinet.
We know that the Prime Minister idealizes the President of the United States and would rather have his system, but he has to answer this question. Will he withdraw these policies criticized by two of his Ministers and the former Minister of National Defence and refer them to the Forget Commission which the Government appointed? Will he answer the question rather than the Minister of Finance?
Some Hon. Members:: No guts.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, there were a number of questions regarding the subject of my portfolio yesterday that the Right Hon. Prime Minister answered so I think it is only fair that I should respond to some of the questions that are being put today. The Hon. Member is referring to some speculative reports in newspapers and-


John Napier Turner: We got the letters. Come on!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I would ask the Hon. Member to consider, based on his experience and the knowledge that he has as a Minister in the previous Government, that there are a number of problems with the unemployment insurance system. He knows that well from his own experience. That is why we have appointed the Forget Commission and we are going to wait for the Forget Commission to return to us a range of recommendations on a range of issues-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


SITUATION OF RETIRED FORCES PERSONNEL
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. I know the Prime Minister prides himself on being fair and just, and I do not say this facetiously. We have in our possession the letters from both the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Minister of National Defence to the Minister of Employment and Immigration regarding the situation in which servicemen find themselves, which is that after 30 years of service it is compulsory that they retire. Does the Prime Minister think it is fair that these folks who are being denied unemployment insurance benefits should wait beyond the fall of 1986 for the Forget Commission to report, and be denied unemployment
Oral Questions
insurance while the Government waits for the report and then determines whether it wants to legislate, or not?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, since this subject matter falls under my responsibility, perhaps I might be permitted to answer. As the Minister of Employment and Immigration has replied to the House to precisely the same question on several different occasions, she has received representations from a great many individuals and organizations in respect to this matter. There is more than just this problem with the Unemployment Insurance Commission so the matter has been referred quite properly to the Forget Commission for its adjudication and advice to the Government, advice we look forward to receiving and acting upon in the near future.
I do not know why it is necessary for Hon. Members to keep repeating, repeating, and repeating the same question-


Mr. Orlikow:: Because those people have been cut back, that is why.


Harvie Andre: -in view of the fact that it is out of order according to Citation 359 of Beauchesne.


Ian Deans: Why are you criticizing the Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Ian Deans: Why are you attacking the Speaker?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I take it the Hon. Minister is presenting his candidacy for Speaker. The Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez), supplementary question.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, since that Minister is in charge of fairness it is no wonder that we are all in trouble.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


NOVA SCOTIA ANNUITANT
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Prime Minister specifically: What do you say, Mr. Prime Minister, to Mr. Edward Gale of Lower Sackville, Nova Scotia, who at 47 was released after 30 years in the Armed Forces and is not receiving his unemployment insurance benefits because he is receiving an annuity from the Armed Forces of Canada?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker-


Some Hon. Members:: Oops!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

February 12, 1986
Oral Questions


Martin Brian Mulroney: They are right, they flushed me out. I was so terrified I did not dare answer the question of the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East. He scares the hell out of everybody around here.


Mr. Allmand:: Come into NDG and say that, smart guy!


Martin Brian Mulroney: I think the hon. gentleman knows full well that the case will be responded to, as my colleagues have indicated, with fairness, particularly in regard to those who have served their country.


John R. Rodriguez: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John R. Rodriguez: It's my birthday, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Nine out of ten for acting!


Mr. Speaker:: 1 have a distinct feeling there were caucus meetings this morning.
Supplementary question, the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Does he think that it is right and just that these people who are being denied unemployment insurance benefits because of serving their country in the Armed Forces of Canada should have to wait until the report of the Forget Commission-which has been given an extension-and while the Government decides whether or not it will legislate, before they are eligible to receive unemployment insurance?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker-


William Warren Allmand: He thinks it's a laughing matter!


Martin Brian Mulroney: -we have inherited a very corrosive social situation from the Liberals-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: -brought about by a colossal deficit initiated by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition when he was Minister of Finance, with which we are trying to deal.


John R. Rodriguez: But you don't pay anything for this.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Calm down, calm down.


Mr. Ouellet:: Who is the Speaker here?


Martin Brian Mulroney: In the process of dealing with it, we will deal with it in fairness on behalf of all Canadians. We will respond to the inquiry of my hon. friend in that same spirit of fairness.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


SITUATION OF FORMER BRITISH COLUMBIA BANK EMPLOYEE
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, 1 hope for the sake of the workers-literally thousands of them, men and women-in the Armed Forces and in the regular labour force, and for those people who have been terminated from benefits, the Prime Minister will stop misleading the House-


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Sheila Maureen Copps: -by saying that the matter has been referred to the commission.
Does the Prime Minister think it is fair that a secretary with the Bank of British Columbia, who worked there for 36 years and who was terminated at the age of 54 so that she could be replaced by a 24-year-old, cannot collect unemployment insurance benefits even though she has paid into the plan for 36 years?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has raised a particular example. 1 am sure she has not given us all the information as to why this person is not able to collect unemployment insurance.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Your policies!


Some Hon. Members:: Shush!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Possibly if the Hon. Member had some patience and didn't want to take advantage of the situation she raised for political reasons, she would like to discuss it at a later date and we would give her an answer in a reasoned and objective way.


Sheila Maureen Copps: The reason this woman was terminated from benefits was as a direct result of the economic statement of the Minister of Finance in November, and he should know the effect his policies are having on thousands of Canadians.


SITUATION OF HAMILTON STEEL WORKER
Sheila Maureen Copps: If the Minister of Finance does not believe the case of this particular woman, will he believe the case of another worker who in fact worked for the Armed Forces for two decades and again is denied benefits? Will he believe the steel worker in Hamilton who came before the Forget Commission-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Rossi:: Who do you believe?


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Minister may choose to answer that question if he wishes.


Mr. Nystrom:: Who does Brian believe? Brian believes Ronald Reagan.
February 12, 1986


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question on human rights for the Prime Minister. He knows that for over a year I have been writing to him and the Secretary of State for External Affairs urging Canadian Government support for the nine Canadians who, unfortunately, were victims of CIA brainwashing experiments in Montreal. Last October I warned how sad it would be if one of these victims should die before justice was done. Regrettably, with the sad death of Florence Langleben, that has now occurred.
Could the Prime Minister tell the House why the Government refuses to have the Canadian public servant, Mr. John Hadwen, testify in the U.S. proceedings when such testimony is deemed to be crucial in defence of the Canadians?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, we are willing to allow Mr. Hadwen to be available in that regard.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: That's news.


Martin Brian Mulroney: My hon. friend is quite right when he indicates that he has raised this matter repeatedly. Pursuant to some of his interventions, I have spoken with the Secretary of State for External Affairs who is himself very personally committed to a resolution of this matter and he has raised it on three separate occasions with Secretary Shultz in an attempt to obtain a resolution.


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER INTERVENE ON BEHALF OF VICTIMS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, 1 am pleased that the Prime Minister has now intervened. I simply point out that when I requested the Secretary of State for External Affairs in the last 10 days to have this Canadian public servant testify, he refused to do so at that time. Instead, he offered written testimony which, of course, is legally useless.
Since the lawyers representing the Canadians in the U.S. proceedings have written to the Secretary of State for External Affairs three times last fall and received no reply to two of those letters and only a partial reply to the third, will the Prime Minister himself now directly intervene in these important proceedings by ensuring that all letters which have been sent to the Secretary of State for External Affairs in defence of these Canadians are responded to promptly?


Martin Brian Mulroney: 1 will be happy to, Mr. Speaker. I should say, however, that I am personally aware of the personal, continuing, and abiding interest of the Secretary of State for External Affairs in the resolution of these matters. He is absent today but I will, of course, bring the representation to his attention immediately.
Oral Questions
I can tell my hon. friend that when these matters are ultimately resolved-in a manner favourable to Canadian citizens, it is to be hoped-no one will be happier than the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Raymond Garneau (Laval-des-Rapides):: Mr. Speaker, on January 13 of this year, the Minister of Finance stated in the House that it was not this Government's policy to increase interest rates in order to protect the dollar. Following this irresponsible statement, the dollar fell two cents within a few days, thus obliging the Government to borrow $2.5 billion on the international market.
Yesterday, the Governor of the Bank of Canada said that interest rates would remain high as long as was necessary.
First of all, could the Minister of Finance inform the House today whether, contrary to what he said on January 13, he agrees with the Governor of the Bank of Canada? Second, what impact will interest rate policy announced by the Governor of the Bank of Canada have on the budget deficit?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, what the Governor of the Bank of Canada also said is that the alternative to not doing what we did in the markets last week would have led to higher rates. I would say to the Hon. Member that those higher rates would have stayed around on a much more permanent basis than I believe the rates we have to date. That is the nature of the type of action we took in the exchange markets and the interest rate markets last week. It was a package approach to a problem which had to be dealt with, and dealt with in a firm way.
We felt that that was the essential way to go in order to dampen the degree of speculation that was there and to get back to a degree of stability. It is very important for this country to continue to achieve our tremendous success of the past year in getting-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is becoming a speech.
[ Translation]


POLICY ANNOUNCED BY BANK OF CANADA GOVERNOR-MINISTER'S POSITION
Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, the Minister is saying the exact opposite of what he told the House on January 13. Today I would like to ask the Minister,-and I wish he would give me a clear answer-does he agree with the policy announced yesterday in committee by the

February 12, 1986
Oral Questions
Governor of the Bank of Canada, a policy that has been widely reported in the press?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member would stick around the House more, he would be here at the time when I am making these statements.


Ian Deans: That's not fair.


Raymond Garneau: Answer my question.


Mr. Nunziata:: Cheap shot, Mike.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I made a statement in the House last Thursday in which I indicated quite clearly that the actions which were taken by the Governor of the Bank of Canada were fully supported by this Government, and I still stand by that statement.


CANCELLATION OF KATIMAVIK PROGRAM
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister, if I could get his attention. The Prime Minister will know, I am sure, that Katimavik creates a thousand jobs in addition to the 2,000 opportunities for youth to develop skills and education. Every dollar the Government puts in generates $2.43 worth of productivity. Why is the Government cutting this program?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, it was a value judgment. Indeed I am sure the Program did have a noble motive when it was first brought about, but in the very difficult economic climate in which we find ourselves it was the value judgment of this Government that the $20 million could be better spent in securing more employment for more young people in Canada.


CREATION OF JOBS
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, does the Prime Minister realize that for the 3,000 people per year who benefit from the program, the actual cost to the Government runs at only $6,800 per year? We cannot buy better than that. It generates $60 million worth of community projects over four years.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, come on.


Ian Deans: How can we possibly produce more for less?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, first I should point out that it is not 3,000 people who benefit from it, it is 2,000.


Ian Deans: No, it's 1,000 employees and 2,000 youths.


Martin Brian Mulroney: We are talking about creating jobs for young people.


Ian Deans: Three thousand.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I think that is the same objective my hon. friend has. That is why, for example, youth unemployment, with which we were all very concerned during the election campaign, has come down 2.8 per cent since this Government was sworn into office. One of the reasons we were able to do it was because we made the tough choices-


Mr. Blaikie:: Because they are getting older.


Martin Brian Mulroney: -of getting rid of some programs which had some value in the past but which no longer respond to the changes. I point out to my hon. friend-because it is of interest to him in particular-an interesting statistic. Of the number of jobs created in the 55 months under the previous Liberal Government-


Ian Deans: Oh, no.


Martin Brian Mulroney: No, it is important-83 per cent were part-time, and of the 583,000 jobs created under this Government, 83 per cent are full-time.


ENERGY PRICE OF GASOLINE
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Today we learned that the price of gasoline at the pumps in the United States has dropped dramatically. A survey of three American cities shows that consumers are paying 37 cents, Canadian, a litre. It is obvious that Americans are feeling the benefit of falling crude oil prices. Will the Minister tell us just when Canadians will feel a similar price drop? When can we expect a benefit from falling world oil prices in a substantial way?


Hon. Pat Carney (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised to see the Liberal critic rise on this question. I thought he was going to congratulate this Government for going to Newfoundland yesterday and announcing $34 million worth of development projects aimed at training young Newfoundlanders for work in the offshore.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pat Carney: In response to his question about gasoline prices, I have answered that many times in the House. Canadians will receive the benefit of falling world prices as the inventory which was purchased before Christmas at very high
February 12, 1986

prices is processed, refined, loaded, shipped, stored, transported, and finally arrives at the gas pump.


REQUEST FOR MINISTERIAL ACTION
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, the U.S. is feeling the benefit of lower prices now. Nova Scotia, the only province where oil companies must make application to a tribunal to increase prices, refused to increase prices. When is the Minister going to do something substantial to reduce gasoline prices in Canada? When is she going to stop waffling and get on with what she should be doing?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I again remind the Member that it was this Government which deregulated oil prices so consumers would benefit from declining prices. It was his Party which increased gasoline prices 80 per cent under a regulated system which they imposed on consumers.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Jim Jepson (London East):: Mr. Speaker, small businesses across Canada have been concerned recently about the threat of a postal strike. In the absence of the Minister responsible for Canada Post can the president of the Treasury Board reassure this House that small businesses, indeed all Canadians, do not have to fear the possibility of a strike interrupting their activity and the economic recovery they are now enjoying?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, there is now a verbal agreement between management and union representatives. This agreement, which seems fair and satisfactory for both parties, is still subject to ratification by the union. I can assure my hon. colleague that the negotiations are still going on.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. In answer to my colleague from Nickel Belt a few minutes ago he said we should wait for the Forget Commission which will not report until the fall. As he knows, a worker needs 20 weeks of insured earnings in the previous 52 weeks before they qualify for unemployment insurance. In light of this, will the Prime Minister err on the side of retired Armed Forces personnel and
Oral Questions
withdraw the regulations concerning pension income being regarded as earned income for unemployment insurance
purposes?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think this is the same question that we have had probably eight times so far in this Question Period. The answer is still the same, and I would refer the Hon. Member to Hansard for previous Question Periods if the answers are not good enough in this Question Period.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I will recognize the Hon. Member for a supplementary but preferably not exactly the same question again.


