1986-02-13

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, February 12, 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 on the Order Paper and Notices as may be required.
Mr. Speaker:: Given the presence of the last Member who spoke, are there any questions or comments?


Ms. Copps:: Mr. Speaker, I had about three minutes left.


Mr. Speaker:: I apologize. My understanding was that the Hon. Member started her speech at 5.40 p.m. and spoke until 6 o'clock. If that is a misunderstanding, I am sure the House is prepared to allow the Member to continue for three or four minutes. I am perfectly happy to find two or three minutes left in the Member's time. The Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps).


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, in the light of the new spirit of co-operation and civility, in my last couple of minutes I would like to say that I hope that our new committee system and our reform will work as well as the hockey game did last night. Although we may not have enjoyed the outcome, there was a terrific spirit of congeniality and conviviality on all sides.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sheila Maureen Copps: I am sorry to say that the New Democratic Party sent only two Members, but that was up 50 per cent from the participation of the New Democratic Party last year.
We had a great game. The only problem is that, unfortunately, as is often the case in this Parliament, the Government won.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sheila Maureen Copps: I am saying this somewhat in jest, but when Members have a chance to get away from Parliament, out playing hockey and doing other things, it gives us a chance to appreciate the kind of co-operation that it will take to make the new system work, notwithstanding some of my concerns that I outlined in my speech yesterday.


Mr. Deans:: Mr. Speaker, I was interested in my hon. colleague's comment with regard to the hockey game last night. Could she explain to me how the New Democratic Party being represented by two Members could be up 50 per cent from last year?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Deans: That obviously would have required us to have sent a partial Member last year. I am not absolutely clear about this. Perhaps it is part of the way the Liberals make their calculations, which may then explain why they are in the difficulty they are in. I am not sure.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, if the Member had played last year or this year, he would have known we had a terrific representation in the person of the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Parry). Since the Hon. Member had never been on skates before in his life when he was a hockey goalie last year, that was, indeed, only half participation.


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Hon. Member. I do not know whether the Member agrees with the registry of Members' external travels. There is no requirement at this time in the proposed modification to the rules to list trips paid by the Government when the Government sends its own Members abroad, either with a Minister or with some other official delegation.
We feel that would put members of the Opposition in a somewhat difficult situation. We would have to declare our external travels and put forth any expenditures that were incurred at that time and the sources. Members on the Government side, however, would be protected in that if they travel with a Minister or with an official delegation of Government they do not have to reveal these trips. What does the Hon. Member feel about this?


Sheila Maureen Copps: 1 think, Mr. Speaker, the Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) has pointed out one of the difficulties in this motion. The McGrath Report itself came up with a

February 13, 1986
Standing Orders
number of recommendations, many of which are supportable and will be supported. However, in the transition from the McGrath Report to the proposed motion a number of Government changes have been injected, one is the notion of the five day naming. A second one is the notion of the registry.
I personally have no problem with any registry. I think Members of Parliament on all sides of the House should be open and above board at all times. I think it creates a somewhat specious view in the minds of the public if on the one hand you have a registry where Members of Parliament, government Members or opposition Members, can travel to Barbados, to Geneva or to Stockholm at the expense of taxpayers and have no public accountability through the registry, while on the other hand you can have Members on a mission or a fact finding tour sponsored by a group, other than the Government, who are fully accountable. I think the accountability should be across the board. That should include a full docket for Ministers as well as for Members of the Government and Opposition for all trips outside the country. It should not be restricted only to the notion of non-government funded trips.
I know from trying to track down Members from time to time that a number of Members are off on trips all over the world. I am not quite sure of the reason because they are with a Minister, it is not necessarily a subject for public discussion.


Mr. Stackhouse:: Mr. Speaker, I just want to respond to one remark the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) made yesterday in a speech to which I listened with care and interest. She claimed that the proposed system by which Government appointments will be reviewed by the committee would be neutered, that there will be no effective authority on the part of the committee and, therefore, it is not a useful reform.
I say briefly for the record that I do not understand the reform in those terms at all. The real effectiveness of the review will come from publicity. The light of public discussion in meetings and through the media will shine upon the appointment, and 1 think that will be a safeguard that any Government will keep in mind when the appointments are put forward.
I would say, Mr. Speaker, that there is good reason to believe this is the real effectiveness of the system now employed in the United State Senate. While there is a vote required so that the appointment can be confirmed or denied, the real power of the Senate lies in the publicity given to some nominations, the kind of discussion that is stimulated and which, in the past, has caused some nominations to be withdrawn.
MO)
I do not accept the claim that the committees and the review process have been neutered. I understand the Hon. Member's points but it seems that she has not given sufficient recognition to the effectiveness of the publicity which will arise from committee hearings.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member hearkens back to the discussion which occurred in the House yesterday, one of the difficulties I pointed out was that there would be no veto power for the committee. The second difficulty 1 pointed out was that in the proposed motion the Government has a certain prescribed period-I believe it is five days-in which to depose the Order in Council appointments, presumably after Cabinet has made its decision. Subsequent to that there is a maximum 30-day period for examination.
If we look at a period wherein there might be hundreds of appointments, for example, a summer period of two months where we might see 2,000 or at least hundreds of appointments-


Mr. Boudria:: Try the day before Christmas.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Or the day before Christmas. The way the current motion is established, we would be allowed to review all those appointments, and the review must be complete within the 30 days following the five days of the deposition. It seems that if we want to do a real thorough analyis and have the kind of public exposure about which the Hon. Member spoke, at the very least there should be no time limit on the period of review. The 30-day period actually hamstrings or handcuffs Members who may in fact want a very throrough review of several hundreds of appointments. In that regard I agree with the Member that some kind of public exposure is in and of itself a good thing.
We see that at the moment there is some public exposure when appointments are made, if they are not made the day before Christmas. However, on balance, if we introduce two elements which include the possibility for a veto of the committee and no time limit for review, we would have a better motion. It would speak to the issue of diffusing power from the Cabinet. Essentially at the moment we are reinforcing the notion that the Cabinet ultimately makes a decision for every Government action. If we are moving toward a reform system, some of that reform will have to entail taking away specific powers which rest now in Cabinet. This is why I think the veto power would be an indication that the Government was prepared to go in that direction.


Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to make a modest contribution to this important debate on the proposed amendments to the Standing Orders that govern the proceedings in the House of Commons. First of all, I want to say that on this side of the House, at least as far as the Liberal Party of Canada is concerned, we welcome these reforms of the Standing Orders of the House. I believe that the proposals before the House today are part of a number of changes that have been proposed from time to time in the House of Commons, also by the previous Government. In fact, Members who have been sitting in the House as long as I have will recall a major reform that was introduced in 1969.
February 13, 1986

Today, I think we should give credit to all Members on the Special Committee on Parliamentary Reform, chaired by the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath). Actually, 1 think the recommendations of the Hon. Member for St. John's East and his Committee would probably have been adopted faster than the Government's proposal, and I will get back to this point later on and explain my reason for mentioning it.
First of all, Mr. Speaker, on the subject of parliamentary reform, 1 would like to say a few words about the context in which I feel such reform should take place. The most visible part of that context is the parliamentary system in this country which is based on political parties. In Canada, our political parties represent certain tendencies, certain parts of the political spectrum, which may vary from left to right with all the variations in between. Traditionally, political parties in Canada have over the years represented certain specific political positions with which voters identify. In fact the Canadian electorate fully expects political parties in the House of Commons to live up to their election promises. In other words, let them follow up on their election platform. So people expect the Government to try to implement measures advocated on the hustings. Opposition Members are also expected to scrutinize every Government move and stick to the views they publicly defended, just so they will be true to themselves.
That is why I say that private Members should play a significant role but, as I see it, it is given short shrift because I maintain that political parties have primacy in our parliamentary system. The logical conclusion therefore is that the private Member's role does not weigh much in the balance. Well, not quite! Private Members do play an important role in our system because within their own caucus they help hammer out the policies of their Party and, through their contributions both in the House and in committees, they also do their share to draft and finalize legislation. Still, evidence about the way Canadians choose their Governments-particularly since the early 60s and given the ever growing presence of the electronic media-makes it clear that they cast their votes for political parties rather than for candidates. In my judgment, this factor cannot be ignored in any Parliament reform.
So what are the objectives of the reform? I would simply refer to a very straightforward statement made by the House Leader of my Party, the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray), who said: Our object must be to make Parliament do better that which it is intended to do. In my opinion, however, this does not mean that by improving Parliament, we want to make it a machine designed to adopt bills non-stop and full steam ahead. I feel that this would be a mistake. While a number of bills can go through all stages very quickly because they are straightforward or because they are fully supported by all parties in the House, or because their contents are generally felt by the public to be fair, equitable and reasonable, others must be fully and thoroughly considered during a debate which may last quite some time, if necessary.
Standing Orders
This reform of the House should not either make it possible for a limited number of opposition members or even for an opposition party to frustrate the will of the majority. I want to make it perfectly clear, therefore, that I fully support the Government's right to introduce its program as it sees fit, because a majority Government has received a mandate from the people.
What should we aim at? What is needed, in my view, is a balance between the right of the Government to carry out its program and the right of the opposition to bring to the people's attention the fundamental issues and to initiate a meaningful debate on matters and policies that are likely to result in major direction changes. I suggest that this reform should also aim at improving the public's awareness of the House's proceedings, because in a democratic system, the public's input is essential. And since the people are not themselves present inside the House, but are present through their elected representatives, they should be able to see what is going on here. 1 wish television and other media had access to the committees of the House to allow the public to see and editorialize on its own what is going on and not have to rely solely on members of the press gallery who, even though we must admit they do a very good job, act as intermediaries between the public and us, in the House of Commons.
That being said, I would like to state once again that generally speaking we support the Government proposals.
On this side of the House we agree generally with the reform as introduced by the House of Commons. When 1 say "generally", it means, of course, there is a caveat. There are a number of items that we would like to see modified.
The first thing I would like to say from a philosophical point of view is that if this report was a straight translation of the report of the Special Committee on the Reform of the House of Commons, chaired by the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), it would be easier to pass it through this House because all Members would feel that we were adopting a unanimous report of a committee on which all Parties were sitting. We cannot say that these proposals originate from the committee as they have been modified. The Government has to realize that these are Government proposals.
We do want changes but how are we going to accomplish this? We look at the motion before us and we realize that this motion does not allow amending several of the proposals. How do we go about it? I am happy to see the Government House Leader in the House together with his deputy, and I would like to explore with them how we can achieve that. What my Party would like to see is a change in our rules passing through the House of Commons rather swiftly. Personally I would be happy to go home to my riding for the recess with the pleasure of knowing that we have adopted new rules. If we are to achieve that how do we do it?