SITUATION OF BRITISH COLUMBIA PENSIONER
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid the Minister of Finance did not understand, but I will accept your advice. What can he then say to Mr. Leonard Luoma of Royston, British Columbia, who, because of the change in regulations, will lose some $381 a month? He is retired from the Armed Forces and that represents one-third of his family income for seven months of the year.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the Hon. Member knows that is effectively the same subject and the same question.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The only reason for saying what I am saying is that there are lots of Members who have lots of questions. I presume it makes sense to get as many in on as many subjects as possible. The Hon. Member for Montreal-Saint-Marie.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Right Hon. Prime Minister.
I would like to explain to him that, like in so many other ridings, in my constituency, a 61 year old woman has accepted early retirement so that a young worker would not be laid off.
Can the Prime Minister tell us why his Government has changed the rules of the game in mid-course and prevented such people from receiving unemployment insurance benefits?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. 1 will grant the Hon. Member a supplementary but that is the same question as has already been asked several times.


Some Hon. Members:: No!

February 12, 1986
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have a long list of people who want to ask questions. Does the Hon. Member have a question on a different subject?


MAINTENANCE OF ACQUIRED RIGHTS-PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, as a supplementary, since the Prime Minister has asked you not to let him reply-
My supplementary is to the Prime Minister: Can you tell me why you did not maintain the entitlement of those who took an early retirement before the date of the announcement?


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John V. Nunziata: He has the right to ask a question.


Some Hon. Members:: Quiet!


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry, it sounded to me like the same question. Order, please. To me it sounded like the same question. I will check the "blues" and, if I was wrong, I will come back later on. The Hon. Member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso.


FISHERIES
Lawrence I. O'Neil: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. As he knows, the growing harp and grey seal population off Atlantic Canada represents a serious threat to the continued viability of the Atlantic fishery. Can the Minister tell us when we can expect a decision on how we are going to deal with this growing seal population?


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, the grey seal population off the Atlantic coast has increased by approximately 50 per cent over the past six years. This not only threatens the level of cod stocks through the direct devouring of those stocks by the seals, it also causes damage to fishermen's nets and gear. As well, the parasitic infestation alleged to be caused by an excessive grey seal population is of concern to the fishermen. I am waiting upon the report of Judge Malouf of the Royal Commission on Seals and Sealing. I will then submit appropriate recommendations to Cabinet to deal with this problem.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Right Hon. the Prime Minister.
It has to do with day care and his 1984 promise to provide financial assistance for day care services.
Particularly with respect to the $300 million claimed by groups working in that field, will the Prime Minister honour his promise and give immediate financial assistance to such services throughout Canada?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister made a commitment during the campaign, and under his instruction and leadership that commitment has been fulfilled to the point that the task force on child care has been appointed. The Hon. Member will recall that we had an exchange yesterday in committee on this same point. The Government looks forward to receiving recommendations from the task force, and 1 think it is important that we do not pre-empt those recommendations which Members in her own Party, I am sure, want to make to that task force.


GROUPS' REQUEST FOR FUNDS
Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary concerns the promises the Prime Minister made. Will these promises of direct aid be kept? It is needed now, not in the future. Will he tell us what "priority", and "immediate", and "taking leadership in giving federal funds" mean if they do not mean infusion of funds now which the groups are asking for in the coming Budget?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the task force has a very clear mandate, and the Hon. Member's references have been accepted by all Parties in this House. The question of how we are going to put together a good child care system is exactly what the task force has been charged with determining. I asked the Hon. Member yesterday to have an open mind on these matters and not be restricted by her own thinking and the views her Party has put forward. The Prime Minister has given leadership, it is a priority of the Government, and we will proceed as we said yesterday we would.
February 12, 1986


FISHERIES
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries. Late Friday afternoon last the Minister announced the termination of the Fishing Vessel Assistance Program under what he acknowledged was pressure from the U.S. International Trade Commission. Can the Minister tell us which of the other programs identified by that Commission as irritants does he intend to terminate to satisfy both the U.S. administration and the desires of Canada's free trade negotiator?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member will check the record I think he would find that he asked almost an identical question two days ago. In fact I did not in any way indicate that the decision to terminate the Fishing Vessel Assistance Program was directly attributable to the United States counterval initiative.
In fact the decision was taken subsequent to a thorough review of that program and in the context of this Government's desire to continue to create more new jobs in Newfoundland and Atlantic Canada, as has been our record in the past 16 months.


Brian Vincent Tobin: As we say at home, Mr. Speaker: "You would want the face of a robber's horse to make that statement". His own press release contains a reference to satisfying a U.S. irritant.


DEPARTMENTAL REORGANIZATION INQUIRY
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister confirm that tomorrow he plans to announce by way of a press release, rather than a ministerial statement in this Chamber, the reorganization of the Department of Fisheries, including additional staff and program cuts?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, if the accuracy of the Hon. Member's suggestion he has just made is as valid as the other assertions he made in the House, he will prove to be sorely disappointed.


FINANCE
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. He will be aware that during the Tax Probe '86 hearings the abuse of the limited partnership provision of the Income Tax Act is being identified as the best new method of tax avoidance.
Oral Questions
Is he aware that this abuse is taking place across the country and does he plan to end it either before or in his Budget?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I believe the record of this Government in closing areas of tax abuse is well known. This wide range of areas includes the original limitation of rulings, unlimited partnerships, SRTCs, carve-outs, income splitting which helps upper-income Canadians and the financing of yachts and motels. We have acted very quickly to deal with these problems as they have arisen.
We have very clearly set out our policy with respect to the question of minimum tax, and that minimum tax will be implemented shortly and will be effective for all of this year. We have acted promptly in all of these areas.
I am interested in the comments by the Hon. Member. If he wishes to elaborate on those, as he knows it is a very complex area and I will be glad to sit down with him.


EVALUATION OF TAX EXPENDITURE PROGRAMS
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, the limited partnership abuse is likely to cost the Government of Canada many hundreds of millions of dollars, like so many other provisions. Does the Minister of Finance not think it is time that a process be introduced so that every tax expenditure program is evaluated to ensure that the people of Canada are getting good value for their money?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: First, Mr. Speaker, the ministerial task force under the chairmanship of the Deputy Prime Minister has been doing that to a large extent during the course of the past 16 months. Furthermore, last summer we released the book that set out very clearly the cost of tax expenditures that are in place now. We are reviewing these on an ongoing basis. 1 have indicated to the Hon. Member on a number of occasions that 1 welcome the suggestions that he and his Party would like to make.


GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES
Mr. Don Ravis (Saskatoon East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. Will he explain to the House the implications of his recent announcement of a freeze on hiring and discretionary expenses in the federal Government?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I believe all Members are well aware that toward year-end there is always a bulge in federal spending. If we look back over the years, we see that in the last month of the year rather than the normal expenditure flow of $8 billion to $9 billion there is a bulge of an extra $5 billion or $6 billion.
It is in the spirit of good management of public funds that we have decided to impose the freeze to ensure that public

February 12, 1986
Oral Questions
funds are well spent to avoid as much as possible the recurrence of that bulge.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


TRANSPORT
André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Is the Minister aware of the fact that, after Bombardier, after CSF Foundries, and after Canadian Steel Wheel, another Quebec plant, Marine Industries, has just announced that, as a result of the Canadian Government's inertia with respect to new contracts in that field, it will have to close its railway car division and throw some 1,000 workers out on the street? What does the Minister intend to do about it?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Hon. Member has heard the statements made by the Right Hon. Prime Minister indicating the number of jobs that have been created in Canada, and indeed in Quebec and the Province of Montreal-


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The province?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The city of Montreal.


An Hon. Member:: You had it right the first time.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Indeed, Mr. Speaker, the Government is vitally concerned about jobs in the city of Montreal, particularly the East End of Montreal.


REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF VIA RAIL REQUIREMENTS
André Ouellet: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Those figures do not solve the problem of Sorel workers. How can the Minister explain the fact that, after 15 months under Conservative administration, VIA Rail still needs 50 locomotives and 200-odd new passenger cars and yet is still waiting for Government authorization to buy the new equipment it needs, and that the only 20 locomotives which have been ordered have yet to be delivered?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, locomotives have been ordered and other lcomotives are being tendered. A consortium has been established between the UTDC and Bombardier for the building of the rolling stock and we hope to be in a position to make an annoucement very soon with respect to the acquisition of the
rolling stock. That should be most helpful to the Hon. Member.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. It concerns reports that the Prime Minister has decided not to seek an invitation to address the United States Congress. Will he say whether that is the case and, if so, would he reconsider that decision, given the fact that many people in Canada were looking forward to the Prime Minister using the opportunity to address the United States Congress on important environmental issues such as acid rain?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my itinerary is still being planned. If 1 decline, it will only be for reasons of modesty.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: That will be the first time.


Ian Deans: In other words, you are going.


POLLUTION OF NIAGARA RIVER
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I encourage the Prime Minister not to do anything unusual by being modest. Will the Prime Minister include on the agenda for discussions with the President not just the question of acid rain but the other serious environmental problem of the pollution of the Niagara River? Would he put that on the table with the President?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I will be delighted to make sure that acid rain is on the agenda, as it has been since I began meeting with President Reagan, and that the other environmental issues are discussed as well. Furthermore, 1 will bring along to the President the affectionate regards of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill.


SOCIAL SECURITY
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, earlier this afternoon the Prime Minister referred to "the corrosive social policies of previous Liberal administrations". I believe those were his words. Those happen to be the same policies that the Prime Minister adopted when he
February 12, 1986

became Leader of his Party and used during the election under the heading of "sacred trust".
Has he finally revealed his true colours and is this the philosophy that will be revealed in next week's Budget?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the only time old age pensions were cut in the history of this country was when the Liberals introduced 6 and 5. That is the only time that the elderly were deprived of their due.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Right in front of us, wearing the red tie, is the father of the Canadian deficit. He took a surplus and transformed it into a deficit that now crushes Canadians. We are taking that burden off the backs of Canadians and creating new jobs all around.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: The spontaneous vocabulary of the Prime Minister earlier this afternoon revealed the true man and the true colours of his Party.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE INQUIRY
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, will the Prime Minister intervene to resolve the split between the Minister of National Defence, Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Minister of Employment and Immigration, and come down on the side of Canadians who are being cut off from unemployment insurance? Will he do that?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I will intervene as soon as the Right Hon. Member gives me the secret of resolving his problems with the Member from Shawinigan.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORTS
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions, with the exception of one, presented by Hon. Members on Tuesday, February 11, 1986, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.
Order, please. Members who wish to have a conversation in the back, please have it somewhere else.
The petition presented by the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Parry) does not meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.
Point of Order-Mr. Gray (Windsor West)


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. During the Question Period you told certain Members that their questions could not be allowed because they were the same as questions that had been asked previously in the same Question Period.
I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that there are many precedents during your speakership when successive questions on the same subject, and in just about the same, if not, identical words, have been allowed by you.
I will give you an example when an entire Question Period and every single question asked by the Official Opposition and the other opposition Party has been on the same subject, namely the deindexing of the old age pension by the Conservatives.
I want to say that if you do not revert to the practice that you yourself have allowed on many occasions since becoming Speaker, you will make it impossible for members of the Opposition to maintain a sustained inquiry into a subject of importance to them.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I might add, Mr. Speaker, the subjects in question are of importance, not only to Hon. Members but to the Canadian people.


Mr. Gormley:: Prove it.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that the approach you have been following in the past where you have allowed Members to decide for themselves what subjects they consider important is one that I say, with the utmost respect, you should follow. After all, you are not telling members of the Government that they cannot repeat over and over again the same answer, even when they do.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: You are not telling Government Ministers that, even when they give the same answer to a question that has nothing to do with the question.
A basic principle of the concept of the speakership is that the Chair must be impartial, and must be seen to be impartial.
If you do not revert to the practice you have adopted and followed in allowing questions throughout the Question Period on the same subject and in the same words you, yourself, Mr. Speaker, will inadvertently, I am sure, be doing a disservice to that essential principle.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, it is always very difficult to comment on events in the Question Period without appearing to be reflecting on the role of the Speaker. I recognize that. I do, however, want to indicate that

February 12, 1986
Point of Order-Mr. Gray (Windsor West)
I share certain of the concerns that were expressed. I am sure that they will be taken in the mood in which they are intended to be taken.
It is necessary, and we concur in the view expressed by the Speaker in the past, that questions should be shorter than they had been previously and preambles should be virtually nonexistent in the supplementary question.
We have tried, and I think it is fair to say also that the Official Opposition has tried, to live by that request of the Speaker.
It is, however, as was said by my hon. colleague, extremely difficult to develop and sustain a political attack if one cannot repeat, if not exactly, certainly in the substance, questions that are deemed by the Opposition Parties to be of importance.
I would ask simply that in exercising your discretion, which you must do always, that you bear in mind that the rules of the House are not intended to straighjacket the Members. Rather they are intended to permit a free flow of opinion and the opportunity for questioning with regard to the Government's performance. I ask that we do, in fact, attempt-not to go back exactly where we were before, I think that might be wrong-to exercise caution in any changes that we make during the Question Period.
I would have spoken to this matter during the debate a little later but, since it was raised now, I think it is probably important that we all be on the record at the same time.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I just want to add a few words with respect to the comments raised by the opposition House Leaders.
I know Your Honour is now receiving representations from all Members with respect to the whole question of the rules of Question Period. I think this is a worthwhile re-examination of this very important part of our parliamentary day.
The Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) has made a representation with respect to the whole question of repetitive questions. I am sure he would acknowledge that repetition for the sake of repetition or histrionic effect is not desirable.
We want to make sure that there is an understandable and consistent set of rules which everybody understands and which are fair to all Members of the House, both Opposition and Government Members. The point being, Sir, that the rules contained in Beauchesne are quite specific with respect to the parameters-


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: There are no rules in Beauchesne. They are views of previous Speakers. Stick to the facts.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: My colleague, the Opposition House Leader says there are no rules-


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Stick to the facts.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I had the courtesy of listening to what my colleague had to say, notwithstanding the fact that I did not agree with everything he said. I at least heard him out. I think that courtesy should be extended to all members of this House.
What we want to do, Mr. Speaker, is make sure that questions are germane to national issues and that there is an opportunity for as many Members as possible to participate in Question Period. There is great merit in you having a chance to review the representations you receive from Members, both from the Opposition and from the Government side. 1 think, Sir, if you see your way clear to addressing that issue, either before we rise for the mid-term recess or shortly thereafter, we will all benefit.


Mr. Speaker:: That is exactly what I plan to do. I had hoped to be able to do it this week, but I have received some other representations that I want to consider. I, therefore, plan to say something to the House on the first day back, on Monday, after the recess.
I take the point of the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray). It has been a difficulty for me from the beginning as to what one does when citations from Beauchesne are continually quoted by various Ministers. It became our practice in the last House not to apply the absolute hard and fast Beauchesne rule about not allowing a repetition of a question. That is true.
At some point, as I have tried to say in the past, and this is certainly the way I think, when the answer has reached the point where a Minister is saying: "I have answered that question three or four times and that is the answer I am going to give," that simply going on with the same question and the same answer makes it difficult for other Members who want to get their questions on.


An Hon. Member:: What other Members?


Mr. Speaker:: That is what I think. 1 will be glad to consider it again.
If the Hon. Member for Windsor West is asking me on behalf of his Party to consider the position that all members of the Opposition who are each entitled under our practices now to three questions should be able to put exactly the same question 25 times, if that is the argument he is making-


Harvie Andre: It is called badgering the witness.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think that is the argument he is trying to make to me. I am sure it is not. I think even he recognizes that somewhere in the middle is the desire to let Members do what they want to do which, as the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans), said, may be tactically to repeat a question, and at the same time to respect the right of other Members to get their questions on the same day. It seems to me that is the balance the Chair has to find.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a point by way of clarification. I say with the utmost respect that if a Member asks the same question as another Member, he is not preventing anyone from asking a question. Because of the informal principles under which we operate here, the distribution of questions would be exactly the same.
February 12, 1986

All that is happening is that he asks a question which he thinks is important for himself and for the people of Canada. I make this comment with the utmost respect, and I say further that what is in Beauchesne under the so-called citations is simply the views of previous Speakers; they are not binding rulings.


Mr. Speaker:: For my clarification, is the Hon. Member for Windsor West saying that I should rule that if every single member of the Opposition simply wants to get up on the same day and ask exactly the same question, word for word, it should be allowed? Is that the representation the Hon. Member is making?


John V. Nunziata: Of course not.


Mr. Speaker:: 1 need to know precisely what representation I am to consider.


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Speaker, may I just intervene for a moment? Why should you rule on our questions? That is what you just asked.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Because the Chair is obligated under the rule to decide whether questions are admissible; that is its obligation.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, why should you rule as to whether opposition MP "A" or "B" has a repetitive question? It is up to him to decide whether or not he wants to put the question and the way he puts the question, and you will have to receive the question as acceptable within the rules of the House. I do not think it is up to you to decide whether or not it is repetitive, any more than you editorialize the answers.


Mr. Speaker:: My practice, if the a Minister makes an answer which is simply a repetition of a previous answer, is to cut him off sooner and sooner. That is what I practice.
May I simply say to the Hon. Member that he has to cope with the fact that we have rules and traditions. One of the rules, which the Hon. Member for Windsor West says does not exist, is a codified version which says that to repeat a question is out of order. We have not applied it strickly, but I therefore repeat-and maybe the Hon. Member wants to discuss it in private, and I need to know the answer-that if Opposition Members used the Question Period to put the same question and to get the same answer every single time, is the Hon. Member saying that that would be a reasonable use of Questions Period in the view of the Official Opposition?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I want to say that is a decision to be made by the individual Member, and if there is any reaction to that, it should be from his or her electorate and the Canadian people.
Petitions



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a petition on behalf of a number of people who are outraged at the Government's decision to curtail the funding for Katimavik. They make the case that it in fact has helped over 20,000 young Canadians develop their social skills, as well as employment options. They call upon the Government to reinstate, with full funding, the Katimavik program for the young people of Canada.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I wish to present, on behalf of 500 young people living in Ottawa, a petition in opposition to the Government's decision to eliminate Katimavik. In the petition they suggest that Katimavik is a unique program which will not be duplicated. It is not simply a job-creation program, it is a youth life experience program, and it cannot be duplicated, no matter how much money the Government might want to spend.


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, today again, l would like to present to the House 11 petitions bearing a total of 148 names-these bring the total from my riding to 3,545 voters-expressing to the Government their disapproval of the free-trade policy and their concern about the consequences of such a policy on farmers in the riding of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell. The petitioners ask the House and the Government of Canada not to sacrifice agricultural programs during negotiations with the United States of America.


Mr. Bob Horner (Mississauga North):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to present a petition on behalf of approximately 900 residents of Mississauga North, specifically from Hargood Place, Streetsville and East Ridge Avenue in Meadowvale. They call upon Canada Post to offer better service. They are extremely dissatisfied with the service offered by Canada Post Corporation.


Mr. Jack Scowen (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition from concerned residents of Carrot River, Saskatchewan, who humbly pray that the Government makes changes to the Young Offenders Act.
10732

February 12, 1986
Introduction of Bills POSTAL SERVICE


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by 600 citizens of Winnipeg and of other parts of Manitoba. They point out that when Canada Post became a Crown corporation, its mandate was to maintain and improve existing service, to improve labour relations and to eliminate the deficit. Therefore they say: "We, the citizens of Canada, protest service cut-backs and demand that service receive first priority in conformity with the mandate".


Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, it is again my duty, today, to table another petition from people in the riding of Westmorland-Kent, concerned about the continuing uncertainty surrounding the future of the CN shops in Moncton.
The petitioners would like to receive the assurance that jobs will be protected. More that 1,000 jobs are at stake and the unemployment situation in New Brunswick is deteriorating every day. We would simply like to have the assurance that these jobs will be protected.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, 1 have the honour to present a couple of petitions from my riding and from other neighbourhoods in Winnipeg. These petitioners call upon the Government to reinstate the full indexation of family allowances. 1 would like the Government to take note of the fact that these petitions are still coming in, even though it has passed its legislation.


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, the people of Spadina also do not accept the Government's decision. They still feel that the deindexing of the family allowances is unfair to low-income people and are petitioning the Government, as so many hundreds of thousands have, to reinstate full indexation of the universal family allowance and to rescind the unfair tax increases.



CANADA POST CORPORATION ACT


Mr. Murray Dorin (Edmonton West) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-263, an Act to amend the Canada Post Corporation Act (exclusive privilege).


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Murray Dorin: Mr. Speaker, this Bill would allow the private sector to compete with Canada Post in offering mail service. After hearing two petitions on this subject today, 1 suspect there might be support for it in the House. This provision was contemplated in the recent report of the Marchment committee on Canada Post as a possibility after 1990, if the problems in that operation are not resolved by then.


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


Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of Communications) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-95, an Act respecting the Archives of Canada and records of government institutions of Canada and to amend the Copyright Act.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When will the Bill be read for the second time? At the next sitting of the House?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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. 507 will be answered today.


Mr. Althouse: Did a fire on June 1 1, 1985 destroy the Department of Agriculture, Kentville, Nova Scotia's poultry barn and is the Government considering rebuilding the barn and, if so (a) what is the estimated cost of rebuilding the barn (b) what size will it be (c) who will build it (d) on what date will it be completed?


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Yes, Agriculture Canada is considering whether or not to replace the facility, (a) The cost is estimated at $400,000. (6), (c) and (d) Unknown at this time.
February 12, 1986


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: As stated by the Parliamentary Secretary, the question has been answered. Shall the remaining questions he allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, February 11, 1986, 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.
Ian Deans: Thank you very much, Mr. speaker. It was my understanding that in the rotation we were next. If I am out of order, of course, I certainly wouldn't want to interfere with my colleague.


Carlo Rossi: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Bourassa (Mr. Rossi), on a point of order.
Standing Orders


Carlo Rossi: I do not wish to contravene your decision, Mr. Speaker, but when this motion was debated, an NDP Member had spoken. The Hon. Member for Argenteuil-Papineau (Mrs. Bourgault) was recognized and it rested with the designated Liberal Member, the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouel-let) to rise.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: As the Hon. Member no doubt knows, the order of the speeches made in the House is entirely left to the discretion of the Speaker and the information given to me is not consistent with the information just provided by the Hon. Member for Bourassa. The member who spoke before the Hon. Member for Argenteuil-Papineau (Mrs. Bourgault) was the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand).
I will therefore recognize the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans).


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, let me just say this. I understand that my colleague has other pressing business that he has to undertake immediately and I would be willing to have him speak ahead of me if that would facilitate the opportunity for the Member who was a very important part of the committee to get his views on the record.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by thanking my hon. friend from Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) for letting me speak to the Government's motion at this time. I will be as brief as possible so that he can make his own vital contribution to this debate.
First of all, Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath):
The purpose of reform of the House of Commons in 1985 is to restore to private members an effective legislative function, to give them a meaningful role in the formation of public policy and, in so doing, to restore the House of Commons to its rightful place in the Canadian political process.
I think that in this short sentence, the Chairman of the Special Committee on Reform of the House of Commons has described very succinctly the objectives that he and all other members of this Committee had in mind when they set themselves the task of proposing a major set of parliamentary reforms to their colleagues in the House.
I may say I am delighted with the positive response the McGrath Report has received from the Government. Clearly, many of the objectives pursued by the Committee have been approved by the Government, and the motion before the House today reflects, as far as I can see, a very positive response on the part of the Government. I think that one of the goals we were pursuing in committee was to provide Members on both sides of the House with greater freedom to act. Freedom not only when it is a matter of examining legislation initiated by Ministers but also when we are considering the Estimates submitted to Parliament each year.

February 12, 1986
Standing Orders
The McGrath Report contains a complete chapter on what we refer to as the confidence convention, and the report makes it quite clear that confidence votes should not be a daily occurrence, not even every other day or every week, since they would restrict the freedom of parliamentarians, both on the Government side and in the Opposition. In this connection, I would like to quote our hon. friend, the Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen), who said:
Experience has been that the longer a Government is in office the more every vote is maybe not a vote of confidence but a vote of reputation, which is close to confidence, and therefore you have to have uniformity.
The members of the McGrath Committee agreed that obviously, if the various party whips were to take action whenever we were considering a Bill or whenever a motion was tabled in the House, the freedom of both Government Members and Opposition Members would be curtailed. We have therefore expressed the hope, and of course it cannot be more than that because we cannot enshrine such thoughts in a regulatory text, but nevertheless we have expressed the hope that on occasion, and we went so far as to say it would be desirable, Opposition Members would be able to vote for a Government motion, and conversely, Government Members would be able to vote against a Bill introduced by the Government, and would be able to do so without being disciplined by their respective parties or being called renegades or disruptive elements within the party by their parliamentary colleagues. And so, agreeing as I do with this objective of the Special Committee on Reform of the House of Commons, I want to tell you right now, Mr. Speaker, that I will vote in favour of this Government motion. I will do so because I believe that the Government recommendations as a whole are important and tantamount to a giant step towards improving our parliamentary procedure.
Very briefly, I would point out a number of progressive steps we will be taking by endorsing the motion now under consideration. First, as some of my colleagues have indicated, the standing committees of the House of Commons will have more powers. In our opinion, Members do most of their work in committees.
We all know that daily television broadcasting covers proceedings during the oral questions period, but that does not properly reflect all the work done in parliamentary committees by Government and Opposition Members alike, day after day and week after week.
These extended powers given to the standing committees of the House will go a long way towards enhancing and justifying the political existence of a good many of us.
Second, I think that the McGrath committee wanted to make sure that some of the activities of Hon. Members in the House would be meaningful rather than simply routine proceedings.
That is why we welcome the fact that the Government has accepted three major recommendations from the McGrath
report which will help Hon. Members to make more useful contributions in the future.
I am referring first of all to the written questions which Hon. Members submit periodically. Too often in the past have Hon. Members examined rather thoroughly a given issue to submit a series of written questions which have remained unanswered for weeks, months, or even years, during this Parliament as well as previous ones.
From now on, the Government will reply within 45 days to allowable written questions submitted by Hon. Members. Of course, the Government has extended by 15 days the 30-day period which we had suggested, but I do not think it is enough of a drawback for us to oppose the Government's response. I think that 45 days is a reasonably short delay, and we should be pleased with this positive response concerning written questions.
Also, the Government from now on will have to reply to petitions. Everyday, following the Oral Question Period, we see Hon. Members rising in the House to table a petition from their constituents. Until now, these petitions ended up on shelves and were never heard from again; nobody payed any attention to them anymore.
From now on, the Government will have to reply within a reasonable delay to those who have submitted petitions.
Finally, thanks to a much more flexible procedure, it will be possible for Private Member Bills to be adopted. Again, this is a major improvement resulting from the McGrath Report. 1 want to congratulate my colleague the Hon. Member for Peace River (Mr. Cooper) who has done a tremendous job on this issue and who has managed to convince us all of the need to correct a flaw in our Standing Orders which had seen a great number of hon. Members submit bills over the years without ever seeing their work rewarded by Parliament's approval.
I am not saying that all Private Members' Bill will be adopted; what I am saying is that, thanks of this more flexible procedure, it will probably be possible for a couple of Private Members' Bills to be adopted by the House every session, instead of once every five or ten years as before. I suggest that this is already a major improvement and an incentive for several of us to introduce bills which have a least a theoretical chance of being adopted by our colleagues.
I should like to mention also that 1 am fully satisfied with the decision of the Government and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to submit to Parliamentary review all appointments made by the Governor in Council.
I think that the McGrath Report made it clear that we would have liked Members of Parliament not only to be able to review some of these appointments made by order in council, but also to have a right of veto in certain cases.
February 12, 1986