February 13, 1986
Standing Orders
I suggest the easiest way would be for discussions to take place between the House Leaders of our three Parties. I gather that discussions are likely to take place soon, and that is probably the best route. Otherwise there is a more cumbersome way that might have to be used, and that is to amend the motion that is before us and refer the proposals back to a committee where obviously specific amendments to some of these specific proposals could be introduced. I say this is too long a process. It would border on the adversarial, and I do not like it. Therefore, I suggest very strongly that discussions take place today while this debate is going on. We should come to some agreement to iron out some of the difficulties-and there are not too many of them, some are menial-so that we may conclude these discussions between Parties with a proposal which would reflect the desire of all Parties. In this way we would follow the tradition over the years of having the rules of the House adopted in a rather unanimous fashion, with few exceptions. We should strive to establish a set of rules with which everyone would agree. It would certainly improve the climate in the House of Commons. This is a goal worthwhile pursuing.
[ Translation]
Therefore, in my opinion, it would be quite worthwhile if the Government met today with the opposition parties and tried to bring in the few changes they are seeking so that we end up with a product that will be acceptable to all. Because it must be recognized that to this day, there have not been any agreement, secret or public, to adopt these changes to the rules without ample debate, which, in my opinion, should result in some adjustments. If we can come to an agreement, I am sure that when we leave at the end of the day, on Friday, we will have new rules, which is what I wish personnally.
Now, Mr. Speaker, to be more specific, I would like to mention some of the changes that have been suggested by some of my colleagues. First of all it becomes clear after listening to those who spoke in the House that many members referred to the problem we are facing regarding the proliferation of legislative committees.
This proliferation is causing tremendous difficulty, especially to opposition parties in view of the unbalance existing in this Parliament between the number of Opposition Members and Government Members. Indeed, by reducing the room to manoeuvre of opposition parties, the proliferation of legislative committees is affecting the quality of legislation, and in the end the public is the loser. In my opinion this is also affecting the climate in the House of Commons whereas the opposition parties with a small number of Members are hardput to believe that they have an important role to play in the development of legislation.
As we have followed the model of British legislative committees, I would suggest that we go a bit further and follow even more closely the British system, under which there are only eight legislative committees and bills must queue up before going before one of these committees. I believe that we should
limit the number of legislative committees, which would certainly allow the opposition parties to do a better job and also stop Government backbenchers from feeling pressured by the great number of bills being referred to committees as no member of this House, whatever his party, can give the required attention to some of the proposals before those committees. This is one thing which should be improved in my opinion and I hope that it will be discussed among the parties.
There is also the registration of trips abroad by Members of Parliament. I think that this is an excellent principle and a very good proposal. However, I am surprised that the proposal involves registration only for the exceptions, that is trips paid by individuals, foreign countries or companies. The major weakness of this proposal is that the most frequent type of trips would not be registered. Trips by Parliamentary delegations would not be registered, whether they are organized by the Secretary for Parliamentary Relations Secretariat or by various organizations, and this even applies, Mr. Speaker, to the delegations that you yourself are sometimes called to lead in other countries, to trips by Ministers or Government representatives, and I am of course speaking about the trips made with the taxpayers' money on official business. These would not be registered either. However, it would be very useful, as we have seen. During the present session. Ministers were already questioned by some members who were not convinced that public money had been spent sparingly enough. Consequently, I suggest that all trips-except the private trips abroad taken by a vacationing Member, which are is private business-relating to the duties of a Member or a Minister be registered. In my opinion, the Registry should be easily accessible. The data should be computerized to allow a quick check by anyone interested as, I believe, foreign travel undertaken by a Member of Parliament in that capacity is a public matter about which any Member of the House, or member of the public or the press should be able to obtain information. Each Member is responsible to his or her voters.
I would also like to draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, on one of the proposed Standing Orders which would give the Chair important powers to maintain order in the House. Some of my colleagues have already pointed out that giving the Chair the authority to exclude a Member for five days, as proposed under the new rules, was excessive. It seems to me that expulsion of a Member by the Chair, for one day, is quite sufficient. First of all, it prevents the Member from pursuing the objective he or she had in mind when he or she created the disorder. We all know that the following day the argument will have lost much of its impact, especially in these days of electronic medias, and consequently this is enough of a sanction.
Moreover, the publicity surrounding a suspension is bad generally for a Members's image. Indeed, one has to recognize the important principle that there must be some sort of order
February 13, 1986

in the House of Commons, and that the Chair must have the means to enforce it. However, it seems to me that the power to suspend a Member for one day is enough. Going any further would be depriving the Member and his constituents of the basic right to be represented in Parliament.
If I may, Sir, as one who has been a Member for 17 years, I can state that past experience has shown there is no need to give the Chair the authority to suspend a Member for a period of five days. Under the present system, when the Speaker names a Member, it rests with Government to introduce a motion to suspend that Member from the service of the House. But I do not recall any instance during the 17 years I have been here, of the Government introducing a motion to suspend a Member for more than one day. Recently, for instance, the Government could have suspended a Member for three, four, five days, or the whole session, but it never did so. All this is to say that I do not see the need for that, and 1 would be surprised if you yourself, Sir, without putting words in your mouth, would support such a measure.
I would also like to deal briefly with private Members business or bills. In my view, there must be a guarantee that the new system will be tighter than the one that is proposed- that it will not give the Government an opportunity to have important measures accepted as items of private Members' business, because it is a basic principle that the Government must be accountable to the people at all times. It has already been suggested as an example that amendments or a return to the death penality could pass in this House under the guise of a private Member's bill.
This then is all I will say about other changes that seem important to us in those proposals. Besides, other colleagues of mine have already referred to them. I will rather repeat before concluding, Mr. Speaker, that it seems essential to me that this package get the unanimous support of the House so that everyone will be happy, will comply with our Standing Orders and will also respect the Chair who has to enforce them. And it will be easier, Mr. Speaker, to enforce the Standing Orders if the political parties are in agreement when they are passed. As I said, I ask the Government to meet with the Opposition parties or in short to call a meeting of House leaders to discuss some of our problems. I am sure, and I am confident, Mr. Speaker, that if the parties seriously tackle the issue, we will come to an understanding and we could have before tomorrow afternoon a fine set of new Standing Orders acceptable to all and I hope for you, Mr. Speaker, that they will be scrupulously complied with by everyone.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, with his experience, I should like to ask the Hon. Member whether he could enlighten us on the problems which have arisen in the committees and how they could be solved or aggravated as a result of the proposed changes.
Standing Orders


Jacques Guilbault: There are surely several problems dealing with the operation of committees I do not want to be more specific. But surely the major problem resulting from some of the proposed changes and as experienced during the past few months, is the proliferation of legislative committees which I would say is excessive. As a consequence, a standing committee and a legislative committee may be sitting simultaneously to deal with the same matter. Therefore, a Member who is sitting on both committees has to choose between attending a legislative committee to deal with a bill or attending the standing committee to discuss other matters or some orders of reference received from the House. That is only part of the problem. The other part is the fact that from time to time, and this has actually happened, several legislative committees are sitting simultaneously.
Now this will never be an ideal situation, even when we have a better balance of representation in the House than we have today. But in times when the Opposition is not as well represented as it usually is in the House of Commons, this can be a major problem. Once again, if the Opposition is to make a constructive contribution towards improving the legislation referred to a legislative committee, we cannot let several committees sit simultaneously, and we will have to prevent the proliferation of such committees. I may recall my earlier suggestion, which is that if we want to adopt a model, which happens to be the British model in Westminster, we should adopt it in its entirety, and not just take this concept of a legislative committee and apply it in a way that does not work satisfactorily.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make the following comment and ask my hon. friend, the Member for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault) what he thinks about it.
We know that in the report prepared by the parliamentary committee chaired by the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), the recommendation regarding order-in-council appointments suggested that in addition to having a procedure for review of appointments by a parliamentary committee, the committee would also have the right to veto appointments to certain positions.
Mr. Speaker, I think Hon. Members would prefer to have this veto right applied to all positions.
1 also think the Hon. Member for St. John's East wanted to strike some kind of balance, and in his report he and his colleagues elected to set up a system by which certain positions would not only be scrutinized but would also be subject to veto, including positions that are connected directly with the House of Commons: the Clerk, for instance, the Commissioner of Official Languages, and so forth. I think there were about 40 positions that would not only be subject to scrutiny but also to veto.
I would therefore ask the Hon. Member whether he would care to comment on whether we should have this veto right for

February 13, 1986
Standing Orders
all order-in-council appointments, or just for certain positions, as recommended in the report by the Hon. Member for St. John's East, or not at all, as the Government has proposed in the amendments before the House.


Jacques Guilbault: As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, that is one of the shortcomings of the project under consideration. Had the Government chosen to present the special committee report as it was, Opposition Parties would have adopted it without a fuss because we did attend those meetings and agree to the contents of the report.
Unfortunately, I repeat that the Government picked out the provisions it could live with and rejected others it did not like. So we ended up with lopsided proposals, whereas the report presented by the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) did strike a fair balance.
With respect to appointments, Hon. Members will not have much more to say under these new provisions. In fact, we do not gain anything. Members will be allowed to call appointees to appear, but in many instances we can do that as it is.
Let us say we want to look into the appointment of a major Crown corporation president. We ask the president to appear before the committee. We can do that now and ask him questions. Under the new provisions, we would do the same thing, but in a different way.
If in some cases the committee had a veto or suspensive power concerning an appointment, as advocated by the Special Committee on Reform of Parliament, then the Government would show it is aware of the fact that it has given or transferred some of its powers to the House, to private Members. But it has not done that.
As it is, it is nothing more than window dressing, a sham, because we already have the power to call as witnesses before the committees the presidents and senior officials of most Crown corporations. This, therefore, does not add much.
What was needed was a legislation with sharper teeth, but the Government dared not, or did not find desirable to act in this direction.


Mr. Speaker:: Debate. The Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau) has the floor.


Mr. Raymond Garneau (Laval-des-Rapides):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to deal also with this motion, the purpose of which is to adopt provisional Standing Orders of the House for a trial period of about one year.
Some may wonder why members of the Official Opposition rise in the House one after the other to deal with this motion concerning changes to the House's procedures, when these changes are usually adopted very quickly because of a consensus arrived at between the various parties' House Leaders.
We are rising one after the other to put forward very often the same type of arguments, so that people watching us on TV orGovernment Members could easily conclude that it is repetitive and that the debate is being extended needlessly. But, Mr. Speaker, is that not the very essence of Parliamentary debate? What role could a member or a party play in the House if, whenever there is a difference of opinions, he or she is not allowed to repeat his or her points to the limit and thereby bring about some changes? Indeed, these changes to our procedural rules, even though they are to be provisional, could easily become permanent if the Government chose to proceed, as it is doing now, by using the weight of its majority.
Mr. Speaker, I have not been here that long, but I have had the honour to sit in another Parliament which undertook a complete reform of its parliamentary procedure following what was then called the Lavoie Report, after the representative of Laval who was also Speaker at the Quebec National Assembly. As is the case here with the McGrath Report, we then had the Lavoie Report, which was studied by Members of all the parties and which, in my opinion, had to a great extent met its objective of developing a consensus among the parties on a new parliamentary procedure. To my knowledge, various Parliaments have examined not only the changes that were made, but also the effects that this has had on parliamentary debate.
We are often tempted to compare parliamentary procedure in the House of Commons or in provincial legislatures with the procedures in the American Congress, and to compare the role of a Member of the Canadian House of Commons, the Quebec National Assembly or the Ontario Legislative Assembly to that of a representative in the American Congress. I believe that it is a serious mistake to try to make such a comparison because our Parliamentary systems are completely different and our rules must reflect this difference. It could be said that the major role of Parliament would probably be to debate general policy for public administration.
It could be said that second role of Parliament is certainly to legislate and that its third role is to vote supply and control expenditures.
It could certainly be said that through our debates and parliamentary committees, we try and reach a national consensus on various subjects. I would also say that most of the arguments and much of the disorder take place when Members try to fulfill their role, under our adversarial system which is to make the Government act openly, that is to say to force Ministers to answer for their Department, make them acknowledge in this House and in front of the public the actions they took and explain the reason why they have taken them. Very often, that is were the problems arise, as the Government tries to use its majority to avoid this type of questioning from the Opposition. Under our system, we have opposing teams facing each other. Even the physical set up of
February 13, 1986