I recognize, Mr. Speaker, that this has given rise to different legal interpretations. Some legal experts have maintained that, constitutionally, the Cabinet could not abandon its responsibilities and allow Members of Parliament to veto is appointments by order in council. However, what we should keep in mind is that, even if there is no veto, we, parliamentarians, shall still be able to examine and review these Cabinet appointments, and 1 think that this represents a substantial improvement in our procedure of political appointments. 1 must say that the Prime Minister is innovating in this field and I am quite pleased with this decision because it is obvious that he has all the powers in our political system. He has full authority and could have refused to share it with parliamentarians. I think that this represents a giant step towards a healthier political administration, and I therefore hope that political appointments will also be more relevant in the future.
Finally, I would like to say, because I do not want to tax the patience of the House, that one of my most difficult decisions as a Member of Parliament and of this committee was to examine and dispose once and for all, at least I hope so, of the famous question of the bells. If we accept the procedure proposed in this Government motion, we shall be making a radical change to a parliamentary procedure which has existed for a very long time. I have no need to remind the House about the time we lose when there are recorded votes in this House because of the procedure under which the bells ring to call in the Members and then a Clerk of the Table rises to recognize and name each Member in his turn. After a study sponsored by the McGrath Special Committee, we realized that we were losing many hours each session simply by maintaining an old voting procedure. I therefore trust that the Government will follow up this recommendation of the McGrath Report as soon as possible to install an electronic voting system which will be much more modern, effective and sophisticated than the present one.
But beyond that matter of the mechanical aspect of voting, I must say there is that unfortunate practice that filtered in some time ago which is to use the division bells to oppose the Government, to prevent the House from debating and to delay a vote that normally should be held within a reasonable period. I must remind the House that during the previous Parliament, Members of the Committee on Parliamentary Reform who considered the issue and made a series of recommendations, the so-called Lefebvre Report, chose not to deal with that matter of the bells. Members of the McGrath Committee are to be commended in my view for dealing with such a basic issue. And I must add that, being in the Opposition, it is very hard for me to let go a tool that occasionally could be very useful to bring the Government to a halt. I am aware that this Government, when they were the Official Opposition, knowingly used the bells on occasion. But this being said, it is my personal view that such an abuse of the bells is unworthy of our parliamentary system and must not be repeated in the
Standing Orders
future. This is why I unanimously voted with my colleagues on the McGrath Report for a ban on such an abuse of the bell system. My hon. friends opposite have no cause for rejoicing, for certainly the Opposition will have the ingenuity needed to find other ways to oppose Government measures as occasion arises, other methods to show the Government it can be wrong in some respects. But I do not feel it is normal and acceptable that ringing the bells should become a parliamentary practice because as you know, Mr. Speaker, in all our Commonwealth countries that incident of the bells has been very unfavourably viewed. People were wondering what was going on in Canada, what was happening to our parliamentary system. It is therefore my hope that once the motion is accepted and we have a new way for voting, that practice of misusing the bells will disappear from our political life, thereby improving the dignity and efficiency of Parliament.
I will conclude by saying I share the view of my colleague, the Opposition House Leader, that certain recommendations in the McGrath Report that have not been accepted should be seriously considered by the Government. Certainly this motion can always be improved. Of course, it will be in force for ten months only. This will enable us to see to what extent our recommendations are worthwhile and can work.
But there is one I would like to bring to the attention of this Parliament. In the McGrath Report, we proposed that all Members of this House, and especially Opposition Members, be allowed to submit ten written questions the day before consideration of the Main Estimates, so that members of the various Standing Committees of the House responsible for scrutinizing the Estimates for each department will be in a better position to do their work. This is not a dilatory tactic to annoy the Government or public officials, but basically a way of giving backbenchers a useful mechanism for enhancing their task of reviewing the Estimates. In fact, this recommendation comes to us from France, from the French National Assembly, where they have this mechanism by which all members of the National Assembly can carry out a truly thorough review of the budget estimates for each of the French ministries.
We approved this proposal because we believe it is essential if we are to enhance the role of the individual member. Now I would like to say to the Government that when it allows Members to submit no more than four written questions to the Government, and rejects the 30-day period in favour of an extension to 45 days, while completely ignoring our recommendation for ten written questions on the Estimates, I think it is, to a certain extent, upsetting the balance between the new powers conferred Government backbenchers and Opposition Members. And I believe it would be useful to review this point and provide that when the Estimates are tabled, all Members of this House have a chance to submit a number of written questions to which officials would be asked to reply within a reasonable time frame.

February 12, 1986
Standing Orders
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I believe that this Government has shown its good faith in tabling this document. Above all, it has shown the Chairman of the Committee, the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) that it was in earnest when it gave him this mandate, and I believe the Government deserves our praise for having submitted these proposals, and I hope that all Members of this House will benefit when the new Standing Orders become effective and that this institution will be able to operate in a way that is more in keeping with today's demands, and become a more effective and more satisfying endeavour for all Canadian parliamentarians.


Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, the genius of our type of parliamentary democracy which has been nurtured by 1,000 years of tradition is its ability to adapt to changing times. That, Sir, is what we are addressing today in the motion which is before the House. Today, we are taking a giant step in parliamentary reform. In my view, it is the beginning of the most ambitious and comprehensive attempt which has ever been made to reform this House in its more than 100 years of history. More importantly, what we are attempting to do in the package which is before the House is to enhance the role of the Private Member.
I have already made reference to the role of my six colleagues who worked with me long and hard on the Special Committee on Reform of the House of Commons. It would be remiss of me, and I am sure my colleagues who sit with me on this side of the House will understand, if I did not pay particular tribute to the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet). He joined the committee representing the Official Opposition as its first Vice-Chairman. He brought to our deliberations more than 10 years' experience as a senior Minister of the Crown. He will understand if I say to him that among other things he was known as a very partisan Minister of the Crown. I know from personal experience because I had the honour to be his critic for a number of years. However, when he came to the committee he was able to rise to the occasion. He was able to rise above the petty partisan political considerations of the day and look at the greater challenge which was before us in the mandate which we had from the House. His leadership, together with his colleague and my friend, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaik-ie), made it possible for us as a special committee of this House in more than 50 meetings to arrive at all of our conclusions without division. We operated by consensus. Of course, that does not always mean unanimity. I can say without any fear of being contradicted that most of what is in that report does, in fact, represent unanimity.
The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill brought to the committee the perspective and the tradition of reform which has characterized the New Democratic Party and the CCF Party which preceded it. He, Sir, brought an element of dedication to our committee which we truly appreciate, an element of leadership which helped us arrive at our conclusions.
I do not want to be critical of the speech made by the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray). I understand where he is coming from. I understand his concerns. I suspect that if I were the House Leader for the Official Opposition I would probably have made the same speech. I want to quote to him from a book written by the Hon. John B. Stewart, who was for many years a distinguished Liberal Member of Parliament and who now enjoys the distinction of being a member of the other place. He wrote what I consider to be one of the definitive works on the House of Commons. He said, and I commend these words to the Hon. Member for Windsor West:
Over the years Canadian parliamentarians were loath to make an examination of their forms and procedures. They hid indifference, perhaps even laziness, behind a screen of adoration for a British model long after the British themselves, out of concern for the genius of the system, had reformed the model radically.
He then goes on to quote Francis Bacon. He said, and I quote:
Yet there still may be a lesson for us in Francis Bacon's admonition against obstinate traditionalism: "He that will not apply new remedies must expect new evils, for Time is the greatest Innovator."
This is not the last word. This is not the beginning of some kind of a new system of parliamentary reform which is going to be carved in stone. These are merely the best efforts of seven Hon. Members of this House who applied themselves to the challenge which was presented to them by this House.
To the credit of the Government, in accepting that challenge and in giving us the broad mandate in the first instance, it has stuck closely to the recommendations of the committee. Indeed, I know the Hon. Member for Windsor West would be the first to agree with that. If we examine the initial response of the Government-and the Government has its responsibilities-and examine the response now before the House, we will find the Government has come a long way. It makes me very proud to stand in my place today and make reference to that fact. We had a special debate in this House on December 4. The House agreed to set aside its time and give special additional hours for that special debate. What we have in front of us today is a result of a Government which listened to Hon. Members who participated in that special debate.
Indeed, most, if not all of these suggestions which were made during the course of that special debate, have been incorporated in the proposed Standing Orders which are now before the House. But it is not the last word. The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans), the distinguished House Leader for the New Democratic Party, would be the first to admit that only by trial will we be able to determine how effective these reforms will be. They have to be tried by all of us, including yourself, Mr. Speaker, including the distinguished officers of the Table, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), Members of the Government, the front bench Members of the Opposition and all of us private Members of the House. It is-and I do not apologize if I sound partisan- to the credit of the Prime Minister and of the Government that the challenge was accepted and these changes were brought in.
February 12, 1986

We have come a long way in the last seven months. It was just seven months ago that we brought in, as a special committee, our final report. We have moved this House further by way of reform than it has ever been moved in its entire history. We are now operating under provisional rules pursuant to the recommendations of the first report. We are about to embark upon a new set of provisional procedural reforms in the new Standing Orders which will incorporate the recommendations of the second and third reports.
We are today taking a giant step. I suppose it is not too melodramatic to say that we are charting a course into unknown waters. What we are trying to establish here is not something which is going to blindly follow the traditions of Westminster or meekly try to imitate the traditions of Washington and the Congressional system. What we are trying to put in place is something, in my view, which is, or will be, uniquely Canadian.
One of the things we talk about in the report is the need for attitudinal change. We cannot regulate attitudes and we cannot legislate attitudes. Attitudes must be changed by the individual. For these reforms to be effective, for these reforms to give us the kind of Parliament we all want, there has to be major attitudinal changes undertaken by Hon. Members of the House. If this House is to assume its rightful role in the life of this country, then I believe that we as Hon. Members of the House have to conduct ourselves with due regard for where we are and why we are here. I say that as one who, during my time in opposition, was perhaps a great offender of decorum. I was an aggressive Member of the Opposition. I would like to feel I was a good Member of the Opposition but I will be the first to admit that I was an aggressive Member of the Opposition. I understand the role of the opposition. When I say that we have to have attitudinal changes, due regard for where we are and why we are here and due regard for the decorum of this place, I do not mean that we all have to be a bunch of powderpuffs. There has to be aggressive debate and confrontation during Question Period but we have to put real questions and we have to have real answer.
One thing we are attempting to do here is take the emphasis off the Question Period, and perhaps that in itself will constitute a reform of our Question Period. It is now the be-all and end-all of the Parliamentary day. The Prime Minister knows, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) knows, and most of us in this House know there is much more to this place than the 45 minutes when the media join us for Question Period.
What I like about these reforms is that it will put the emphasis where it belongs on the hard work which is done in committees of this House. In attempting to reform the committees of this House, the Government, to its credit, has seen the need to make the committees independent of the Government, and not only independent but to be seen to be independent of the Government.
What we have said in our recommendations which the Government has accepted and the House is about to endorse, is to let the media decide if and when it wants to televise or broadcast the proceedings, or whatever part of the proceedings
Standing Orders
of a committee it wants to tape in its own editorial wisdom. I believe that fact will go a long way towards changing the emphasis which now is placed-in my opinion, to the detriment of Parliament-on the 45 minutes when we meet here for Question Period.
I do repeat, however, that we do have to have due regard for the decorum of this place. Our decorum, how we conduct ourselves, cannot be changed by the Standing Orders, nor by fiat. That can only be changed by the collective will of this House. It is that collective will which these reforms call upon. These reforms are begging to be addressed in terms of reforming ourselves.
What we have before us are the procedural reforms. They represent the bulk of the recommendations of the second and third reports. They do not represent the entire report. Reference has already been made by the Hon. Member for Win-nipeg-Birds Hill to the non-procedural reforms, and there are 29 of those. Some of them are important and some are not so important, but as a package they are all important in terms of how we attempt to improve the image of this place, for example, in electronic voting.
I happen to believe that electronic voting will be a major reform. Not only will it make us more efficient in our use of time, but also in how we approach a vote. It will help to ease the heavy yoke which has tended to strangle this House over the years through the interpretation by the whips of the confidence convention. Not only do I think it has to be changed, most importantly the Prime Minister of this country thinks it has to be changed and he is committed to making the change. He, Sir, has wavered not one iota in that commitment. When he came to this place he was struck by the need to make changes. It is not mere coincidence that the first priority in the Speech from the Throne opening this Parliament was the striking of the special task force to reform this place and enhance the role of the Private Member. I believe electronic voting will go a long way towards doing just that.
There are other reforms, of course. I am sure most Members would be surprised if I were to tell them that during the last Parliament we spent more than two full sitting days walking behind the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod between this place and the Senate. This is an archaic ceremony which was done away with in Westminster almost 20 years ago. We are the only major Parliament in the Commonwealth to still use that procedure. We are not saying do away with Royal Assent because that would fundamentally change our Constitution and our system. We are saying retain it for special occasions like changes in the Constitution. However, when a Bill requires Royal Assent, let us send a messager to Government House and let the Governor General sign it so we can get on with the business of the nation.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: That is better than taking up not only our time but the time of Their Lordships who sit on the Supreme

February 12, 1986
Standing Orders
Court of Canada. I noticed, Mr. Speaker, that you were rather enthusiastic in your applause for that particular reform. This does not require any great change because there is already a movement in the Senate in this regard. All it requires is a meeting of these two Houses to come up with a procedure which will bring us into the 20th century. That is really all we are talking about.
I could go on about the role of the new Board of Internal Economy. We are taking control of our own affairs, presided over by your distinguished self. We now have a Board which administers the Budget of this House comprised primarily of Private Members. Out of nine Members there are only two Ministers, as opposed to the previous Board which was comprised of four Ministers and the Speaker.
I mention that Board not only because of the importance of taking control of our own affairs in this place, but also because of the importance of the Board as a means to implement the non-procedural reforms of this House. If I have one concern to state to the Government House Leader it is about the inability of the House, under the motion before it today, to address the non-procedural recommendations of these two reports. So we rely on the good word of the House Leader who stood in his place on Friday and said he would unequivocally proceed, through the Board, with the implementation of the nonprocedural reforms. The ball is now in the court of the Board of Internal Economy. I would like to say to that Board that I hope it will be able to report before we adjourn for the summer recess to update this House on where we stand on this matter. These non-procedural reforms are important not only symbolically but because they are true reforms.
I will close by paraphrasing an editorial which appeared in The Globe and Mail last June when we brought in our final report. It said in part that this report was the coming of age of Canada as a distinctive parliamentary democracy. It put parliamentary reform right up there with the patriation of the Constitution and the drawing up of the Charter of Rights; and, Sir, I may add, with the Prime Minister's dedication to national reconciliation and national renewal. I believe this Prime Minister will be remembered for doing just that. He will be remembered for bringing in parliamentary reform. I want to say to him and Members of this House how grateful I am for the honour bestowed upon us, and I suspect I speak for my colleagues, when he gave us this challenge and asked us to take on this responsibility. I also want to thank him for the demonstration of confidence as exemplified by the motion which is before the House today. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that it is about time this House took its rightful place in the public affairs of this country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Questions or comments.