this Chamber, Mr. Speaker, is designed that way. It is not quite like that at the present time, because of the results of the September 4th election, but normally you have the Government on your right and the Opposition on your left. The rules and the parliamentary tradition require that the Opposition House Leader, the Government House Leader, the Government Party Leader and the Opposition Party Leader reflect the ideas of their respective caucuses. Consequently, whether we want it or not, we have two machines facing each other. Our whole system revolves around that notion. It is Fine to talk about the role of the private Member, but we have to put it in that perspective. That is why it is not possible, in my opinion, to give a Canadian Member of Parliament the same role and responsabilities given to a representative in the American Congress, because our systems are entirely different. There, Members can propose bills, through their committees, even if they involve expense of public funds. There are all kinds of differences.
Therefore, the rights of the Government and those of the Opposition are set out in parliamentary rules, and in order that each group may adequately fulfil its mandate, we must have fundamental guarantees, and not only for the benefit of today's Opposition. The Conservatives sat on this side for a number of years, and no doubt will come back to it shortly. It is my view that our parliamentary system must protect the fundamental rights not only of individual Members but of the groups within which such Members are working. I have served long enough in political parties to the right of the Chair to know that the Government Member's fundamental role is often played within the caucus. It is so true that it is an important feature of our rules and of our parliamentary system that here, in Ottawa, as in the Legislative Assemblies, contradictions that are publicly aired between Ministers or Government Members or between Opposition Members make the headlines.
I have spent a few days with a delegation of Government Members, Members of all sides of the House who went to Washington to study tax reform. We were privileged to be hosted by the Special Committee which deals with all tax legislation, and so forth. Mr. Speaker, we saw things that do not happen very often in our committees-Democrats and Republicans fighting together against other Democrats and Republicans, who happened to be the Opposition within the committee. Here, the rules are so different that a Government Member who would go to a parliamentary committee and launch an open attack against his or her Minister would no doubt experience the treatment that some Members apparently got recently. He or she would be gagged. And this is normal, because we are teams fighting each other-a Government made up of a majority of Members and dependent on that majority to maintain its position, and an Opposition.
Standing Orders
Now parliamentary rules must reflect that. This is the reason why I submit that in my concept of the British parliamentary system, if we want to change it, I would be ready to discuss it. I do not underestimate the advantages of certain procedures in existence in the United States or in other parliamentary systems. However, as we live under a British parliamentary system, we should be very careful to safeguard the fundamental rights of the Government.
The Government has the right to legislate. The Government has a fundamental right, it has received the support from a majority of voters and thus has a majority of Members. It is entitled to govern.
However the right to govern does not mean that it can stop the Opposition from preventing the passage of some bills. As we see it now. It can be tiresome for a backbencher who would like everybody to be kind and helpful and to ease up the passage of those rules. However, I do not suggest that there are bad things in them, there are many good ones. However, the only tool the Opposition has is this Parliament where the proceedings are held. It would not even be necessary to have so many Members here if the Government made a decision which would have to be approved within half an hour. Surely our Parliament is here for having discussions and as under our parlamentary system some Members are for and some are against, such discussions can only be spirited.
We do not agree on fundamental issues. And the problem is that when we do agree, things go down easily and no one notices. But what catches the eye of the public opinion? Only those issues on which we disagree. That is why people often say to us: The Opposition is wasting the time of the House. But I think it is important to see things in a global perspective.
Consider for instance the matter of old age security pensions which was debated for so long in this place. Can you think for one second, Mr. Speaker, that if we in the Official Opposition had just been content with two or three questions and, seeing that the Government was not amenable to our point of view, and we had said: Well, there is nothing else we can do, we have no right to come back for three or four days in a row on the same question and to annoy all Government backbenchers, can you think for one second that the elderly people in Canada would now have fully indexed old age security pension? Do you think that in the case of family allowance, for instance, even if we did not succeed eventually, in spite of a previous commitment by the Government, do you think that we in the Opposition had no right to belabor that matter regularly?
I could mention a number of other instances, and 1 will therefore, before I conclude, mention also some of the suggestions that were put forward. And there again, Mr. Speaker, I will not mention those issues on which we have agreed, but rather those which warrant a careful approach.

February 13, 1986
Standing Orders
This happened with the legislative committees and that experience was referred to by my colleagues. Especially when the Opposition, as is now the case, is made up of only 40 Honourable Members; however it does not mean that the institutional role of the Opposition should not be fulfilled. As a matter of fact, when we had so many legislative committees, my colleague of Outremont (Mrs. Pepin) literally had to run from one committee sitting to another, sharing has time between the Standing Committee studying matters related to immigration and two other legislative committees which were considering bills dealing with issues coming under her scope of activity. Finally, one has only 24 hours in a day to eat, rest a little and mostly, as a member, do research work. After a week of that strenuous regime, a Member is faced with the problem of finding time to read and do research in order to properly discharge his on her duty.
That is why we believe that this proliferation of legislative committees is not in the Parliament best interests and that their number should be limited or at least, that a more restrictive use should be made of them.
1 am also concerned with the matter of maitaining a registry of trips taken by Members of Parliament. I agree that there should be a registry and I think it is a very good idea; 1 would even say that it is essential, and I know that my colleague from Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) has often raised this question with me, even before I came here as it was one of his pet projects. So, maintaining a registry is certainly a good idea.
But why maintain a registry of a very restricted number of trips by Members? If I am a member of a delegation of the Association internationale des parlementaires de langue fran-Qaise, to which I belong, and leave with the delegation for a francophone country of Africa, say, I do not see why my name should not appear on the registry for anyone to see, including the media. The same thing could be said about a Government Member who would accompany a Minister travelling to the Francophone Summit, why should that not be recorded in the registry? I think the only exception would be trips made by a Member at his own expenses, whether he is on holidays or decides to travel to study something at his own expenses. That would be the only exception, everything else should appear on the registry.
Another matter which I find rather intriguing and which should be of some concern to you, Mr. Speaker, is the authority which the Chair would have to suspend a Member for five sitting days, without any kind of motion. This brings me back to what I said a moment ago: there is a reason why this institution is called the House of Commons. You know, that name just did not happen to drop from the sky, it could have been called the House of Lords, the House of Academics, or even the House of Canadian VIPs. No, Sir, it is known as the House of Commons because we represent the people and all classes in our society, and debates can be nothing but lively. I often come across some of my friends who have nothing to do
with politics, they watch television and say: My God, what a lively place, you cannot even agree with one another! Well, if we all agreed, we would not need Parliament. Just look at municipal councils with five, six or ten aldermen. Their meetings can go on until midnight or one o'clock in the morning. Obviously, as soon as a bunch of people meet in the same room to discuss a matter, they may or may not agree, and if they do not, they will have to argue their points according to certain rules of parliamentary procedure, and that is why we need those rules to protect the rights of Members.
In the course of parliamentary debate, in which there may be considerable animosity ... For instance yesterday, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) did not, we felt, give a clear answer to a question he was asked about unemployment insurance. He gave the impression that the rules had not been changed and that the matter had been referred to the Forget Commission, while letters had been received, and of course all members received the same representations, complaining that people were not receiving unemployment insurance benefits if they were drawing a pension. In a case like that, the debate tends to get heated. We cannot just go along with the fact that the Minister rises in the House and knowingly or unknowingly fails to reflect a situation that was quite obvious. Mr. Speaker, it is quite understandable that in a case like that, Opposition Members are furious, and that is what we are here for. Our role is to act agressively enough to make the Minister reconsider and give us the information, and also to make sure the general public is informed.
If in the course of debate, Members happen to raise their voices or if on the spur of the moment, because a Member is absolutely convinced that he is right, he uses words that are unparliamentary, Mr. Speaker, you will call him to order, and you may do so once or twice, but to give the Chair the authority to expel a Member from the House for five days . . . If I were in the Chair, that is one prerogative I would not want to have, because it is a dangerous one, and I am thinking of what might happen in a major debate. When Maurice Richard was benched for five consecutive games before the Stanley Cup play-offs, it caused a riot at the Montreal Forum. Imagine, in a crucial debate, imagine the pipeline debate, if the Leader of the Opposition, John Diefenbaker, had been expelled for five days, imagine what the reaction would have been in the House!
So this is one prerogrative which I consider excessive, and I feel we ought to find a way to changing this particular Standing Order, and if we could do this outside the House, in Caucus, and with representatives of the various parties, 1 think it would be in the best interests of all concerned.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Given the good knowledge that the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau) has not only of the federal but also the provincial political scene, I would like
February 13, 1986

to ask him to clarify his views on the matter of the five-day suspension. I think that other Hon. Members might want to speak about it. When he mentioned that the Opposition Leader was really involved in the pipeline debate, will the revised Standing Orders, the proposals that are now before us, in effect cut off debate or not?


Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, the incumbents change but the office remains. What I wanted to emphasize when I made a comparison with the pipeline debate ... In fact, to everyone who followed politics in the late 50's-my colleague from Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) is too young to have been around when this debate took place, but it was towards the end of my academic studies-that debate was a turning point in Canadian politics and even probably brought about the change in Government in 1957 and 1958. That debate was really lively and hot and I wanted to underline that the new Standing Orders would give the Chair such huge powers that I cannot see how a Speaker could apply them while maintaining order and decorum in the House. That would undermine the nonpartisan role of the Chair because it could easily be argued that the Speaker suspended a Member of Parliament for five days under the pressure of the parliamentary majority which is in power. Even today, under normal circumstances, a Member is expelled for one day on the House's initiative and not the Speaker's. I think it is very significant that in our parliamentary system, the Speaker or the person who is in the chair in the House of Commons or any other Legislature at the provincial level, is the humble servant of all Members of Parliament. He does not act as a judge who gives rulings but he is the servant of all Hon. Members. This has been reflected traditionally in all kinds of rules and interpretations. Therefore, when a Member is suspended, it is by the House itself by means of a vote.
I know that the procedure has been made easier in other jurisdictions. However, this custom results from the fact that since the Speaker is the servant of all Hon. Members, he cannot both take action persona proprio motu, as both judge and jury. He may designate a member by his name and it is the House itself that will expel him for a day by upholding his decision. I find it excessive to give the Speaker such a power ... If the objective is to save time, we might replace this by a vote to be taken immediately, within ten minutes. At the present time, the vote must be taken within the next thirty minutes, which I find excessive as I said. However, as concerns the question you raised, I think that the principle that must prevail in our rules is that the Chair is not a judge but the servant of all Hon. Members and that it should not be put in such a situation that it could be easily accused of bias.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to the other question raised by my hon. colleague for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau) and the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier). It concerns the committees in which all members are involved. The Hon. Member might share his experience
Standing Orders
with us as I think he is a member of several financial committees which seem to be non-partisan and one of which is chaired by an Opposition member.
Could he tell us if the multiplication of committees will be a good thing or if it will be too difficult to find a sufficient number of members within the Opposition's ranks.


Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, I find the question asked by the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) quite interesting. First, why did we appoint Standing Committees, and not only here but in other legislatures? Because we wanted some questions to be examined in depth by groups of Hon. Members; after a while they become in a way experts in agricultural matters or in international affairs. If you have been for a long time a member of the Committee on Agriculture, even if you are not familiar with the farm community and agricultural problems at the beginning, after two or three years, you become fairly well briefed on the subject. Standing Committees are composed of Hon. Members who chose in the first place to become members and who said so to their House Leader, who agreed. Secondly, they have not only an interest in the subject because they chose that committee, but they develop expertise.
If we appoint more and more legislative committees, it means that at a certain time-it was the case with the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs-it becomes impossible for three or four persons to cover the whole area. The Hon. Members who become experts in Standing Committees become useless when Bills dealing with a particular subject must be examined because it becomes impossible to cover the whole area, in particular in a situation like this one, where every Hon. Member, in particular Opposition Members, both on the Liberal and on the NDP sides, must be a member of two or three committees.
If this is a means this majority Government is using in order to have its bills adopted quickly, it should come right out and say so. But if such is not the case, and if it is sincerely seeking new mechanisms for individual members to get more directly involved in the consideration of the many bills, there should be a procedure, as suggested earlier by my hon. friend from Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault), to determine which legislative committee will sit, where and at what time, and set up a work schedule which will make it possible for these people to carry out their duties both as members of the House and members of the committees.


Sheila Maureen Copps: I should like to ask him next-about the committee issue. On the basis of his experience sitting on the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, does he feel that committee members are more efficient when they address a general problem with a great many ramifications, or when they concentrate on only one or two subjects? For instance, when it dealt with the failure of the Commercial Bank of Canada, the committee spent a lot of time studying

February 13, 1986
Standing Orders
the problem thoroughly. On the other hand, other committees are exposed to such dissipation that members who are supposed to attend do not because nothing concrete ever comes out of their proceedings. That is why there were problems during the trial period.
Would the Hon. Member agree that if we were to accept the proposal as it has been implemented during the trial period this year with the new committee system, it would be a good idea to be able to review the whole process before the end of the 10-month period, as suggested in the motion?


Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, if we take for example the committee which considered the failure of the Canadian Commercial Bank and Northland Bank, this Committee had to examine those issues just about at the same time as it was considering the Green Paper on the Reform of Financial Institutions.
Only to give an example, while the date when this committee would meet had not been chosen at the time, if the Committee had also had to examine Bill C-84 and C-80, which dealt with financial matters, it would have been complete chaos. It would have been completely impossible, not only to make an in-depth study to see where the Government had made mistakes in the bank failures, since the Government had to bear its share of responsibility in this affair and it was our duty to say so to the Canadian people, but we would also have been unable to make an in-depth study of the amending legislation, for instance to deindex personal income tax tables and provide for substantial tax increases. The committee could not have reviewed such legislation at the same time.
I am not saying that this is the intention of the Government at this time, but it would certainly become extremely tempting for a parliamentary majority to use this mechanism to prevent the Opposition from doing its job. This could provoke a strange backlash if the majority were to impose by force these new rules instead of doing so by consensus. It could come back to haunt them and they might be the first to critize the rules when they change sides three years from now.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask another question on another matter, namely petitions and Order Paper questions. Certain changes have been proposed of which the effect would be to cut off a Member asking his fourth question or presenting a petition with only 22 or 23 signatures. I would like to ask the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau) whether he agrees with me that, if a few people in his constituency want to present a petition about a problem which exists either in their riding or in Canada as a whole, they should be entitled to do so in the House of Commons without any restrictions being imposed because there are not as many of them as big companies, for instance.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau) has the floor, but unfortunately for us, he has only a few seconds left.


Raymond Garneau: I shall only say in reply to the Hon. Member that the formula for presenting petitions uses the proper language with respect to an ancient and basic right and so on. I think that the fact that for years we have been required as Hon. Members to use such a formula precisely reflects the reason why the right to Fill in and table petitions in the House should be upheld.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Debate. The Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria).


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak briefly on the reform of the House and I do so in all humility being a new Member who was elected at the last election. I cannot pride myself on having the expertise gained with years of experience by some of my colleagues on both sides of the House. However, I had the opportunity in the past to sit in another legislature, namely the Ontario Legislature, where for a few years I had the privilege of representing my constituents in that House so that I can compare at least two different forums and try, if you would allow me, to tell you about the good points which relate to both Houses and indicate where the present system needs to be improved.

The first thing I want to bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, is the structure of legislative committees as we now know them. Under the last reform of the House of Commons, the House adopted a system which provided for new committees. This looked extremely good on paper, of course, because we could then strike a committee of people who had a particular interest in the topic or in the piece of legislation. That committee, with its expertise and knowledge, could deal with a Bill about which it knew something.
One would ask what could be wrong with that. Well, nothing is wrong with the structure. However, unfortunately, whether or not it was inadvertent, the system was abused. At this time some Members of the House are members of so many committees that it would be physically impossible to attend all of their meetings even if they were awake 24 hours a day and never left the Parliament Buildings.

I will give you an example, Mr. Speaker.
I for one am a member of the Standing Committee on Agriculture. This Committee does plenty of work for people in my constituency and a great many other areas in Canada- that work is very important as we know. I also sit on the Committee on Public Accounts, which reviews Government expenditures. I also have been appointed to many other committees, and I will tell you about some of them. I sit on the Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates, which has a very
February 13, 1986

important role as you would say. I sit also on the Committee on Procedure and Organization, the Legislative Committee on Bill C-45, the Committee on Bill C-87, the Committee on Bill C-256, the Committee on National Resources and Public Works. Thus, as you may see, Mr. Speaker, I sit on seven or eight different committees of this House.
Besides, as every other Member does, 1 have constituents- there are 100,000 of them in my constituency-with all the problems faced by constituents everywhere. Since 1 represent a rural constituency, we all know this entails a lot of travelling around, and I see some Members opposite agree to that, because they are in the same situation. We must also sit in this House to represent our constituents in this, the highest court in the land. Also as Members of Parliament, we have to meet in caucus with members of our own political parties. In that respect, I chair the Ontario Liberal Caucus. So this entails rather frequent meetings.
I also sit on this party's caucus' executive, which meets twice daily to plan questions or issues which must be raised in this House, and so forth.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I think you realize that something that was well intended has in fact become a parliamentary monster, and it is absolutely impossible for a Member to do his work under the circumstances. The number of those committees must therefore be reduced at all costs, and it must be ensured that those who have been elected, even in a minority party in this House, can go on performing their duties not withstanding.

I want to raise with you the issue of Order in Council appointments. The committee chaired by the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) published a report of the Special Committee on the Reform of the House of Commons. I believe that by and large that was an extremely good report. I want to congratulate the Member for St. John's East and the other members of the committee who worked so diligently to prepare that reform package. However, I resent the fact that the Government chose to adopt only those portions of it which it saw as advantageous to it and neglected to adopt those portions which were perhaps less favourable to the Government of the day.
The governing Party should remember that, although it is presently sitting on the Government benches, that situation is not permanent. On occasion Parties change positions in the House, as they did in the last election, and as they will again. If I may be partisan, I hope that will happen sooner than later. While trying to keep my tone rather non partisan, I do say that the governing Party should remember that these rules are made for the House as a whole rather than for the Government. The rules should be designed to enhance the role of Members regardless of which side they sit on.
The Government adopted only certain portions of the report, and one of the portions it omitted has to do with Order in Council appointments. Under the provisions of the report of
Standing Orders
the Member for St. John's East, nominations by Order in Council would be reviewed by a parliamentary committee. That is what the Government wants to do at the moment. However, the committee recommended that there be a right of veto over certain political nominations, certain nominations by Order in Council. An example of this would be the officers of this House; the Clerk of the House, the Auditor General, the Commissioner of Official Languages and a certain number of others.
I think it is important to note that in order for those people who are charged with the functions I have just described to function properly, they and many others should have the support of all political Parties and, really, all Members of this House. What better way is there to ensure that those appointees enjoy that confidence than by giving a committee of Members of this House a right of veto over those appointments. Unfortunately, the Government did not see it that way. It chose to give a right of examination, which is good, but certainly not as effective as giving a right of veto.
I would like to speak briefly on the travel registry, Mr. Speaker. I am sure all Members would probably wonder why, if I do not, having been the personal subject of a minor amount of controversy on the topic.
Last fall, Members will recall, I had the opportunity, having been asked by a fellow Member of the House of Commons from another political Party, to join a parliamentary delegation visiting Taiwan. The delegation was composed of Members on both sides of the House; seven Conservatives, two Liberals and one with no political affiliation.
I did some research, asking whether the trip was precedent setting. In other words, was it the kind of trip that usually happened. I learned that Members of Parliament had been to Taiwan on six or seven different earlier occasions. I inquired whether the trip was partisan or non partisan.
There were people from both sides of the House involved, and that sounded all right. I wanted to know whether the trip was to be paid by another country, non-profit group or the Government of Canada. I learned that the trip was to be paid by a non-profit organization in the host country. That sounded all right as well. Finally, I asked who had gone on previous trips, only to discover that approximately a dozen present Members of Cabinet had been on the same type of trip to Taiwan.
Along with the other Members, I went. It was a very interesting trip. I informed my electors of the trip before I left through a press release. Some would say that was probably the mistake I made, but I had nothing to hide.
As things turned out, Mr. Speaker, some controversy arose over the trip; not in my view because I had gone, but perhaps because I had criticized others in the past who had partaken in certain ventures that caused large expenses to the Government of Canada with little or no benefit.
10764

February 13, 1986
Standing Orders
Pursuant to that particular episode, the Government decided to study the possibility of having a travel registry. The purpose of this registry was to ensure that everyone knew where Members were going and who paid for the trips.
I draw to your attention, Mr. Speaker, that a Cabinet Minister could, right now, fly to Europe every third or fourth day all year round on an Armed Forces plane and never register that fact under this proposed registry. In other words, a Member of Parliament or a Cabinet Minister could take 75 trips a year to Europe and not have to register them. On the other hand, a Member who takes a trip, such as the one I took last year, would.
There is nothing wrong with any Member having to register the trips they take. Why is it that a Cabinet Minister or a government member or others can travel with a member of Cabinet on a government jet or on an Armed Forces plane outside the country and not have to account for it to anyone, while an opposition backbencher has to account for every move he or she makes?
I will not be so cynical as to claim this whole process is an attempt by the Government to stop members of the Opposition from doing anything so that they can themselves partake in those activities to a greater extent because they, being on the government side, have very little if any accounting to do for that kind of activity.
If the Government wants to have any kind of fairness at all, it is very important, and I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that you will recognize this, that all trips taken for all reasons outside Canada by any elected person in this House be accounted for.
As I indicated in the past, I have nothing to hide. I never attempted to do so. That is the way it should be for every Member of the House of Commons. Let us register where we are going every time we leave the country and who is paying- if it is not ourselves on a personal holiday-whether the Government of Canada, a Government of another country or a group. Everyone should be able to view the document and to question whether a Member of Parliament has been to Europe nine times in 13 months, or if a Member has not gone any place in the last four years. There may be very worthwhile reasons that a Member had to go to Europe that frequently, but he or she should be able to account for it. Some correction is needed in this regard.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words about the new Standing Orders regarding the suspension of a Member from the service of the House. I am speaking as a Member who may on occasion have come close to being asked to withdraw from the House, although this has never happened yet in the course of my political career, neither at the provincial level nor here in the House, and I hope it never will. And I say this with my usual sincerity, the same sincerity I apply to getting my views across in the House and making the Government account for
its actions, but I certainly hope I will never see the day that I am suspended from the House by order of the Speaker.
And I can understand, let us say I could tolerate a situation where the Speaker could have a Member removed from the House or suspended from the House for one day. In fact, that is what happens in the Ontario Legislative Assembly.
However, I prefer our system where the Members themselves decide whether a Member should leave the House. 1 think this enhances the role of the Speaker, reminding us that he is the servant of the House, not its master. I am sure that you, Mr. Speaker, will agree.
But to recommend that the Speaker have the authority to suspend a Member for five days ... I am sure that you, Mr. Speaker, being the reasonable person you are, would not want such authority. To have such power is a dangerous thing! It is dangerous because, I believe this would mean the Speaker would no longer be the servant of the House, as I said before, but its master. I am sure that is a role that neither you, sir, nor your successors in the Chair would wish to have. I just wanted to raise this point, Mr. Speaker, which is in fact the most contentious aspect of the amendments before the House today. I would urge the House leaders of all three parties to meet before the end of this debate and withdraw this particular section from the proposed amendments. I feel it is totally inadmissible, being the most contentious of all the recommendations made for parliamentary reform. It is a symbolic gesture, Mr. Speaker, but it is important to each and everyone of us.
The constituents in Glengarry-Prescott-Russell elected me to represent them in the House and not outside the House for five days, and especially not by order of another Member, even if that Member happens to be the Speaker. Should the electors of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell ever decide they want a Member thrown out of the House they can always resort to the electoral process, as can others in all constituencies in Canada, and they have been known to do just that.
I insist on this point, Mr. Speaker, because it is very important, and I would urge Government Members to express their views about this since it is a non-partisan aspect of the proposed changes to the Standing Orders. 1 think we are now dealing with the most significant proposal and, with all the conviction I can muster, Mr. Speaker, I must say I do not agree that anyone-except our electors-should enjoy the privilege of throwing a Member out of the House, especially not for five sitting days.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) about the point he has just raised at the end of his remarks, namely that under the new Standing Orders the Speaker would be allowed to name a Member and suspend him from the proceedings of the House, first for one day and then, as a result of
February 13, 1986

successive incidents which would prompt the Chair to name him a second time, for five sitting days.
Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member and the House know very well that the suspension of a Member is the object of a procedure whereby the Speaker names the Members. Second, normally in support of the Speaker, the Government must move a motion. The motion calls for a division and it is only after the vote that the Member involved is suspended and must leave the House. As far as I know there is nothing in our present Standing Orders which would prevent the Government from introducing a motion pursuant to which any Member might be expelled or suspended from the House for one, two, three, five days, a week or more. Nothing in the Standing Orders provides that the Member must be suspended for the rest of the sitting day. I stand to be corrected, but in my brief experience here in the House I have never heard anything about a Government moving a motion to suspend a Member for more than the rest of the sitting day. Nowhere in my research did I find one instance where a motion was introduced to suspend a Member for more than one day.
That is why I would suggest the Hon. Member is quite right to say that it would be giving a lot of authority to the Speaker, the kind of authority which perhaps the Chair itself would not want to have. 1 would like to support him and I will have the opportunity to deal with this issue in a speech this afternoon. I agree with the statement he has made to the effect that the Government could try at least to reduce this power which I feel is excessive and give the House the authority to ask an Hon. Member to withdraw from the House.
I would like to direct a question to the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, if I may. He said that his constituents were the only ones who could deprive him of his right to speak out in the House, and I agree with him that he could be deprived of this right following an election, but I am sure- and I would like him to confirm this-that he has enough democratic sense to realize that if he has caused a disturbance which his peers feel is serious enough to warrant a warning or an exclusion, his peers in the House, his own colleagues, could move a motion to express their condemnation of his behaviour or conduct in the House, or could they not?