Mr. Prud'homme:: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I may not have a chance to participate in the debate because, as you know, there is a great Summit de la francophonie and some of us
have to go for a briefing session at 4.30. However, I would like to make a comment or two and ask my hon. friend a question.
I am in full agreement on the question of electronic voting. However, I do not think we should remove the "glamorous" part of the voting procedure. Does the Hon. Member think we should keep the voting procedure for certain great occasions? For example, the Speech from the Throne, the Budget Speech, and those which are well known to be votes of non-confidence, or, a marriage of the three? He has said that while we should dispense with Royal Assent as we do it now, we should keep it for certain cases. I am in the strange position of being extremely conservative in regards to changes in our institution. I have always said that one of the best systems in the world is the British parliamentary system. I have stood by that for the last 22 years. I say it in French and English and I say it in Quebec or anywhere else. It is a great system. Therefore, when you move from that system to another system you have to be careful not to have a part of both systems, that is the congressional system and the British parliamentary system.
The Hon. Member talked about the Board of Internal Economy. This is an idea that I would like to float around. As you know, I have the honour to chair the Standing Committee on Management and Members' Services. This position, by tradition, is taken by an opposition Member.
I came to the conclusion that if this Board of Internal Economy is going to have that kind of power, perhaps we should look into the possibility-not for me but for my successor and I am ready to step down if this was a problem-of having the chairman of that committee sitting on the Board of Internal Economy. If the debate does not terminate today I would like to have an opportunity to say why I feel that way.
My third point is this. Having read attentively, as I do from time to time because that is the way I learn English, both versions of these changes, I found something which is troubling. First, it troubles me to give to the Speaker, whoever it is, so much power to expel a Member. However, I would like to know, if I was to be unruly some day, if the Speaker is going to expel me according to the French version or according to the English version? In the event of a Member being named on a subsequent occasion in the same session, then Mr. Speaker, or perhaps Madam Speaker some day, will suspend the Member for a period of not more than five sitting days. In French it says we can only expel for five days the second time.
Because the French version says: "Le depute qui est designe par son nom une deuxieme fois au cours de la me me session est suspendu du service de la Chambre durant au plus cinq jours de seance."
I therefore wonder what will happen if a Member to be expelled is a francophone and the debate is in French. 1 am afraid that Mr. Speaker will have to make a very important ruling, and also a very unfortunate one, according to the version chosen-
February 12, 1986



We will have to revise the two texts so we will know what the real intention is. What did the Hon. Member intend by saying that a Member should be expelled for five days the second time?


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, dealing with the last part of my hon. friend's question, whether it is in French or English I know that the subject of naming will always be academic with him, because I am sure he is too good a parliamentarian to be named.
This is one of the changes made by the Government. We do not consider it to be a major change and frankly I would have preferred to see disciplinary action beyond one day's banishment from the House to be handled by the House itself.
However, I have no problem with this change. I know it is something that the Standing Committee will want to consider because it is charged with the annual responsibility of reviewing these rules under previous recommendations.


George Albert Proud: It is different in French and English. What exactly is your intention? It does not say the same in French.


James Aloysius McGrath: I am not in a position to address that because I am not familiar with the French text. However, I know that the Hon. Member's question has been taken note of and I am sure the learned members at the Table will have an answer for him.
1 want to refer to his question regarding electronic voting. I believe there are occasions when Members of the House should stand up and be counted. For example, when there are changes to the Constitution, or great debates such as the restoration of the death penalty in this country, I believe Members should be prepared to stand up and be counted. We should reserve what the Americans call "roll call votes" for special occasions.
However, by and large, when dealing with business of the House I believe we can deal with it much more expeditiously if we have a system of electronic voting similar to what they have in the House of Representatives. If Hon. Members want to see how the House of Representatives conducts itself and how an electronic vote is taken, I suggest to Hon. Members that in upcoming weeks they can see the House of Representatives on the C-SPAN network which is now part of the OASIS system. I believe that this week, Question Period is also to be carried on that network.
Certainly I believe that there are occasions for roll call voting. I see the distinguished Clerk of the Table, one of two who is charged with calling the names in this place, looking at me with great scepticism because it means he will always have to remain in training.


Mr. Berger:: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member referred to the goal of attempting to remove the emphasis from Question Period by allowing greater emphasis on committees. Specifically he referred to television and said to let the media decide when to televise.
Standing Orders
It is my understanding that this question has not been dealt with up to now or referred to the Board of Internal Economy. What is the status of that issue at this time, in his view?


James Aloysius McGrath: If the Hon. Member will look to the Government's response to the second and third reports, which was brought in on October 9, he will see that the Government accepts in principle the recommendation that the House of Commons televise its proceedings, and it refers the matter to the Board of Internal Economy. It says that the Government is in favour of the recommendation in principle and will undertake consultations with the Opposition Parties to seek agreement in implementation. I hope that satisfies the question.


Mr. Speaker:: Resuming debate.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I first want to indicate a degree of trepidation in following the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) in this debate, inasmuch as it was very much a result of his guidance as chairman of the committee that we are at this point in the transition in the rules and procedures of the House of Commons. As I have said before in discussing reform, I believe the way the committee operated is an ideal example of how the House of Commons could operate under normal circumstances.
The committee had two purposes. First, it attempted to seek consensus, and I believe that is a very important part of parliamentary life. A politician is not really worth too much unless he or she develops the capacity to recognize in his or her colleagues an ability to formulate views and express them with conviction, regardless of which side of the House that colleague sits. I do not know how long I will be in the House, but I hope that during my time here it will begin to reflect the way the committee itself operated.
The committee also operated with a sense of respect for each other. It did in fact seek the position of each member on the committee and carefully sought a view that would be sustained by each, though it may not have been their first choice. In doing that it set an example, not only for the House of Commons but for other committees of the House.
This achievement was largely a result of the leadership of the Hon. Member for St. John's East. I recognize that it was shared by the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) and the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie). The recommendations of the committee reflect that very conscious view of consensus and are, in large part, the result of a group of individuals who came to know and respect each other's views, even though they may not have always agreed.
Unless the House of Commons is able to adapt itself to that kind of environment, these changes in the rules will become an impediment rather than a help. While many of these rule changes are not radically different from the rules we have in place, they are intended to operate within an atmosphere of respect during tough partisan debate. I must say that such an atmosphere of respect has been lacking from time to time within the House of Commons. As I travel across the country

February 12, 1986
Standing Orders
it distresses me to hear people make disparaging remarks about what they see in the House of Commons.
I hope Hon. Members will remember why they are here and who sent them. The people who send us here have the right to expect that while we engage in tough partisan debate over issues of significance and importance to the future of this country, we will not do so in a personal or abusive way. Such an atmosphere distresses me, and I suggest to the Hon. Member for St. John's East who chaired the committee-and he nods in agreement-that no change to the rules will change the attitude. It is indeed an attitudinal change that is needed here as much as a rule change. Such a change in attitude will result in these rules enhancing the opportunity for back-benchers, committees and all Hon. Members to have proper exchanges of opinion while maintaining self-respect. I think that is of vital importance within this House.
There are certain things within the rules that I, frankly, have no idea how they will work. I have looked at them. I concede that if everyone works and puts his or her best efforts forward the rules will not impede the opportunity for the kind of political exchanges that are necessary. There are certain things that I hesitate to endorse fully because I am a little reluctant about them, inasmuch as I cannot see into the future and anticipate how they will be interpreted. That concerns me.
I am convinced that ours is not to try to anticipate every single impediment, every single nuance, every single interpretation or to cross each "t" and dot each "i". We cannot do it.
We have to have some confidence in our ability collectively to be able to recognize when something is not working well, and to make the commitment now that when it can be shown something is not working in a fair and equitable way that we will change it right there and then, and not leave it in place as an irritant to create unnecessary confrontation both here and in committees.
My own endorsement of the changes is predicated on our understanding, and clear understanding, that if it becomes necessary to alter the rules as they are being used or interpreted because they do not conform to what would be fair and equitable in the circumstances, then we will set about to change them immediately and not wait until the end of the trail period, suffering all of the aggravations that naturally grow up within politicians as they attempt to go about doing their business, mcuh of it diverse and spread out. I start from there and say with that caveat it is of importance for us to give this a fair trial.
There have been comments made about the new powers given to the Speaker. There are very few new powers being given to the Speaker in actual fact. The Speaker has always had absolute power within the running of the House of Commons. The Speaker must, out of necessity, have the right to exercise good judgment on all occasions. The Speaker must, out of necessity, have the final say in any dispute that arises within the House over a question of the interpretation of the rules. Without that kind of confidence and without that kind
of authority, then no speaker, regardless of his or her ability, would be able to operate.
I say quite bluntly, and I say it to the Speaker now and in private frequently, that we are not always going to agree on every interpretation of everything that happens. Of course we are not. We are human and there will be differences of opinion, and they will arise. I will never, I say it and I hope other Members will recognize it for themselves, countenance any abuse heaped upon the Speaker as a result of the Speaker exercising his or her proper authority.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Deans: That kind of confidence requires in return great care in the exercise of that authority. As well it requires an understanding of the mood of the House and its continually changing mood; an understanding that the rules are written now, but the interpretation of the rules has to take into account precedent, to some extent. Interpretation has to take into account they way in which we have normally done things, though in fact the rules themselves may indicate some drastic change would be permissible to make sure that if change is going to take place, it takes place over time and with care, and that the Members are encouraged to be part of the change rather than feeling that they are somehow being unfairly inhibited by the change.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the Members, read the rules, for heaven's sake, read the rules. They are a little difficult, I admit. The wording is not always easy to understand. The cross-referencing may take time, but there is no point in feeling aggrieved, aggravated, or being red-faced, as I have from time to time, only to discover that you were wrong, that the rules, in fact, said quite clearly that you could not do what you said you wanted to do and what you claimed you had the right to do.
I say to other Members, as I have said to myself over the time I have had this particular role to play, that there are two times you rise on a point of order. There are only three points in the House of Commons on which a Member can rise. You can rise on a point of order. They are infrequent, I might add. They are used and abused often. The Speaker has to exercise some degree of understanding inasmuch as there are certain things better said and said quickly than left to fester, and I know that is the way it is being approached by the incumbent of the Chair.
There is then a point of privilege. I do not remember in recent times hearing a legitimate point of privilege, though I have heard many people rising with legitimate grievances. 1 cannot truthfully say that 1 have heard, within the very narrow definitions allowed, any legitimate points of privilege.
Then there is the most often used point, frequently couched in the terms of a point of order or a point of privilege, and that is a point of view.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
February 12, 1986


Ian Deans: That is the one everyone wants to express all of the time. A point of view is what a Member rises on when he or she says: "a point of order" or "a point of privilege". What they really want to do is to express a point of view. That is exactly what the House of Commons is here for. Therefore, we must attempt as best we can to accommodate the right of each and every Member to express his or her point of view.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Deans: Having said that, and having got that little bit of applause which, frankly speaking, I rarely ever get, I feel that perhaps it is time to quit, but I better not because I have a couple of other matters I want to say.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Deans: There are certain matters, and I draw them to the Speaker's attention, that I think will require consultation. I hope during this trial period the House leaders, together with the Table officers and the Speaker, will meet regularly and discuss the progress that is being made in the implementation and exercise of the new Standing Orders. I say to the Speaker that it would be to everyone's advantage if he were, on a regular basis, to convene such meetings. He has done so in the past, and I hope he will do so in the future, not only with the House Leaders of the three Parties but also with the Table officers from time to time to discuss how the rules are being interpreted and whether or not the interpretation is the kind of interpretation that those of us who are responsible for the political operation sense is fair and just.
I would like to think that we will take part in that and in that process we will influence, not unduly, but in a fair way the way the rules are enforced, rather than to have rulings made that may simply cause further aggravation. I ask the Speaker to bear that in mind.
It is true that there should not be an occasion when Members rise in the House of Commons and address the Speaker with regard to rulings having been made. The appropriate place for such discussions are in the chambers of the Speaker. It cannot always be at the behest of individual Members that that discussion should take place. I ask the Speaker to exercise perhaps some additional authority from time to time and invite those of us who are involved regularly in the interpretation and enforcement, if you will, of the Standing Orders to join together to have a little brief review of where we are going and what we have done. I think that would be helpful.
In that regard I draw to your attention, Mr. Speaker, that I have some concerns yet about the way Private Members' Business will operate, particularly in its early going. I want to be sure that a week from next Monday, when we return, assuming that the new Standing Orders are in place, we are not confronted with an immediate Private Members' Hour, unless we have carefully worked out a method of drawing and a method of establishing precedents and unless Members have been given fair warning as to when they will be expected to
Standing Orders
participate. There will have to be some discussion about the way in which the new Standing Orders with regard to Private Members' Business will be implemented, in order that we do not get ourselves off on the wrong foot, and I do not doubt that that will happen.
At report stage, although the Standing Orders say that the Speaker has the power to rule inadmissible amendments proposed or ruled out of order in committee, I ask again for some care in the exercise of that power. I am sure it will be done in any event, but I put it on the record so that it can be referred to. It is possible, though unlikely I admit, that in a standing committee a clerk may misinterpret a rule in giving advice or a chairperson of a committee may interpret an amendment in such a way as to rule it out of order, but that with the benefit of discussion and hindsight it could be ruled in order. 1 do not want Members of Parliament to be forbidden from proposing amendments ruled out of order. However, I ask that the Chair consult on what the amendment was intended to do before making a final ruling. That will not happen on every occasion, it will not be necessary on every occasion, but there will be times when that would seem appropriate. 1 would ask the Speaker and those who advise the Speaker to keep that in mind when we are looking at the report stage of Bills being brought back from committee.
On the question of legislative committees, my friend and colleague, the House Leader of the Liberal Party, has indicated on a number of occasions their concern-and I echo it as our concern-over the proliferation of legislative committees. It would not serve Parliament well if by virtue of smaller committees we simply had more committees, all operating at the same time, each conflicting with the other. It does not serve Members or the process well if we are to have, particularly with a quite small Opposition, legislative committees struck and all meeting simultaneously. The end result of pursuing that kind of approach would be that we who are in the House would then be required unnecesserily to delay the passage of legislation in order to allow the backlog to be cleared up. I do not want to be put in that position. I do not want to be debating for days on end some inconsequential change to some piece of legislation which no one understands, simply to allow that the legislative committees will not be struck and to guarantee that they clear up their backlog before they get this additional work heaped upon them. The Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) and the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) have raised this question. They have suggested perhaps a queueing arrangement, something similar to what now goes on in Westminster. 1 would commend that some variation of that be worked out among the House Leaders, together with the Table Officers and the Speaker's office, so that we can in fact have an orderly transition and that we do not end up with Members running from one committee to the next, being frustrated all to hell as a result of their feeling that their own individual concerns are not being met.
On the matter of electronic voting, I have had the privilege of viewing a presentation with regard to that. I sense that