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) is quite right in that obviously a member who creates a disturbance makes it impossible for the House to operate, and in so doing, is abusing the privileges of all the other members of the House. A member who behaves like this prevents the constituents of all the other Members from being represented. Which means that all other Members together have the power, the privilege and indeed the duty to expel this member in order for their constituents to be represented in the House. I will even go as far as to say that it is not only the privilege of other members to propose such a motion, but also that it is their duty to suspend an unruly member. However, as was mentioned by the Member of Ottawa-Vanier, as far the
Standing Orders
government has never suspended a member for more than a day, namely the day of his misconduct. Why then does the Government want to give this privilege to the Speaker when we know that it would never use it itself? Would the Government like to give the Speaker a responsibility which it would not assume when it could have done so? That, Mr. Speaker, is the crux of the matter. The Government, even with its current majority, or any previous Government with a different majority, has always been reluctant to use this power and throw out a Member for more than a day, the day in fact when his conduct in the House was unruly. Why is that so? There are several reasons for it. First of all, Government Members themselves recognize that the suspended member's constituents have the right to be represented in this House. Therefore his suspension should only last until order is restored, after which the debate should resume, Mr. Speaker.
As you can see Mr. Speaker, even a Government with a very large majority is reluctant to use a power it wants to give to someone else. Does it mean that they are trying to force the Speaker to do something that they did not have not the courage, or did not deem necessary to do? I ask this question in all sincerity. The answer is probably no; it is probably not what the Government wishes to do. I will even give it credit by saying that it is not the case.
If it is not the case, Mr. Speaker, why do not they take this opportunity to withdraw this part immediately, because obviously this is a mistake which the Government House Leader has made. These things happen Mr. Speaker, when only half of the recommendations of a Parliamentary Committee report are accepted with subsequent deletions and additions. Had the Government decided to introduce the McGrath Report in its entirety, all this controversy would not have taken place today. When additions are made at the last minute, a problem such as the one the Government must now face with regard to that portion of the project, can arise.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Exactly!


Don Boudria: Naturally, it is because these additions have been made at the last minute without prior consideration in Committee. So it is a mistake, and I am even willing to admit that it is a mistake on the part of the Government. I think that part of the proposal should be withdrawn.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I have two questions for the Hon. Member of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria). One is related to the Order Paper Questions. Would he know if as a result of these changes, fewer than four questions can be addressed to the Government at the same time? I would like to ask him whether he agrees with this initiative. If not, why?
If you allow me, Mr. Speaker, I will now ask my second question. It relates to the registry, a recommendation which has been added to those of the McGrath Committee report,

February 13, 1986
Standing Orders
according to which any member travelling abroad will have to make public all the details concerning their trip, namely where they went, and so on. I resent the fact that the Government-it might have been done on purpose-has decided not to include on the list members accompanying Ministers or even Ministers who travel abroad. Why should all the members of all parties abide by that rule with the exception of Ministers and those accompanying them?


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to provide the Hon. Member with a short answer with respect to written questions appearing on the order paper.
It says a Member may only ask four questions at the same time in the House, and I am afraid it is not quite clear what exactly is a question. For example, I have questions on the order paper which are two or three pages long. Will this be considered as 25,4 or one question? It is not all that clear.
However, assuming that a question in several parts could be considered as a question under that new procedure, it would be satisfactory as long as the Government provides answers. Because there is a problem, Mr. Speaker ... I have now about 25 questions on the order paper, but the problem is of course that the Government does not answer them. Very briefly, I will tell you that I have this question on the order paper since February 28, 1985: What are the salaries of the Prime Minister's staff? I have a question about the Quebec Summit last year which I put on the order paper on April 1 and it has not yet been answered.
If the Government answered the questions more expeditiously it would probably be more satisfactory, subject to the interpretation, as I indicated a few minutes ago.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


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


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I wish simply to rectify a comment I made earlier when I said that inasmuch as I knew, the House had never suspended a Member for more than a day. Somebody immediately called me to say that I was wrong. That is why I want to quote citation 25, in Beauchesne's Fifth edition of Parliamentary Rules and Forms, about calling a Member by name. It says:
(5) The penalty common in Canada is suspension for the remainder of the sitting day. On one occasion the House decided upon a seven day suspension-
Mr. Speaker, I think that that was in 1944. It happened only once in our history, but I wanted to tell the House so that Members would not be misled by my earlier statement.


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a few minutes to clarify what I said yesterday in commenting the speech of the Hon. Member for
St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) from Newfoundland, who is also chairman of the committee.
First, I would like to congratulate the members of this committee, especially its chairman, the Hon. Member for St. John's East, as well as the co-chairmen, the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) and the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie), and the other members, they presented to the House of Commons a report in both official languages entitled: "Report of the Special Committee on the Reform of the House of Commons". They worked with patience and integrity and they did a great job.
I must say that the recommendations made to the House were of course not all implemented or endrosed by the Government, which then presented, as it was entitled to do, not only the comments on the report which are now required by the Standing Orders, but also this proposal which we have been asked to approve.
Many things strike me, Mr. Speaker, and as I said yesterday, there are some points which should be clarified in the French and English versions as concerns the first point on which I would like to say a few words, namely the expulsion of Members from the House by the Speaker.
First, I must say that for a Member to be expelled is the ultimate punishment. I have always said and continue to believe that the Speaker of the House and his representatives, such as yourself, have an ultimate power against Members of Parliament in case of total disorder. However, since this is an ultimate weapon, they must show a lot of discretion in using this power and do so only after showing a maximum of patience, after reminding a Member on whatever side of the House of his duties as a parliamentarian, and after having appealed to him because, in fact, the Speaker is not the master of the House of Commons, but its humble servant whom we have chosen and whom we shall soon elect ourselves to lead the debates. He is therefore not the master of this House, but he is the one who, humbly, after being chosen by his peers, has to maintain order in the House. However, he does so at the request of the Members. One of us is asked to become Speaker and to ensure that there is order in the House. And if this indeed becomes impossible, he will be given the ultimate weapon of asking that a Member be expelled. Until now, this ultimate weapon of the Speaker is subject to a motion introduced by the Government and calling for a vote because it is so radical a punishment that the Member in question has to be judged by his peers following a ruling by the Speaker, who must, with patience, and even with paternalism or maternalism as the case may be, appeal one, two or three times to the Member in question. He must even if possible humiliate him before his peers and say: I know that the Hon. Member is an intelligent man or women, and I know that the Hon. member would want me to do my duty, which is to maintain decorum in the House. I know that the Hon. Member will understand the difficult situation in which I find myself, but I have to
February 13, 1986

name him a first time. If the Member insists, the Chair, which always has the supreme stick of suspension must have the patience to dialogue with the Member, to calm him down, to ease the atmosphere of the House rather than inflame it. But if the Member will not hear reason, the Speaker then says. "I name you for a second time". And the third time, it is the supreme stick falls down, suspension from the service of the House.
Therefore, it is so final that personally I believe that such a punishment must remain within the hands of Members. The Government has deemed fit to ask us to transfer to the Chair the use of that ultimate punishment, to give it authority to name a Member for a first time, to exclude him for one day.
And where, in the English version, a Member would relaxes, well it is provided that-
The Standing Orders indicate that on a subsequent occasion in the same session the Member shall be suspended from the service of the House for a period of not more than five sitting days.
[ Translation]
Well, I think this is clear in English.

In English it is very clear. However, the first part refers to the Member being once named. What does the word "once" mean? Does it mean the first time, the second time, the third time? My interpretation of the word "once" could mean all of that. It should be made clear that this applies to a specific Member once named for the first time, etc., etc.
As far as I am concerned, there can be a few misinterpretations in the English text. It is not as clear as I would like it to be. I believe English is a precise language, but in French the rule is very clear. Why do we not use the French translation of the English text and put it back into English? If we do, it will not read the same as it does now because the first part of the French text says "Pour la premiere fois"-for the first time. In English the text should read "for the first time".

It is so elementary-

It is clear to me.
Where the rule is not clear in the French version is in the second part of it. In English, the second part of the rule refers to a subsequent occasion, and I would imagine that that is clear unless I am corrected by some of the scholars who are here. There are a great many here who are proficient in the other official language, the one I am speaking. If I am wrong, it is because that is the way I learned English.
By the way, I learned to speak English in the House of Commons. It did not cost Canada a penny. When I arrived here, I did not understand a word of English; I speak English.
Standing Orders
I learned it here without any schooling. It did not cost the taxpayers a penny.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Prud'homme: I do not say that for the applause. For some Hon. Members, I have to agonize as the Chairman of the Members' Services Committee for the language training school.
If I may say so, one of the best ways to learn the other language is by listening to it in the House. Now I am speaking English. If Hon. Members would like to practise, they could listen in French and It would almost be like an immersion course. Gradually they will be able to catch some of the language. As well, when speeches are boring-and I hope that mine is not-Hon. Members could follow English text line by line with French text. The same thing could be done while attending legislative committee meetings. Hon. Members would learn new phrases and new terminologies that way. In any event, I am not here as a teacher but I do mean to do a little humble duty.
Before this is disposed of, I would like the language of the Orders to be clearly understood. I would like to give a chance to those Members who would like to switch channels now-
[ Translation]
In French ... in French-
The French version says: "le depute qui est designe par son nom une deuxieme fois". And what does happen, Mr. Speaker, the third time? We have on idea, because that is not clear. It is so clear in French "pour la premiere fois", it is not clear if we want to suspend him several times. And one of the risks, Mr. Speaker, after having pondered over that last night, because I was asked to speak on that, but this afternoon rather than this morning, when it is said:

-during the course of a session-

"During the course of a session." There should be a definition of what a session is. You know very well-

I am certainly not going to preach and say that the Liberal Government was better. A session has never been defined. In the past, sessions could last two and a half years, three years or three and a half years, if my memory serves me well, and my Whip will correct me if I am wrong.
For many years, I felt as I am sure most new Members do that a session was to last a year and that there would be four sessions per Parliament. However, bad practices were introduced by past Governments, and I imagine even by some of my own Liberal Governments. In the past, sessions lasted far too long. That now means that there is a danger for an Hon. Member who is more fiery than I may be and less ready to listen to all calls to be reasonable. Such a Member might be frightened to participate in debate in the House of Commons