February 12, 1986
Standing Orders
further discussion is required on how it will happen and if it will happen immediately and on things which I think should be and will be discussed further. I look forward to discussing them with the Chairman of the committee, the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), tonight and on subsequent evenings.
In closing, let me say that it is not easy to accept change. It is always more comfortable to leave things the way they are. It is always easier for Members to operate with rules with which they are comfortable and about which they are knowledgeable, but change is necessary. These changes are the ones which our peers decided would make this place work better. As I said when I first spoke to this a long time ago, I put my faith in that committee. Although I recognize, as they have said, that not everything they have recommended is necessarily absolute and guaranteed to work the way they might have hoped, it will work better if we all agree to co-operate. I feel quite confident that whatever difficulties could arise need not arise if we are prepared to consult one with the other and to seek the compromise for which the committee has become famous.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Berger: Mr. Speaker, I should like to begin by thanking the Hon. Member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Jardine) for allowing me to speak before him. I have an engagement in my constituency this evening, and this should allow me to drive there without killing myself on Highway 417, as I think it is called.
The Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) referred to the fact that the Government listened to those who spoke and made some changes by presenting their motions in the special debate on December 4. I would say that this is the first time we have an actual motion on which to speak and we have to make a formal decision abot the rules. Until recently, it was the Government's response to the McGrath Report. I hope the Government shows the same open-mindedness about the comments which are being made today. We are talking about parliamentary reform and we are saying that the views of individual Members count. I certainly hope that the observations which have been made by my colleagues and we will be taken into consideration in the final discussions that will formulate the rules.
I also take not of the fact that many Members, including the Hon. Member for St. John's East, stated that a major change in attitude would be required for these rules to bring about the kind of reform for which everyone sincerely hopes. Yesterday I heard the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) say that when he first came to the House he understood that an assistant deputy minister had more power than an individual Member of Parliament. When I was listening to him, I could not help but think-maybe, maybe. I recognize that the change of attitude which has been mentioned so often today will be necessary. It is not only the rules, the Standing Orders of the House, which will change everything overnight. If we have the same attitude as that which prevailed, for example, in the sale of de Havil-land, we will not get very far.
I note that the committee could not really address the issue of confidence, which is at the heart of having a saner House of Commons. We saw a very striking illustration of the partisan nature of our parliamentary system, which was very difficult to avoid in the Regional Economic Expansion Committee that evening when the Government Members lined up behind their caucus chairman, who came in with a four-page written speech, and they voted down a list of witnesses that had been agreed to unanimously by the steering committee. Another thing that annoys and infuriates me, and which is an illustration of what I want to say, is when in this House of Commons we have to stand up and-I would ask the Government Whip to give me the opportunity of concluding my remarks. Perhaps he will be more impressed by what I have to say in a few minutes.
I was going to say that what annoys and infuriates me is when, in Question Period, Opposition Members stand up and ask the Prime Minister, "Will you allow a committee of this House to study such and such a matter?" It seems to me, as a Member of Parliament, very demeaning to ask the Government to allow a committee to study any particular question. 1 certainly feel, and I think probably 99 per cent of the Members in this House would feel, that a parliamentary committee, certainly the new kinds of parliamentary committees we are talking about which we propose in this reform, should be able to undertake a study when they see fit to do so. We should not have to ask the permission of anybody to undertake that kind of study.
Let us be clear about things. Even with these new kinds of committees where we hope to create a team spirit and a consensus as to ways of approaching matters, if the majority of Members decide not to have a hearing about a particular subject and follow the wishes of their caucus in that respect, the committee will not be undertaking the hearing and we will be back here in the House again asking the Prime Minister and the members of the Cabinet for permission to hold a hearing. We will be back to square one.
It is principally to the matter of committees that I want to address my comments. Broadcasting of committees is a fundamental element of giving power to Members of Parliament and power to parliamentary committees, and, as the Hon. Member for St. John's East said earlier, taking the emphasis off Question Period. He recognizes it, I recognize it, and I think everybody else in the House recognizes the overwhelming influence of radio and, in particular, television. Therefore, I hope that a quick decision will be made by the powers that be in the House which will allow the televising of committee meetings. That will be, to me, one of the most fundamental reforms. With the watchful eye of television on you there will be a tremendous power which will require Members of Parliament to come to committee prepared, which will require them to be responsible in their questioning and responsible in their interventions.
February 12, 1986

Another thing to which I want to address myself, and it relates to committees, is the election and the role of the chairpersons. I would refer to page 15 of the McGrath Report where there is a quotation of the Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton), who said:
The power of committees should be increased dramatically with a view to several committees chaired by Opposition Members.
Now, the McGrath committee did not deal with this question of who will be chairing these committees. It is not in the Standing Orders, but to me again this is a fundamental element of reform. I have had casual discussions with the Hon. Member for St. John's East and I think 1 am not misunderstanding him in saying that he agreed with me that a good number of committees of this House should be chaired by Opposition Members. I think the figure that we talked about at the time was a proportional number of committees based on a proportion of seats that the Opposition has in this House. There are 70 opposition seats out of 282, so it would be normal that 25 per cent of the committees, beyond the traditional committees which are chaired by the Opposition, such as the Committee on Public Accounts, it would be appropriate that 25 per cent of the committees of this House be chaired by opposition Members. This is something again which is not in the rules, but it is something that I believe to be in the true spirit of reform. The committee chairmanships would be accorded to Government and to opposition Members based upon seniority, based upon knowledge of the subject matter, and then I think we can arrive at the kinds of committees that we all would like to have.
I also feel that the chairpersons of these committees should play a role similar to that of the chairpersons of the special committees or task forces that we have known in this House. In other words, the chairperson will not just be a traffic manager, an impartial observer who decides who questions next and who rules on points of order and so forth, but a person who will be taking an active part in questioning and, indeed, hopefully, will be trying to stimulate the kind of consensus and broad over-all approach that we feel should occur in these committees.
That leads me to the question of the problem of the legislative committees, which was previously referred to by the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans). We all feel that the standing committees should be developing expertise in their subject areas. Well, if this is the case and expertise is developed in the standing committees we may have a great proliferation of legislative committees where, for example, in the area of criminal law you may have three or four Bills. We have had three or four Bills dealing with various aspects of criminal law or justice before this House in the fall. The people on the standing committee cannot possibly man all of the legislative committees. You end up then with people on the legislative committees who have little or no understanding of the subject matter at issue, or certainly have not built up the expertise which the members of the standing committees have developed.
Standing Orders
Therefore, it will be necessary to arrive at some kind of system whereby we will limit the number of legislative committees, and there are a number of models which have been referred to. The Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner) referred to a traffic control system; so some sort of compromise or solution has to be found.
I would like to deal briefly with the committee on research, science and technology. I am the Liberal Opposition critic for science and technology. All I can say is that it is high time we had a committee of this nature. People in the universities across Canada, people in industry, the science community, for a long time have favoured the establishment of such a committee. I believe that science policies will have a fundamental impact on the future of the country. To my mind, science policies are related to industrial and social policies. They have broad ramifications. Technology is not limited to a small number of high-tech companies. It has applications in all sectors of the economy, including the resource, fishery, forestry, mining and agriculture sectors.
The Government is not organized to focus on technology and how it affects all areas of our economy. Parliament has not been so organized up to now. I feel that one of the most important roles of this science committee will be to address technology with an intersectoral approach. It will be able to take a look at the interconnections between science and technology and the effects they have on many areas of the economy. This can only be done in a committee of this nature. I know that I am not alone in being delighted to see the creation of this committee.
Adequate resources for the committee are required. Again, I have been told that some Members of Parliament have in the past been reluctant to set up a science committee because they felt that they would not necessarily have the knowledge and expertise to deal with such a complex issue. I know there will be a system for establishing budgets. Perhaps I am already putting in first dibs on those budgets. Certainly this is the area in which the most research resources will be required if we are to have an effective committee.
1 would also like to deal with the human rights committee. As the Government's motion is presently drafted, the human rights committee seems to be mandated to deal only with the reports of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. There are many Members of Parliament who are concerned with human rights not only at home but abroad. It is my hope that this committee will be able to cover the Canadian participation in international human rights affairs and will be able to deal with questions like the Helsinki Final Accord, the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe. I hope that it will deal with the United Nations and its Commission on Human Rights and that it will be able to interact with various interest groups rights across Canada that are concerned with the question of human rights not only in Canada but on an international level. This would add a great deal to the workings of the House, because in the past several years we have

February 12, 1986
Standing Orders
had to set up a number of informal committees and have had to meet with people outside of the committees of the House to discuss matters around luncheon tables. However, there has been no way for the concerns of these people to be registered on the record of the House or its committees. We will be creating such an avenue and I think this will help the House considerably.
I will conclude by stating one more point. The motion as it is presently drafted has not removed some of what I would call the archaic terms which are used when referring to people who will occupy the chairs of various committees of the House. The rules refer to chairmen on all occasions and we will be creating a panel of chairmen. Perhaps a modification is called for here. It would be more appropriate in today's day and age to refer to this panel as a panel of chairs.

The same is true in the French version for the "Comite des presidents". It would seem normal in 1986 to change this to the "Comite des presidents et des presidentes de la Chambre". [English]
I have also noticed that petitions in English use language which is somewhat archaic. Average Canadian citizens must continue to pray to the House of Commons. In French, much more modern language is used. It would seem to me that if we are talking about bringing this House into the 20th century or perhaps even the 21st century, the language we use in our Standing Orders should reflect the same mentality. However, this change does not have to be made immediately. These are temporary rules and this is something which could be arrived at over the course of the next 10 months while rules are in the experimental stage.
I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to speak on this very important subject. I look forward to the implementation of these rules and I sincerely hope that the contributions of all Hon. Members of the House will be enhanced in the way we all wish to see them enhanced.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I would like the Hon. Member to elaborate on the issue he raised regarding the involvement of committees and the new spirit of co-operation in light of the problems surrounding full access to information on the de Havillant question.


David Berger: Mr. Speaker, I would answer the Hon. Member simply by stating that it is hoped that these committees will be able to determine on their own what matters are appropriate for their consideration and that there will not be a three-line Whip. It is hoped that party Members who serve on these committees will not be taking orders from their respective caucuses. If the practice used by the Regional Development Committee which wanted to study the de Havilland issue continues, I fear that we will not be making much progress.
I think many Hon. Members have recognized that a change in attitude is just as important as a change in the rules. I would hope that in a true spirit of reform, the members of these committees will be working independently and not taking
instructions from their caucuses. I do not think that is what is intended by reform. However, only time will tell if this proves to be the case.


Mr. W. R. Bud Jardine (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Mi; Jardine: I know this kind applause is not for this speaker nor is it for the Speaker in the Chair but, rather, for the reform which we are discussing today. The importance of parliamentary reform for the House was indeed underscored by its being the first item mentioned in the Throne Speech of the Government. That point has been made before. It was made yesterday and again a couple of times today. Personally, I do not think that the point can be made enough times.
The importance of reform was further strengthened when the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) himself rose to speak on the issue. Not only did he speak on the issue yesterday but he was present during the presentation made by the Chairman of the committee today and lent his support to it.
[DOT] (WOO)
There can be no doubt about the resolve of the Government and of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn) to proceed with reform, thereby enhancing the role of the private Member of Parliament. It is also worth noting the words of the Chairman of the special committee on reform who said, upon being appointed chairman, that he considered it to be the most important undertaking with which he had been associated in his 28 years on the Hill.
I am most pleased to have this opportunity to speak briefly on reform since I had the privilege of attending a number of meetings as an alternate member of the committee. I would like to say-and I do not mean to be repetitive in praise, and I certainly do not mean it as false praise-that I doubt very much that we would be at this point at this time had it not been for the leadership and direction of the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) who chaired the committee. It was not by accident that there was a strong bond of collegiality among the members and a great willingness to resolve all points by consensus. In fact, this was really my first exposure to a parliamentary committee at work. In retrospect, not only will I say that I was spoiled but perhaps I was ill-prepared for other committees to which I was later appointed. Unfortunately, I did not always see that same sense of purpose and collegiality at work in those other committees.
While I have had occasion to speak before in the House, I have not taken the opportunity to pay tribute or recognize in the House the good people of my riding of Northumberland-Miramichi through whose valued support I am here today. With the indulgence of Hon. Members I beg leave at this point to describe briefly that beautiful place in the Province of New Brunswick called Miramichi from whence I come. Hon. Members might ask why I would take this opportunity to speak about that subject at this time. Frankly, I cannot think of a
February 12, 1986

better time to speak about my riding and the importance of my being here representing those people as we consider today the reforms which are being discussed in the House, reforms which will make other Members of the House and myself more effective Members.
Miramichi gets its name from the Micmac Indians. It was the name of a river and it is now used to describe the entire valley region. Today, it is the oldest Indian place name still in use in Atlantic Canada. Natural resources form the backbone of the Miramichi economy. The region depends greatly on the forests and wood-related industries for its livelihood. In recognition of this fact the Miramichi was named Canada's forestry capital in 1980.
It is not just forests that comprise the economic fibre of the area. There is agriculture, including vast areas of peat moss bog, commercial and sports fishing, and also a most important defence establishment. The Miramichi region is a gateway to Atlantic Canada, the United States and the rest of the world with its transportation links of rail, air and sea systems. The communities of this beautiful area are peopled with the descendants of English, Acadian, Irish, Scottish and Indian stock who have worked and lived in harmony since the area was first settled. They look forward to making their contribution to the province and to Canada.
I will just mention the names of two well-known people from the area. They are Beaverbrook, who took his name from a small community on the Miramichi, and Cunard. Lord Beaverbrook wanted to be known as Lord Miramichi, but his critics said that too many would make fun of him if he were to take the name. However, now that the Miramichi becomes more prominent and better known, more people will know how to pronounce that Indian word-Miramichi. As well, the Cunard shipping line, the builders of the Queen Elizabeth II and the Queen Mary, got its start on the banks of the mighty Miramichi.
Referring back to the matter at hand, I would again mention the words of the Hon. Member for St. John's East who said that what will come out of the reform process is a Parliament which follows neither the traditional model of Westminster nor the Congressional system but one which will be uniquely Canadian. What encourages me most about that statement is that this reform is not something that is being driven by one side of the House. Earlier, I mentioned consensus. I would like to refer to the contributions made by members of the Opposition and, in particular, the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet), the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie), and the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner). Yesterday, the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior made an eloquent statement in support of reform. He was an alternate member of the committee and was most active even though he was not permanent. This type of support and spirit from these experienced Members of Parliament will give us a Parliament which, indeed, will be uniquely Canadian.
With respect to the report I would like to say a few words on the subject of committees since this is where a private Member
Standing Orders
should have the opportunity of real input and influence. The adoption of the recommendations of reform of the committee system will surely make the words of Professor Gillies, who appeared before the committee as a witness, ring true. He said that the one place where the problems of Canada can be dealt with is before the committees of Parliament. A reduction in the number of members in most if not all of the standing committees will indeed enhance the work of committees, giving individual members greater input, interest and a sense of participation. It may seem like a small item to mention the meeting times of committees and the changes which will be introduced as well. It is proposed that the standing committees sit at times other than when the House is sitting. Indeed, Members are torn between their responsibilities in the Chamber and in committee. We have all been faced with too many demands and too little time.
With respect to the issue of public recording, this is an area in which I initially had some doubt. I had reservations with respect to putting cameras and audio equipment into committee rooms because we have seen all too often what can happen in the House during Question Period. One sometimes questions the seriousness of Members when they stand up and pose questions to members of the Cabinet. I hope that the introduction of cameras into committee will give Canadians a true appreciation of the work which is done there, the importance which Members place on that work, and not just provide an opportunity for certain Members to grandstand. Having said that, I am confident, as we have heard support from both sides of the House with respect to reform, that people will take it seriously. The use of parliamentary committees to review draft legislation before second reading would indeed make Members more familiar with the contents of a Bill before it receives approval in principle.
I remind Hon. Members of the expression: Many are called but few are chosen. These measures are being brought forward in an effort to make not just Parliament more meaningful and more effective but also the role of the private Member. His goal will be not just to sit one day at the Cabinet table in order to achieve a sense of accomplishment, but rather as a Member who plays a key role on a committee which will satisfy his sense of self-worth. With these measures, which I support whole-heartedly, I look forward to the months and years ahead so that I may sit here in my place as the Hon. Member for Northumberland-Miramichi.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Hon. Member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Jardine) whether he has any comments to make on the decision to allow the Speaker to eject an Hon. Member for up to five days?