February 13, 1986
Standing Orders
because if he is suspended a first time, how vigorous may he be later on in a very difficult debate?
I may remind my esteemed new colleagues of an unbealiev-able event that took place here one night during the constitutional debate. Many Members who were then on this side of the House went up to the Chair and, while the Chair was reading the motion, shook their fists at the Chair. As well, during the pipeline debate the mace that is a symbol of authority was almost broken. Those Members were not named by the Chair and the ones who stormed the Chair were right where the pages are, or even closer, with their hands up against the then Speaker, our now happy Ambassador to Portugal, not the proposed Ambassador to Portugal.
We have to be very careful with two things. First, we have to be careful with what we mean in both French and English because the translations are not the same. Second, we have to define what is meant by a session. We have to be precise about that, otherwise there might ultimately be a dangerous tool in the hands of the Speaker. We want the Speaker to have that tool so that he is able to deal with an unruly House and expel a Member once for a day and another time for five days. I am not clear about the language there and I would like it to be made much clearer.
I turn now to the days we sit. As of last Monday, I have been in the House for 22 years. 1 have an old pet project. I believe that the time has come for us not to be frightened, as some Members are, of public opinion. We should explain to the public what it means to be a Member of Parliament in Ottawa. Later on, I will deal with the question of explanations of trips abroad, but right now I will concentrate on what a Member of Parliament is.
A Member of Parliament is someone who works in a Parliament which sits 10 months a year, more or less, for five days a week. In Quebec, for instance, and I am not blaming our provincial counterparts, the Legislature sits for three days a week and perhaps three or four months a year. The same is true of other legislatures. However, we sit five days per week. But, if we are to be good Members of Parliament, we must look after our ridings. I can tell new Hon. Members that if they look after their ridings they will have a hell of a good chance to come back here, but if they neglect their ridings and be too attentive to Ottawa, they will have less of a chance to return.
A good Member of Parliament who is attentive to his duties has to go to his riding on the weekend. Because of this, I have always thought that the House should not sit on Friday afternoons. I lost again because that has not been proposed here. I am not in favour of cutting off debate and providing less time for Government business. I can remember being here every Friday afternoon for 22 years, because I enjoy what I call the Friday-afternoon club. There are very few of us who are here. We get to know each other better. In fact, Mr. Stanley Knowles was always here to represent his Party but he was always alone. He gave a holiday to everyone else and told them that he would hold down the fort on Friday afternoons.
We know that duty calls in Ottawa, but at the same time we would like to be in our ridings. I believe it is nonsense to have the House sit until five o'clock on Friday afternoons. We should adjourn much earlier. The hours that we may lose could be picked up on Friday morning by sitting from 10 o'clock until two o'clock with no lunch hour and the one hour of Private Members' Business we lose could be picked up on Tuesday evening by providing two Private Members's Hours rather than one on that day.
I think the time has come for Hon. Members to start a petition asking that the House adjourn early on Fridays. I am ready to start up a petition along with all of my colleagues from the Government side and the NDP who believe that this proposal makes sense. After all, if we cannot keep our own house orderly, we do not deserve-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order. Speaking of closing, it is now one o'clock. The Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) will have three minutes left in his speech when we resume.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-49, the Conservative Government's Bill on street soliciting passed in this House has merely evaded the actual problem of prostitution. If the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) had listened to a radio program by CJRC journalists sometime ago, he would have realized the extent to which the new legislation benefits organized crime and encourages soliciting in bars and public places.
Mr. Speaker, thanks to Bill C-49, the owners of establishments where prostitution takes place, escort agencies and pimps and procurers are getting rich.
An article in yesterday's Le Droit mentioned that escort agencies cover 17 pages in the regional 1986 telephone directory compared with six in 1985 and three in 1984. Mr. Speaker, this means that all these go-betweens are exploiting young persons who are rejected by their families at an early age and find themselves on the street. They are getting rich at the expense of individuals who are either lured by the promise of
February 13, 1986

easy money or have to finance a drug habit or just support their families and have chosen prostitution as a way out of their problems.
Prostitutes have as many reasons for what they do as the customers, but encouraging organized crime is no way to deal with the problem.
The Minister of Justice promised that this spring, at the end of March, he would table a comprehensive paper dealing with adult and child prostitution. We are of course anxiously awaiting this paper, and we hope that unlike Bill C-49, it will-


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



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice growing Canadian concern about the outcome of the Philippines elections.
Reports from four independent sources continue to state that massive vote fraud is favouring one side over another. Since Canada had an observer present who has prepared a report, I would like to urge the Government to forward this report to the Government of the United States as a reflection of our concern that democratic processes be scrupulously followed.
The Philippines are a significant trading partner of Canada. They are an emerging nation on the Pacific Rim which will have important relations with Canada in the years ahead. A substantial number of people who have come from the Philippines are now living in Canada.
We wish to see the Philippines taking their place as a political democracy with the institutions and democratic processes which mark democratic nations. The Philippines cannot attain this status while staging show elections and remaining a client state of the United States. Canada, as a former colony, knows what is needed. We should take an abiding interest in assisting other nations to shed their colonial status and emerge as fully-fledged democratic nations.
I trust the Government of Canada will effectively transmit this message to Manila and to Washington.



AERONAUTICS


Mr. Gilbert Chartrand (Verdun-Saint-Paul):: Mr. Speaker, in recent weeks, the press has been referring to a report that is
to be submitted this March to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski). The report is said to recommend a reduction in activity at Dorval Airport, short of closing the airport altogether.
If this recommendation is correct, it defies all logic and would certainly be disastrous for the entire Montreal area. The airport provides direct services to a population of four million and work for 14,000 employees. It is a focal point for the economy of Montreal and of Quebec as a whole. It is estimated that over 100,000 jobs are dependent on the airport, either directly or indirectly.
Transferring domestic flights to Mirabel is not a solution, Mr. Speaker. Not only would services deteriorate because of the greater distance from downtown, but Montreal might well lose its leading position in the aeronautics industry. Furthermore, some carriers might take advantage of this opportunity to concentrate their operations in Toronto instead of moving to Mirabel.
If all flights with connecting flights departing from Mirabel were routed to Mirabel in the first place, under-utilization of Mirabel would be less acute and people would stop talking about taking away from Dorval the air traffic for which it was created in the first place.
Mr. Speaker, I am speaking on behalf of the mayors of Montreal's West Island who are demanding that operations at Dorval International Airport be fully maintained.



PORNOGRAPHY


Mr. Lee Clark (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend my colleague, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Cros-bie), as well as the members of the Fraser Committee, on their proposal to amend those Sections of the Criminal Code that deal with pornography. Most Canadians agree that pornography is dehumanizing. It degrades both the men and women that it depicts. Of particular concern, however, is the brutally violent pornography which is becoming increasingly prevalent in our society. I refer particularly to that material which depicts the sexual abuse of women, and even more despicably, of children.
The present laws dealing with this type of material are subjective and ambiguous, making their enforcement very arbitrary and ineffective. The proposal of a three-tier system, while it may not be fully satisfactory to everyone, is certainly a step in the right direction.
Although many people are still disappointed that any pornography would continue to be available even to adults, the majority of concerned Canadians are relieved that the produc-

February 13, 1986
tion or possession of pornography involving children or depicting violence against women will soon be punishable by up to 10 years in prison.
Pornography serves to perpetuate unacceptable myths about women, and if Canadian women are to attain the equality which they deserve, these sterotypes must be destroyed. This proposal is a good start toward that goal.



NECESSITY OF GOVERNMENT STUDY OF ASBESTOS

Mr. Alain Tardif (Richmond-Wolfe):: Mr. Speaker, again asbestos is on trial as a result of the United States Environment Protection Agency's latest recommendations that asbestos be totally banned from that country within the next ten years.
It seems to me that such a decision is grossly exaggerated because it has been clearly and scientifically established that asbestos can be used in total security.
I come from one of the major asbestos-producing region and I can formally certify that the people who work in asbestos mines and depend on them for their livelihood are just as physically and mentally fit as the residents of any other Canadian community.
Asbestos substitutes are not the solution because the potential impact of their components is unknown.
On the plus side, asbestos has been analyzed, tested and tried in every imaginable way over the past decades. It has been acknowledged throughout the world that most often its properties are irreplaceable and a boon to the security of users in various sectors.
The logic of the opponents of asbestos is quite questionable and very discriminatory indeed, for the unavoidable conclusion would be that the ban be extended to cover a number of products which are just as hazardous and even more dangerous and harmful than asbestos when they are improperly used.



STANDING ORDERS


Mr. Jean-Pierre Blackburn (Jonquiere):: Today, Mr. Speaker, I should like to help Canadians realize how different Parliamentary life will be following the implementation of the provisional Standing Orders of the House.
Mr. Speaker, we have just set in motion the Parliamentary reform process, and gradually over the next few days, there will be a change of attitude and a greater involvement on the part of Canadian men and women in future legislation.
Part of this change will result form the fact that individual members will no longer be compelled to vote along party lines, except in the case of non-confidence motions.
This will translate into an enhanced participation and an increased responsibility for individual members of the House. There will be also a change of attitude among Canadians. They will get involved more, they will express their opinions on the various bills, and try to influence us one way or the other.
Such will be the change of attitude.
Our contribution will be enhanced and our responsibilities increased.
Mr. Speaker, I believe elected members will be more representative of their communities. They will better express the views of their constituents and vote according to their conscience.
* *
*



RAILWAYS


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Mr. Speaker, again the papers are carrying pictures of yet another train wreck. Thankfully, this time no life was lost, but a major pollution hazard exists.
I rise again to call upon the Government to begin immediately an inquiry into the state of rail transportation in Canada as part of a comprehensive independent study into transportation safety, security, maintenance, inspection, and enforcement.
There are many such examples, but I will mention just a few: dynamite, nitro, radioactive materials, and a host of other products.
Mr. Speaker, it is imperative that the Government vigorously intervene in-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member, but his time has expired.
The Minister knows all about the massive lay-offs of rail car inspectors, shop maintenance workers, and maintenance of railway employees, by both national railways. He also knows that trains are traveling on split rails every day and that line maintenance is inadequate. Denial of a problem cannot solve it. The Minister knows a public inquiry, which could be held now, would uncover and display to the Canadian people serious deficiencies in safety standards which the public would then
February 13, 1986

demand be corrected. He is worried that such repair may be expensive.
While the Minister brags about the safety record of Canadian transportation companies each time we have a disaster, safety continues to be sacrificed to save money. If the Minister is satisfied with the present safety performance in all modes, we are not. We know we can do better. We call upon the Government to have a complete independent inquiry into the state of transportation and security in Canada. We also call upon the Government to create a multi-modal safety board to monitor safety and investigate accidents independently.



PRICE OF GASOLINE-POLITICAL POSTURING CRITICIZED

Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Mr. Speaker, the political posturing over consumer prices for gasoline and fuel oil is accomplishing nothing. It is destroying public faith in the system. What Canadians need are facts, not political rhetoric from elected representatives. What are the facts? Refiners in Atlantic Canada use foreign crude oil. The price of foreign crude is falling. When these refiners receive the benefit of lower crude prices they should, indeed must, pass these benefits on to consumers.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has made the Government's position clear. When lower-priced oil supplies are utilized, then consumer prices must reflect the lower cost. This should happen before the end of March. How can anyone challenge the common sense of that policy? It is easy for politicians to play on public perceptions of profiteering, but honesty in oil pricing and everything else is still the best policy.

[Translation\



EMPLOYMENT


Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Rent):: Mr. Speaker, recently the Prime Minister has been bragging about an increased number of jobs in Canada. New Brunswick has no reason to applaud the Government for its so-called achievements. People have nothing to applaud, because if jobs were created they were surely not in New Brunswick. The rate of unemployment in the province has risen from 15 to 15.3 per cent, that is the second highest rate in Canada after Newfoundland.
Therefore I cannot understand that with such a high rate of unemployment, the Government does not make further attempts to create jobs or to at least guarantee the jobs of those who are in danger of losing them, such as the hundred employees at the CN shops in Moncton.
Oral Questions
For the people of New Brunswick, the Prime Minister's election promise to create "jobs, jobs, jobs" has not been kept. If the Government is unable to create jobs, it should at least stop threatening the ones that exist.



IMPORTANCE OF CONTENTS

Mr. Jean-Luc Joncas (Matapedia-Matane):: Mr. Speaker, as we all know of course in a few days from now this Government will, through the agency of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), deliver what could be a historical budget. The people of Canada already fears that this will be a financial exercise of great firmness that will require an uncommon measure of courage from any Government. On this occasion, Mr. Speaker, all the Members in this House, including the Opposition Members, will have an opportunity to show a genuine maturity, a real spirit of understanding, in other words that kind of responsibility which every Canadian man and woman expect from their elected representatives.
I am convinced, Mr. Speaker, as are most citizens in this great and marvellous country, that we can and must put an end to that chronic financial drain which is the Canadian deficit. It is there facing us because too many politicians in the past have unfortunately preferred the more comfortable position of burying their heads in the sand.
Mr. Speaker, if this country is to come out victorious of the war against the deficit, we need the full co-operation of the Canadian people. We can give back to this country the economic vigor and strength it used to have.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Yesterday James Conrad, executive vice-president of the Petroleum Marketers Association of Canada, said that retail pump prices across Canada are at least 5 cents a litre higher than they should be. What is the Minister doing right now to give Canadian consumers and motorists the benefit of the lower oil prices which, according to Mr. Conrad, we should see at the pumps today?


Hon. Pat Carney (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I read Mr. Conrad's assessment

February 13, 1986
Oral Questions
with some interest. I would like to point out that there is nothing to prevent Mr. Conrad and the dealers about whom he is talking from importing the cheaper products if they should so desire.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER ACT TO HELP CONSUMERS
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Conrad says that the dealers he represents are prevented from doing that by actions of the big oil companies. Mr. Conrad said that the high Canadian prices are the result of "consciously parallel actions by big Government and big oil. They have got together to divide up the economic pie, and in the process they're taking money out of pockets of consumers".
Why will the Minister not act now to help consumers get that money back in their pockets? Why is she washing her hands of her responsibilities in this serious situation?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I have already explained to the House that it was this Party which deregulated the industry so that consumers could benefit from those prices. 1 want to see the Hon. Member's face when he sees gasoline prices start to tumble in the next few weeks.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister aware that a few minutes ago the Conservative Member for Halifax West got up in the House under Statements pursuant to Standing Order 22 and said that the big oil companies are not giving the people in his province the benefit of lower prices?


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Why will she not act on the basis of the statements of her own Member? Can she not listen to someone on this important question and help consumers? Why is she standing idly by on this?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member knows that he has misquoted my colleague on this issue. I am really surprised that he would stoop to that kind of activity in the House of Commons. I have already told him that all of the oil companies have assured me that the price decreases when they show up at the pumps will be passed on to consumers.


THE ECONOMY
Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, the bank rate hit 12.10 per cent as of two o'clock. This is an outrageous situation.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. When we get the prime rate in, we may have the highest real interest rates in the history of the country while we have stable inflation of 4 per cent. This is outragerous. What is the Minister of Finance going to do about it?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member has a very short memory. Real interest rates hit a record high when he was on this side of the House. That is when people were paying 22 per cent and 25 per cent interest rates across the country. 1 ask the Member to think about that.
I have answered his questions on this issue last week and earlier this week. Both the exchange markets and the financial markets are in very unsettled conditions. We are doing what we can to stabilize those conditions. 1 believe that, once stability does return, we will see a return to a more normal level of interst rates.


FORTHCOMING BUDGET
Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, the Minister cannot be allowed to fudge that issue by arguing about nominal, as against real interest rates. The real interest rate will be between 8.5 and 9 per cent which could easily be the highest in Canadian history. During the period- 1 am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I know that preambles are not allowed.
What is the Minister going to do in this ridiculous and outrageous situation to protect farmers, home owners, and consumers? What is he going to do in his Budget to ensure that they will be protected and not savaged by these rates?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member knows full well that I cannot say anything to him today with regard to what will be in my Budget in two weeks. Surely he understands that.
As I have indicated many times in the past, we are trying to generate a degree of stability in the exchange markets and financial markets of the country in order to get interest rates back to a normal level. I can assure the Hon. Member that I have no intention of seeing conditions persist that will leave interest rates up at the levels they are at today.
One final comment, Mr. Speaker. Twenty-five per cent was what the interest rates were in 1982. The inflation rate was, 1 think, 12 per cent or 13 per cent. That left real interest rates at
February 13, 1986

12 per cent or 13 per cent. That is what they were when the Member was in office.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF SECRETARY GENERAL OF ORGANIZATION FOR AFRICAN UNITY
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would like to draw the attention of the House of Commons to the presence in our Gallery of the Secretary General of the Organization for African Unity, His Excellency Mr. Ide Oumarou.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. To quote the Chairman of the Finance Committee, why, in order to scorch a few money speculators, did the Minister of Finance have to burn Canadians, burn small businesses, homeowners, fishermen and farmers, with high interest rates? When is he going to stop inflicting this kind of high interest rate pain on Canadian citizens?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I responded, I believe, to the same question from the previous questioner. The Hon. Member knows full well that in order to deal with the degree of speculative activity that there was in the market-place, it was necessary to approach this with a combined approach that dealt with the exchange market as well as the financial markets in Canada because of the very clear linkage.
What we have done, we have done to ensure that the results of the weakness in the exchange rate do not get transmitted in a permanent way into high interest rates but that we keep that level of high interest rates for as short a period of time as possible.


Ian Deans: What about those trapped now?


IMPACT ON ECONOMIC RECOVERY
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is also for the Minister of Finance. He will know that the spectre of interest rates increasing on a weekly basis will paralyse any initiative people might take to invest in new homes, new business lines or in making new investments. How does the Minister of Finance expect economic recovery to occur if people are stopped from purchasing goods and services as a result of a fear of increasing interest rates?
Oral Questions


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, in November, 1984, and in May, 1985, we set in train a series of economic policies. The Budget that will be brought down in a couple of weeks' time will continue the same economic policies that have led to a significant degree of job creation of over 1,100 jobs a day. Since we came into office 580,000 jobs have been created.
This is the direction we will continue to go. It will require a tough Budget in two weeks' time. It will require a Budget that will stay the course on the policy actions we have been taking over the time that we have been in office. The result of these has been a very successful performance in the economy. Success is paying off, and we are going to continue that track.


MORTGAGE INTEREST RATES
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, in light of this hard Budget and all the news that is coming up, what advice does the Minister of Finance have for people who are renewing their mortgages? Thirty thousand Canadians this month will be renewing their mortgages at higher than ever mortgage rates.


Some Hon. Members:: Higher than ever?


An Hon. Member:: Where have you been?


Nelson Andrew Riis: What advice does the Minister have for these people?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member allowed his tongue to slip a little there. We do not have higher than ever mortgage rates. He knows that.


Ian Deans: They are too high.


Nelson Andrew Riis: He knows that we do not have higher than ever mortgage rates. What we have are mortgage rates that are below what they were-


Ian Deans: Much too high.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: We have mortgage rates that are lower than they were when we took office a year and a half ago.


Ian Deans: Not by tomorrow they won't be.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Our policy is to get mortgage rates down, interest rates in the broadest possible sense down, to more normal rates. 1 cannot say how long that will take. I think if we can develop a degree of stabilty in the markets we will see that this period of high interest rates will be short-lived.


Nelson Andrew Riis: That is what Allan MacEachen said.

February 13, 1986
Oral Questions ENERGY PRICE OF GASOLINE


Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy. Canadians have heard all the Minister's excuses, but they are not buying any of them. The fact is Canadians are paying much more for gasoline than are American motorists. Obviously the cheaper crude has worked its way through the American system. What is wrong with our system? Why are we not benefiting from falling world oil prices?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, what is right with our system is that we replaced the National Energy Program, which created artificially high prices for consumers.


Mr. Waddell:: It was lower than the world price.


Pat Carney: What is also right with the system which the Government has put into place is that consumers will get all the benefit of those lower prices, particularly in the Member's region which depends upon imported crude, as soon as those price decreases move through the system. I have told him that continually. He knows that there are already signs of price declines in his own region. I want him to be able to come back to the House and report what those declines are in two or three weeks when they start showing up.


OIL COMPANIES' ACTIVITIES
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, there are no declines in my region of the country. Today, in Saint John, New Brunswick, the price is 60.8 cents per litre for gasoline. If the Minister believes in the market sensitive price system, why is she supporting the market manipulation of the oil companies?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member should be very aware of the fact that the system imposed by his Government was very harsh on consumers. I have continually reminded him that gasoline prices went up 80 per cent under the Liberal administration, and I have continually reminded him that the oil companies have assured us that the price decreases in the system will be passed on to consumers. We expect that those price decreases will start showing up toward the end of February or sometime in March.


PRICE CONTROL
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the same Minister. Is the Minister aware that under Section 31 of the Combines Investigation Act it is illegal to control the price of gasoline through consignment sales, exactly what Petro-Canada has been doing with George and Cora McAra of Gravenhurst? Will the
Minister tell the House, with practices like these going on in the industry, how she can say to Canadians that lower world oil prices will quickly pass through to Canadian consumers?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I read with great interest the fact that the Leader of the New Democratic Party in Manitoba is threatening action against oil companies if the price decreases to the consumer are not passed on by April 1. That is how long, apparently, the NDP Leader in Manitoba feels it will take for price decreases to work through the system. If April 1 is good enough for Mr. Pawley, it is good enough for me.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: At least he has the guts to set a date.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


PRICE OF GASOLINE IN UNITED STATES
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, given that prices went down in Buffalo today and that there is no lag in the United States, why is there a lag in Canada? Could the Minister tell the House exactly, in number of days, how long it takes to go through the Canadian system from the time world prices per barrel start to go down in Canada? Exactly how many days does it take?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member should be aware, the United States, with its larger population, has smaller inventories and shorter supply lines and therefore price decreases tend to show up more quickly. He will remember that last year price increases in the fall showed up more quickly there than they did here in Canada. Since he has raised the isse of the guts of the Manitoba Premier-


Ian Gardiner Waddell: No, the guts of the Minister of Energy.


Pat Carney: -I would like to suggest that if he really had the intestinal fortitude which the Hon. Member is claiming, he could promise to remove the eight cents per litre gas tax which Manitobans are now paying.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Why has the Minister not listened to the Deputy Prime Minister and to the Secretary of State for External Affairs when they asked her, in writing, to change her rotten unemployment regulations which deny unemployment insurance benefits in whole or in part to retired Armed Forces, RCMP and other public and private personnel?
February 13, 1986


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I realize the Hon. Member is preoccupied with divisions, which of course are very apparent, between the Leader of the Opposition and the Hon. Member for Saint-Maurice. However, I want to assure him that I speak with my colleagues and that we carry on conversations all the time. I would like once more to remind the Member, and all other Members, that the decisions with regard to the changes in the unemployment insurance regulations were announced on November 8, 1984. That is over 15 months ago. The implementation date for those regulation changes was announced in December. The change with regard to severance and U1 income took effect-
[DOT] (M30)


Ian Deans: That doesn't make them any better. Do you think it matters which date you annoucned it?


David Orlikow: Why don't you answer the question?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: -on March 31, 1985. There was a year's lead time given for the implementation of the pension UI regulation. That came into effect January 1, 1986.


David Orlikow: Order, order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the Minister may get a chance to complete that answer on the supplementary.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Leonard Donald Hopkins: 1 can't see the Deputy Prime Minister putting up with that kind of statement. Why does the Minister of Employment and Immigration continue to insist on enforcing her unfair unemployment insurance regulations which, for example, bring Mr. John Mitchell, one of my constituents with a family of five in Pembroke, Ontario, $2,000 below the poverty line? How does she justify that? Is that her sensitivity to retired people?


Ian Deans: Because she announced it. Tell him that you announced it before. That's the justification.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Initiatives this Government has taken is to set up the Forget Commission of Inquiry to look into all the inequities that people see, or are taking place, in the administration of the unemployment insurance fund-


Ian Deans: When did you announce that?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: -something that the previous Government never got around to doing. 1 would say that the indication of concern about the operation of the unemployment insurance program is extremely widespread, as is shown by the number of representations that have been made to the Forget Commission-


David Orlikow: And to which you are not listening.
Oral Questions


Flora Isabel MacDonald: -by individuals and by organizations. I can assure him the Forget Commission will undertake to look at all of those inequities which are raised by him and other Members of Parliament.