W.R. (Bud) Jardine: Mr. Speaker, I do not mind answering that question put by the Hon. Member because I respect the traditions of the House, little as I know about it, I have to admit, in the few months I have been here. In respecting the

February 12, 1986
Standing Orders
traditions, I believe all Hon. Members have a certain responsibility as we sit in the House. If we abdicate that responsibility, we have to understand what we are doing. We have to appreciate the fact that the rest of the House will not accept it. I believe that five days is very conservative. I suggest that five days should be the minimum length of time, certainly for a second offence, if we can call it that, to the rest of the House. So if the question is whether I support the rejection of an Hon. Member for five days, indeed, I do.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Hon. Member could clarify. I think he is trying to make the point that the House in fact makes a decision with respect to the behaviour of individual Hon. Members. Does he feel the expulsion should be made by the House or by Mr. Speaker?


W.R. (Bud) Jardine: Mr. Speaker, great trust is put in the wisdom of the Speaker. The Speaker is elected by Hon. Members on all sides of the House. In placing that trust, I believe we have to give the Speaker more responsibility in order to enforce these few rules. They are not at all too restrictive, by any means. Yes, the Speaker should have the authority.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I just have a comment. I appreciate where the Hon. Member is coming from. I share her concern to some extent. I would just like to tell her and the House that up until a few years ago, it was relatively rare for an Hon. Member to be named and ejected from the House. Indeed, I recall that during the nine years of the speakership of Speaker Lamoureux there was not one Hon. Member named. I would like to see the House get back to that system of decorum. If we do, we will have no concern about this new power we give to the Speaker.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member suggested that because we are electing the Speaker, this particular new measure will in fact be workable. I wonder if he would then support the position that the election of the Speaker should be carried out at the same time as the introduction of this particular measure?


W.R. (Bud) Jardine: Mr. Speaker, all things happen in due course and I do not believe there is any need to push one before the other. I think it is a case of letting us walk before we start running.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I have another question as it relates to the issue of the newly vested powers in committee with respect to reviewing Order in Council appointments. I wonder if the Hon. Member supports the position taken by the McGrath Committee in this regard or whether in fact he supports the position as presented by the Government?


W.R. (Bud) Jardine: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for all of these good questions because it gives me an opportunity to stand up and be recognized. I have such faith in the Chairman of this reform committee that, indeed, I support all of his recommendations.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member supports the recommendations of the McGrath committee, as I do with respect to this particular measure, I think he should be aware of the fact that the McGrath committee suggested not only that the committee be given the power to review Order in Council appointments but that there be vested in that committee the power of veto. I wonder if he believes in fact that that power should be vested in ordinary Hon. Members? If he does so believe, why then is he supporting the current legislation which does not make a provision for such a veto?


W.R. (Bud) Jardine: Mr. Speaker, I must say I am not sure 1 got the gist of the question. I do not know whether the Hon. Member would want to repeat it to me.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, basically, the question is that the McGrath committee made a recommendation that ordinary Hon. Members be given not only the power to review Order in Council appointments but, if they find an appointment that is not a worthy one, they have the power of veto. In the motion before us, the committee is being given the power of review, and it may review all of the appointments in the world but it cannot really do anything about them. So the second aspect of the McGrath Report, which was to give ordinary Hon. Members of Parliament some power, has been nullified because we only have the power of review. It can be the absolutely worst appointment in the world and we can talk about it but we cannot do anything. That is why I would have preferred to see the actual report implemented as suggested by the able Chairman.


W.R. (Bud) Jardine: Mr. Speaker, your hon. colleague made the comment about a "paper tiger". I do not really think it is a paper tiger. The committee can review all appointments. If there is a particular appointment about which the committee feels very strongly, I believe it would be listened to by the Government.


Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak in support of this motion. It is the culmination of a very long process. A lot of thought and care has gone into it from Hon. Members on all sides of the House.
Such criticisms as I have are minor. They are with respect to matters which I am sure can be resolved with some work and good faith on the part of everyone. I was here when the talk of reform began. It was at the time when Mr. Baldwin was the House Leader for the Conservatives and Mitchell Sharp was our House Leader. At that time the reform foundered on the rocks of control of supply. The issue then seemed to have collapsed for a while but has now been picked up again and I think the proposals we have before us are really very progressive and should, indeed, enhance the role of the private Member.
The occasions in the House when we think and talk as one Canadian to another on matters which are of importance to all of us are rare, but they are very welcome. We were all elected to work for the public good and all of us do that in so far as we can. The Parties have different policies and viewpoints. In fact.
February 12, 1986

from the argument going on opposite, it would seem that even within that Party there seems to be a rather vigorous expression of opinion going on. But Parties have strong differences of opinion, and vigorous debates will always be part of our life here.
Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, I should wait until the Minister and his colleague have finished their conversation because it is a little hard to proceed with the noise.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson) may proceed.


Aideen Nicholson: As I was saying, political Parties have different policies and viewpoints and strong differences of opinion, and vigorous debates will always be part of our life here. The Government introduces legislation and programs and in a democracy it is the duty of an Official Opposition to ensure that these are scrutinized, that when debate degenerates into-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Dissension in the ranks.


Aideen Nicholson: I thought that earlier on the Chairman of the committee made a very eloquent appeal for civility in this House. I think there is nothing more important than civility in this House, especially in a debate of this kind. I do not think jeers from Ministers assist that. We have been talking about enhancing the role of the private Member and we have a Minister with nothing better to do than make cheap wisecracks. Nevertheless, I will attempt to continue in the way I started because, in spite of discouraging evidence, I still think most Members in this House are serious about reform. The contemptuous attitude that some individuals show to their colleagues is the exception rather than the rule. Indeed, as the Hon. Member who chaired the committee said, this House will only function well when Members show respect for each other.
When I was first elected in 1974, most matters in this House were agreed on by consensus. We very rarely had the bitter divisions among House Leaders that we have seen since. Again, in spite of what I am seeing opposite me at the moment, in spite of the discourtesy I am seeing across the way at the moment, I still share the hope of the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) that we will return to civility and again have a House where, when we have school children in the galleries, we are not ashamed of what they are seeing but we are proud of what they are seeing.
There are a number of examples of situations where Members on all sides of this House work well together. This happens in committees with subject matter references, for one thing. It also happens in the Standing Committee on Public Accounts which traditionally has operated in a very non-partisan fashion. I am pleased to see a former chairman and a former vice-chairman of that committee in the House today. In committees dealing with Estimates and legislation, the
Standing Orders
attitude has traditionally been confrontational. Some of that is inevitable. However, we can work to reduce unnecessary conflict.
The suggestion put forward that the standing committees hear witnesses and examine the subject matter of a Bill before second reading is an interesting one. If that were implemented I would hope one could get a much more non-partisan understanding of the Bill on second reading, and therefore a better second reading debate. It still might be vigorous debate but at least it will be based on understanding and commitment. At that point, indeed, a legislative committee should be able to do its work very promptly and not need to hear witnesses other than technical witnesses. So the idea of a legislative committee is one which I support, but its implementation needs to be worked out.
Our legislative committees got off to a bad start. There were far too many. For example, before Christmas we had eight sitting at one point. In the British House, where they have 600 Members, I think five is the maximum that can sit at the same time. As well, the legislative committees suddenly came into being but the previous step, where the subject matter of the legislation is examined in the standing committee, had not taken place. Therefore, there were many angry exchanges in legislative committees because we suddenly found that witnesses were being cut off but we had not really had an opportunity to test the pulse of the public. However, those are administrative matters which can be dealt with, given some goodwill and some care.
To turn to some of the other changes in this motion before us, one very positive factor is the review of delegated legislation. There are a lot of good opportunities there for serious Members to do some good work.
The 45-day limit for answers to a certain number of written questions is good. It puts some pressure on the Government to take seriously Members' questions, and in those circumstances setting a limit to the number of questions on the Order Paper from a Member at a given time is also reasonable.
The supply debate I think can be expected to go better based on this motion before us because the fact that the Leader of the Opposition can concentrate on the Estimates of one Department might make for a very much more intensive and careful examination. I think examining expenditures is an extremely important part of the work of this House. It is important for democracy. The more that Parliament really shows that it cares about control of the public purse and that the executive of the day cannot just write blank cheques, the more faith the public will have in our efforts to ensure that their tax moneys are spent wisely. Control by Parliament should be not just words mouthed by politicians, but should be a very real experience if the role of the Member of Parliament is to count and if people are to have confidence in the fact that we take seriously the fact that they work hard for their money and are entitled to know where it goes.
The new rules about Private Members' Bills are interesting. They will also need some working out. We will have to be very clear about how the five-hour debate is managed. Again, that

February 12, 1986
Standing Orders
is a relatively small administrative matter which can be dealt with.
The reduction of statements under Standing Order 22 from 90 seconds to 60 seconds is good because it allows more people to participate.
The final matter I would like to comment on is something that is not in the motion before us but was a recommendation of the committee, that is, the proposal that the written questions about the Estimates could be put forward by a standing committee and that answers to the committee would be back before May 1st. The written material could then be used by members in committee. That is a very interesting proposal. It would make for a much more intelligent and informed level of questioning in the Estimates debate. In my view, the more you increase the opportunities for relevant, informed debate, the more you reduce the tendency to make cheap shots and partisan cracks. Although the Government did not put this one in the motion, I hope the issue is not closed and will be looked at again.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are there questions and comments?


Mr. Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member discussed the question of Standing Order 22. 1 gather her position is that the reduction from 90 seconds to 60 seconds is good because it allows more people to be recognized. On the other hand, does she believe that a shorter period of time-and 60 seconds appears to be fairly short to me-would allow a Member sufficient time to make a point on issues which are sometimes complicated? I would like to hear her comments. I understand that there is a quid pro quo, that more Members will be able to speak, but will there be more people discussing issues with less time to do a proper job?


Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I cannot see that the cut from 90 seconds to 60 seconds is that important because Standing Order 22 was designed for very short, crisp statements as opposed to the thoughtful kind of speech that Members can develop on other occasions. I do not share the Hon. Member's concern.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Resuming debate.


Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to make some brief comments with respect to this motion to amend the Standing Orders of the House. There are a great number of very significant changes being brought forth and an enormous amount of credit goes directly to the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) and his outstanding committee for their hard work and effort in preparing the report on which these amendments are based.
I also want to add my own personal congratulations to the Chairman and the members of the committee for that fine work.
These amendments are particularly significant to Members of Parliament and private Members specifically. Hopefully we will find that they are significant to the general public as well. I suspect that at this stage the significance of these amendments will be lost to the Canadian people generally, but there is one particular aspect of these amendments for which the people of this country have long been looking. Those are the amendments with respect to the review of Order in Council appointments. This review process is long overdue. It was a significant issue in the election campaign of 1984 and is an issue of concern to the general public who believed that there needed to be a significant and substantial change to the process by which Order in Council appointments are made.
I believe it is to the Government's credit and particularly to the credit of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) that action was taken virtually immediately upon the calling of the Thirty-third Session of Parliament in November, 1984.
The House will recall that there was reference to setting up a task force on parliamentary reform in the Speech from the Throne and subsequently the task force was put in place. The task force came up with recommendations upon which these amendments are based and the Government responded and substantially adopted the recommendations that were made by that committee.
Today, we are about to implement a review of Order in Council appointments with the exception of judicial appointments.
I suggest most Members have heard complaints from the public since September 4, 1984, about what has happened to the appointment process. The public was anxious to see quick action with new procedures being put into place and could not understand why it was taking so long or that there was any delay at all.
The changes that I trust will be implemented this afternoon are revolutionary to the whole sense of our parliamentary system. The fact is that no change like this has ever taken place in the British parliamentary system and it is the first time that there has been a review process for Order in Council appointments or any federal government appointments.
Of course, the Americans have a type of review process. They review federal judicial appointments through their Senate committee and a requirement under their Constitution for the advice and consent of the Senate when the President makes those appointments. They also have confirmation hearings for members of the federal Cabinet in the United States. However, there is no similar process where all types of appointments made by the American federal Government can be reviewed. Therefore, not only are these changes revolutionary as far as the British parliamentary system is concerned, I believe they are revolutionary as far as democracy is concerned.
These changes will not as yet require a review of all appointments. For instance, judicial appointments do not require this review. The House may recall that last week I introduced in the House a Private Member's Bill calling for a
February 12, 1986

procedure for the review of federal judicial appointments. That Bill was talked out at the time, but 1 am hopeful that we will see some form of recognition of that process as well.
However, the fact that we are implementing a form of review for the first time is a most significant step. While this form of review and its implementation may not please everyone, I hope that it represents one more step in the process of improving the concept of the review of appointments.
Perhaps we could consider some of the review processes that are used municipally in this country. For example, efforts are made to try to make appointments accessible for everyone in an attempt to ensure that people with the highest qualifications are chosen for those jobs. In some cases, there is a process for advertising openings and vacancies on boards, commissions and committees. There is a process for making written applications where a review panel or board considers those applications and makes a short list. That review panel conducts advance interviews according to that short list and makes recommendations to a municipal council which accepts or rejects that recommendation. I believe that is a good process that could be adopted, at least in part, for our parliamentary system in the future.
I want to emphasize that these changes represent a revolution by evolution. It is a gigantic step forward because it is the first time in British parliamentary history that any sort of review process has been put in place. It is a great tribute to the Hon. Member for St. John's East and his colleagues in the committee. It is a tribute to the Government and particularly to the Prime Minister without whose unfailing support we would not have this process. I suggest that in future, as the public learns to appreciate and understand this process, it will be one of the hallmarks of the present Government's years in office.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, just for the purpose of historical accuracy, I am somewhat surprised that the Hon. Member said that this is the first time in the history of Canada that we have had such a review. Is he familiar with a review chaired by the former Member of Parliament from Pontiac-Gatineau, Tom Lefebvre? This was begun and struck by the Liberal Government in 1982.


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Hon. Member's comments. When I was referring to a parliamentary review process, I was not referring to the committee which looked into the question of reforming the rules or the Standing Orders of the House, but rather to the fact that we are setting in place today, I hope, a process whereby Government appointments to boards and commissions etc. will be reviewed by a parliamentary committee. That has never happened before. It may have been recommended before, but it has never been put in place before.
That is the historic fact we are witnessing here today and one which we should all applaud.
Standing Orders


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, let me begin my analysis of the situation by saying that I would hate to think I am a little more cynical than some of my senior colleagues, but in looking at the whole process of parliamentary reform it seems there has been an issue not addressed in the debate today, that of the role of the private Member, specifically in a parliamentary democracy.
As long as we have a Cabinet and a Parliament which derives the majority of its responsibility through Cabinet decisions, most of them made by the so-called P and P Committee or the inner Cabinet, any discussion of expanding the private Member's role in committee, expanding funding capabilities for private Members, expanding study possibilities for private Members, while on the surface bears further study and deserves support, lends a false sense of the role of a private Member to the public at large.
I think it is pretty clear that as long as we remain in a parliamentary system where the Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney) and the Cabinet are the bottom line, no matter how many committees we strike, how much money we give the chairmen, how much we open up the process through TV or through other mechanisms to allow the public to see the workings of the House, until we change the fundamental principle of Cabinet responsibility and ministerial responsibility that has been based on the traditional British system, most of these so-called reforms will merely become a House of cards. I refer specifically to the particular motion the Member just discussed with respect to review of appointments.
The Government, embarrassed as it was, by the profligate numbers of appointments made in its first year of Government, particularly in light of the Prime Minister's own self-confessed virginity on this issue during the political debates, has come forward with a position paper which says that ordinary Members will now have a chance to review every Order in Council appointment.
There are prescriptions however, Mr. Speaker. Members must review appointments within 30 days of their being recorded in Hansard. We know that if the appointments continue at the rate we saw in the fall of 1984 and the spring of 1985, it will be very difficult for Members to review all those appointments within the prescribed 30 days period.
The committee however, is powerless, the committee is neutered when it comes to doing anything about inappropriate appointments. I think this goes beyond the partisan political issue because previous Liberal Cabinets were not prepared and the current Conservative Cabinet is still not prepared to relinquish any of its bottom line authority and power.
What we are talking about is developing a system to permit private Members on all sides of the House not only to put more into the process but to begin to wield more influence in the decision-making of Government.
Particularly in a majority Government system we know that unless we move away from the notion of a Cabinet, unless we move toward a kind of Congressional system as we see in the United States, and if we move away from the notion of caucus

February 12, 1986
Standing Orders
solidarity, we will forever be creating committees which may have the power to issue a press release, the power to hire a researcher, but the substantive power of those committees is lost in the Cabinet shuffle.
I think about the committee on day care which was announced with much fanfare by the Government just this last week. We know the Government is spending $1 million to send parliamentarians across the country to look at a very critical issue, the issue of day care. It looks good. The Government says that it is spending $1 million because it is concerned about the issue.
But let us look at the fisheries committee. I gather its budget was in the neighbourhood of half a million dollars. That committee travelled across Canada. It took presentations from fishermen and people in the field. Committee members spent many hours in the community and came back with what is considered to be a reasonably good report. Yet on the most important issue facing the fisheries committee, the issue of factory freezer trawlers, the decision was not made by the committee, the decision was not made by the people who travelled across the country to hear hundreds of presentations, the decision was made by the Cabinet without even waiting to hear the results of the committee's work.
We can, however, diffuse our efforts. We can set up 28 standing committees with a minimum of five and a maximum of 7 or 11 members, but if we remain in the confines of a parliamentary system that sees the Cabinet with its ministerial budget and ministerial power, and as long as we do not have private Member all-Party input into the Priorities and Planning Committee, then any motion of expanding the role of the private Member by mere tinkering with the parliamentary system is illusory.
I have only worked as an Opposition Member both in the Ontario Legislature and in the federal House. I think that Members on all sides of the House who presented this report and who did the work are very sincere. I think they are seeking a chance for the private Member to have a greater involvement in the process. I can appreciate, particularly on the Government side with its very large majority, that many Members are frustrated. They may feel that their work is not recognized and that the hours they spend in committee are often ignored by the public and their peers.
I would suggest that if we are truly concerned about parliamentary reform, we must attack the issue at its heart, namely, on the question of Cabinet responsibility. When we tell a committee that it has the power to review Order in Council appointments, that power must not simply be window dressing with more budgets, more time and more television coverage. That the power must say to the committee: "We, the Parliament of Canada, vest in you the capability to say yea or nay. You are the bottom line. You are the seal of approval". Cabinet and the Prime Minister make the recommendations. They suggest an Order in Council appointment, but it is ultimately the Parliament of Canada, in majority or minority, through committees, that has an opportunity to have the final say.
Without that particular final authority and without the veto power that was suggested by the committee, the Government has effectively neutered what could have been a very useful tool in the process of parliamentary review.
I have a number of other concerns and I believe that these should be shared by all Members. There may be times in the future when Government Members will be sitting in opposition. They may want to look at the issue from an opposition perspective or they may want to look at it from the perspective of the protection of the rights of the individual Member, but I am extremely concerned about two particular motions as they relate to the so-called naming of Members.
We are suggesting that in the next Parliament we will have the election of a Speaker, which is not the case at the moment, although we have a sort of measure by which we can approve the selection made by the Prime Minister. Without a secret ballot selection of a Speaker, what we are saying in this motion is that the Speaker is now invested with the power of being able to name any Member and being able to eject a Member from the House without calling for a motion from the appropriate source. In other words, Mr. Speaker, it is not the Parliament that ultimately becomes the arbiter of what is right and wrong in the House in terms of a vote, it is simply the Speaker, who is an unelected person, who has been appointed by the Prime Minister without the process, as suggested by this committee for an elected secret ballot vote.
I agree that if we had a secret ballot vote there would be some recourse whereby we could say to the Speaker: "You have an opportunity for a naming in an instance", but I would also suggest that not only are we investing in that same Speaker the opportunity to name an individual without a vote in this House, without an opportunity to seek the consent of the Members, whose job it is not only to keep this place orderly but to keep the debate going, but the Speaker has been given the opportunity or the responsibility of naming a Member for up to a week at a time.
It seems that when we are talking about an ejection of five days' duration, and when we are talking about cutting off not only that Member but the constituents of the particular riding, we are denying them an opportunity to have a voice in Parliament for a whole week. It could be the week following the Budget. It could be the most important decision-making week in Canada. It could have been the week of the Constitution. Not only is the Member denied the opportunity to participate, but the constituency and its hundred thousand voters are being told that they cannot have a say for a week, and that decision will be made by a Speaker who at the moment is not elected in a democratic form by the House.
I suggest that the particular measure is punitive. I do not think it is in the best interest of any Member, including Government Members, to vest that in the Speaker alone with no recourse or suggestion that Parliament move a motion. We are small numbers in the Opposition. Chances are that if a motion were moved today by the Government House Leader to
February 12, 1986

have the Hon. Member for Hamilton East ejected, the motion would probably pass. It should not, but I suspect it would probably pass. However, in that case the responsibility for the naming becomes the responsibility of the mover of the motion. It becomes the responsibility of Parliament and the democratic process in which every Member of the House-211 Conservatives, 40 Liberals and 30 New Democrats-can stand up and say: "we choose to keep that Member within our ranks" or "we choose to eject that Member". As a result of this particular motion, not only does the Speaker have the authority to eject once but he has the authority to eject a Member for five days.
I think mention has been made of the translation problems in that the English version of the particular motion suggests a five-day suspension for all subsequent so-called namings, but in the French version there is confusion because it only speaks of a second naming. Something must be done to change the Bill in that particular regard.
We believe in Parliament. Parliament is the seat of democracy. At the bottom line should be the motion being moved either by the Government or by the Opposition in other cases. I have very serious concerns about this measure which was not in the McGrath Report. The five-day naming was not an invention of this all-Party committee. It was added by the Government in this particular motion. I find it excessive, I find it punitive, and I think it is not the kind of responsibility which should be accorded a Speaker, particularly when in this Parliament we still have a Speaker who is not elected by secret ballot.
I have some other concerns about the issue of petitions and Order Paper questions. Each of us is here to represent our ridings. There have been a number of suggestions that the number of petitioners must rest at a minimum of 25 for a petition to be valid in the Parliament of Canada and that anything less than 25 is not acceptable for the purposes of petitions. It has also been suggested that because of the overabundance, I guess, of Order Paper questions-although it seems to me that there are not that many questions in relation to the number of Members in the House-we should somehow be restricted in the number of questions we can ask. I am not sure of the number; I think it is four questions per session which we will be allowed to put on the Order Paper as a result of this particular measure.


James Aloysius McGrath: At any one time.


Sheila Maureen Copps: In any case, it seems that these particular issues-the first being a minimum of 25 voters on the petition and the second being the maximum of Order Paper questions being allowed at any time-are an infringement upon the ability of the ordinary Member to get to the bottom of an issue. It may not be an earth-shattering issue. It may be a local question about the status of the Hamilton Airport. It may in fact be a small petition because there may not have been hundreds of thousands of Canadians rising up on the issue. However, if I receive a petition from 17 members of a senior citizens' club, which has a total membership of 20, those senior
Standing Orders
citizens have every right to petition Parliament through their Member.
I am not sure whether the committee was confronted with overpowering evidence about excessive petitions or whether the committee was presented with overpowering evidence about excessive Order Paper questions. It seems to me that if we look at the Order Paper, most Members only ask one or two questions at a time. In fact, oftentimes those questions are not answered. I know the committee Chairman will say that as a result of this particular provision we will get answers quicker. Well, I lived in a Parliament which required automatic answers to Order Paper questions. If the House thinks that that will be the panacea for getting information, I can tell it that it is not. Essentially what happens is that if the Minister, the Cabinet, the Government, the seat of responsibility and the seat of power, do not want to answer the question, they bring back an answer within the prescribed two-week period which may just be a regurgitation of the question put another way to satisfy the provisions of the Standing Orders.
I return to the point that if we are truly concerned about parliamentary reform, we have to look for reform, for change and for a new direction in the heart of the organism, which is Cabinet. Far be it from me to belittle the work done by committees.

We are now in a situation where the Liberal Party has only 40 Members. We know that with these new provisions and even those to which our Party agreed to for a temporary period, we find ourselves in an impossible situation. There are 28 committees on which, according to the new provisions, we should have not only one representative but also five substitute Members named by that representative. Given all those committees, if our Member does not name five substitute Members within a certain delay, he or she will no longer be entitled to sit on that committee.
Now let us see how these figures work out in the case of the Liberal Party: we have 40 Members, there are 28 committees, each with one Member and five substitutes, so what is 28 times 6? As you can see we would need at least a hundred-odd Members just to assume our committee responsibilities.
Sure enough, Mr. Speaker, there will be no problem after the next election, but we have to face the reality of 1986!
Mr. Speaker, Government Members might be well advised to consider the situation. They have no worries now with their 211 seats, but they should not forget that after the next election the situation might be reversed.
Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that my responsibility is to represent my constituents and I think it would be better to have fewer committees whose responsibilities and reports would be accepted by Cabinet. I am not interested . . . Even last week I was on the labour committee which is a sub-committee of a sub-committee. We got together to consider the question of part-time and shared work. One of the Members of

February 12, 1986
Standing Orders
the New Democratic Party, the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy), said-and I shared his views-that he had no intention of sitting and studying the question of shared work if there were only four or five of us on the committee and if we did not have any assurance that our reports would be accepted by the Government. I would have liked to see fewer committees, but at least some kind of Cabinet guarantee that committees will be struck in a non-partisan manner. For instance we might have six or seven committees, six large committees to study six of the major issues in Canada today, be it employment, structural changes to our employment system, environment, whatever, we should select specific and wide-ranging subjects, major issues in this country, and those committees would have a Cabinet guarantee that their recommendations will be accepted and implemented through legislation. But if there is not going to be any change as far as Cabinet is concerned, then all we are doing here is supposedly meant to improve conditions for Hon. Members of the Opposition parties as well as the Government. But all things considered there will be no meaningful changes, we will continue to operate within the parliamentary system. If we are prepared to make changes, is that really what we are doing? Certainly not with the kind of cosmetic changes proposed in the document under consideration.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE Mir. Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


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


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council (Mr. Lewis) whether he could advise the House of the business scheduled for tomorrow? In other words, are we going to continue dealing with this motion, or is there something else on the agenda?


James Aloysius McGrath: I would ask the House if it is the disposition of the House to proceed with this motion today, because 1 am sure if that is the disposition of the House we could refuse to see the clock for a few minutes to allow the Hon. Member to conclude her speech.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I think we have made considerable progress on the debate yesterday and today. It is quite evident that the members of the New Democratic Party are in support of the Government's position and the Standing Orders as brought down. There have been obvious indications from the Liberal Party that they are in support. We will be calling the same matter at eleven o'clock tomorrow for further debate, if, in fact, the members of the Liberal Party feel it is necessary.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being six o'clock p.m. this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.03 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Thursday, February 13, 1986