REQUEST FOR PROPOSED MEASURES TO AVOID EXCESSIVE PETROLEUM PRICES IN QUEBEC
Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Is the Minister aware that the three cents a litre difference between the price of gas in Quebec and Ontario is due to the higher price of refining and marketing imposed by the oil industry? What action will she take to ensure that excessive prices are not charged by the oil industry in Quebec compared with prices in Ontario? When will the Minister publish the O'Farrell Report on competition in the Quebec industry?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I think that the Hon. Member shows a massive lack of knowledge of geography because one of the best advantages that Quebec has is the fact that its refineries have access to imported oil coming in at much lower prices. Quebec is clearly going to benefit from the lower prices-


David Orlikow: Why doesn't the consumer get that benefit?


Pat Carney: -that this Government has put in place.


An Hon. Member:: When?


Pat Carney: Before April 1.


PRICE IN OTTAWA
Michael Morris Cassidy: As a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, is the Minister not aware that in Quebec, as here in Ottawa, which is served by Montreal refineries, people are still paying the same prices as they were before the price of oil started to come down? They are paying 3 cents a litre more for production and marketing costs in Ontario. When is the Minister going to take action? Are people in Ottawa going to continue to be hosed at the pumps because of a special dispensation to oil companies given by this Minister?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the Hon. Member is ignoring the fact that the Liberal Party in Quebec has recently increased the price of gasoline by increasing the price of taxes.

February 13, 1986
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants on a supplementary to a previous question.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, because I was trying to catch your eye earlier. I'm so very glad the Minister had a chance to reply in part earlier to the questions from the Member for Renfrew-Nippissing-Pembroke. The Minister listens to colleagues and Members on all sides of the House who have expressed a real concern on this very controversial issue. I, and other Members representing all Parties, have appeared before the Forget Commission-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think the Hon. Member does have a question, please.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Since the Forget Commission is also concerned about the narrow issue of the mandatory retirees, I would ask the Minister, and appeal to her historic concern and compassion for the underdog-and I say that seriously-that she ask her officials to grandfather the change in the interpretation- there is no law change, there is no regulation change-until the Forget Commission has had a chance to report on the full question of UIC, or alternatively would she direct the Forget Commission-


Some Hon. Members:: More, more, more, more.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the Hon. Member and other Hon. Members for making representations to the Forget Commission. I think that is the way in which we want to see this Commission of Inquiry operate, and I know that-


Ian Deans: Put in a grandmother.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: -we have also asked the Forget Commission to look particularly at the aspect of who contributes to the unemployment insurance fund, under what conditions, whether or not those who pay into the program with no expectation of ever receiving benefits-


Ian Deans: How about his question?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: -should continue to contribute. All of those matters are now before the Forget Commission of Inquiry, and I am sure that the commissioners will listen not only to those representations but to the ones which have been made by the Hon. Member.


RAILWAYS
Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: My question is directed to the Minister of Transport. It concerns the derailment of the CP Rail "acid train" which dumped thousands of litres of sulphuric acid into two small remote lakes north of Orillia, Ontario. I would like to ask the Minister whether he is fully satisfied that the railway companies are carrying out satisfactorily, or adequately, their responsibility for maintenance: maintenance of road beds, rails and rolling stock. Would the Minister not agree that if maintenance standards were adhered to we could dramatically reduce the number of derailments that take place every year?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, in late January I wrote to the CTC asking them to advise me whether, in fact, during the course of their investigation of the recent rash of derailments there was any common thread with respect to the causes of the accidents that have been occurring in the recent past.


Ian Deans: Lack of deregulation.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: They had indicated that that was not the case. As a result of the accident which the Hon. Member referred I have today contacted the CTC and asked them to undertake a comprehensive review of all railway accidents and derailments going back to 1984 and to report back to me within 45 days. I have requested them to focus on such items as maintenance, inspection and operating practices to determine whether, in fact, there is any deficiency in any of those areas and if, in fact, there is any common element of the causes of the accidents that have occurred in the recent past.


REQUEST THAT INDEPENDENT INQUIRY BE ESTABLISHED
B. Keith Penner: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the same Minister. Railway employees throughout northern Ontario have told me for years, and continue to tell me, that maintenance is a major factor in the rash of derailments that we have every year. 1 wonder if the Minister would agree to initiate an independent inquiry into the maintenance standards that are practised by the railways. Once having that information, and changing the situation that exists today, would he not agree that we could improve the situation and have a safer railway system.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Hon. Member knows that the CTC is a quasi-judicial body. It will be asked to investigate as a result of my instructions today. I think the Hon. Member should also be aware that since 1979 derailments have been reduced by more than 20 per cent. Railway accidents have in fact declined since 1980 by some 30 per cent. Injuries are down by 31 per cent.
February 13, 1986

Fatalities are down by 42 per cent. Notwithstanding the fact that there has been a rash of derailments in the last little while, the record over the last four or five years has been pretty good.


POLLUTION OF LAKE BY SULPHURIC ACID
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the same Minister. The Minister is aware of the recent derailment which occurred and also that the train was carrying sulphuric acid. Of course this happened in my own riding at MacTier. I am wondering if the Minister could bring us up to date on what is being done to cut down on the sulphuric acid and diffuse it into the lakes which have already been polluted. I am also wondering if he could let us know when the CP rail line, which is one of the main lines of the CP, will be back in operation.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am advised that five cars are leaking. Some 150 tonnes of limestone and soda ash which will be used as a neutralizer in the clean-up operation are on site. The clean-up operation is to begin this afternoon. The line is temporarily closed to traffic, and as soon as the site is cleared it will be opened. CTC officials are on the scene investigating, as are officials from the Department of the Environment and CP. Early evidence would indicate that the accident was caused by a broken wheel.


FINANCE
[Stage Direction]
Oral Questions
normal level of interest rates consistent with the strength of the economy.
1 would remind the Hon. Member that in the past 15 or 16 months the economy has been the strongest of any western industrialized nation. There have been 580,000 jobs created. Investment has been growing at a rate of 11 per cent and housing starts have been growing at a rate of 25 per cent. Inflation has been stable at 4 per cent. What we want to do is get back on track and we will-
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Again this is becoming a speech.	,


IMPACT OF HIGH INTEREST RATES
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, in view of this reply, coult the Minister of Finance now answer the question adked by the Chairman of the Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, who is a Conservative? His question was this: Why burn Canadians with a higher interest rate to eliminate a few speculators? Could he reply to this question now?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, that is an exact repeat of a question that was just put to me by the Hon. Member who sits immediately behind the Hon. Member who just asked the question. Surely the Hon. Member could simply turn around and ask him what was the answer to the previous question.


BANK OF CANADA RATE INCREASE-DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CANADIAN AND U.S. RATES
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
The Bank of Canada has just announced an increase in the Canadian prime rate.
The prime rate is now three per cent higher in Canada than in the United States.
My question is this: How can the Minister justify such a difference in the prime rates of these two countries? Why this difference of over three per cent between Canada and the United States?
* *


PREOCCUPATION OF MINISTER'S OFFICES
Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of State for Youth.
I have here a secret document from the minister's office which clearly shows that her office is more concerned with using young people for election purposes then with meeting their needs.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I responded to this question on two or three occasions in the past week or so. I indicated to the House that the actions we took last week to stabilize the markets and to deal with the speculative pressures that were in the market-place had to be a balance between action on the exchange rate and action on interest rates. The whole purpose of this is to bring a degree of stability back into the market-place so that we can get a more
Can the Minister reply and explain why the people in her office have not proposed to Cabinet real job creation policies to meet the needs of young people?


Hon. Andree Champagne (Minister of State (Youth)):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Sainte-Marie is referring to a document, but I have no idea which document he means. I do not even know if it is legitimate. If he can be so kind as to send it to me, I shall examine it and give an answer later.

February 13, 1986
Oral Questions


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, if the people in her office had done their job properly, they would have seen the article in the newspaper Le Droit today. Her employees should have told her about it.


YOUTH EXPECTATIONS
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary to the Minister is the following: Would she have read the document if she had been aware of it and does she not believe the young Canadians deserve a real Department to protest their rights rather than a Department which is there only as a smokescreen and for electoral purposes?


Andrée  Champagne: Mr. Speaker, I indeed saw an article in the newpaper, but this does not tell me which document the Hon. Member has in his possession. As I do not want to mislead the House, I am not going to comment a document when I do not know what it contains. However, since the Hon. Member says that we did not implement any program to reduce unemployment among young people, I shall remind him that, between 1980 and 1984, when the Liberals were in power, youth unemployment rose by 5,000 each month, for a total of 285,000. Since we have been in power, we have created 5,000 jobs a month for young people for a total of 80,000. And this is going to continue.


FISHERIES
Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, would the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans confirm that the 200 positions that he announced cut from his Department today are only preliminary cuts and that he in fact intends to cut habitat protection programs, fisheries regulation and enforcement programs, fisheries management programs, fisheries inspection programs, offshore observer programs, small craft harbours programs, aquaculture programs, fisheries research programs, and fisheries resource development programs?


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, of course I would not confirm that. It sounds to me as if the Hon. Member is on a witch hunt. I only wonder if he concurs in our decision to streamline the headquarters operations of the Department to give visibility and coherence to our world-class scientific effort and to strengthen the managerial linkages between head office and the regions which the Department serves, including our own region on the Pacific coast.


USER CHARGES INQUIRY
Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, if anyone thought that that would occur because of the present cuts, it would be completely irrational. Will the Minister confirm that he will be announcing shortly not only more staff and budget cuts but he will also be imposing user charges against people in the fishing industry in the form of fish landing taxes, higher moorage rates, higher licensing fees, and higher fisheries inspection service costs?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is filled with malicious speculation this afternoon. He knows that when the Government is ready to announce any initiative, it will make that announcement. At the present time no such initiatives are contemplated.


CONTENT OF DOCUMENT
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Youth. Does she agree with the position taken by her chief of staff that in order to save her own Department she should call in:
IOUs and/or Irons in the fire.
(i)	Ministers and "heavy" MP's who "owe" Andree Champagne-
(ii)	Ministers and heavy MP's with grant requests under "active" consideration, i.e. not yet turned down-


Andrée  Champagne: Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier... I am just now getting the document. I have not read it yet. I cannot verify the accuracy of this document with others at the Department. I shall do so and I shall reply to the questions after I have had an opportunity to do what is necessary.


STATEMENT ATTRIBUTED TO MINISTERIAL OFFICIAL
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the $25 million or $26 million she spent last year on window dressing, does the Minister agree with her chief of staff who has said:
Youth do not look to the federal government to provide leadership in resolving many issues .. . Even if they did, this is not the role of government. Will we next want to create a programme to help women through menopause?


Andrée  Champagne: Mr. Speaker, what I do agree with is that 80,000 jobs have been created for young people in the last 15 months, and that is a lot more than the Liberal Party could ever have said. We will continue to do that, and I will not comment on a document that I have not had the time to study.
February 13, 1986


PUBLISHING INDUSTRY
Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for Investment Canada. The Minister will remember that the announcement by the Minister of Communications with respect to book publishing policy last July fanned the flames of ardent desire and hope in the hearts of the Canadian cultural community. Will the Minister confirm that his announcement that Prentice-Hall will be exempt from this book publishing policy has put out that fire?


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, of course I have no way of telling what fire might burn in the ranks of the NDP. If the Hon. Member is referring to the Southam report, I am sorry if she has been misled by it. The reporter simply asked me what our general disposition was with respect to the Prentice-Hall case. I said that we cannot comment on the matter. The Hon. Member must bear in mind that this was a deal made in December of 1984 when the Foreign Investment Review Agency was still in effect and that the process would naturally fall under whatever the precedents were and the law was at the time.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Minister would give an answer to the cultural community, which is very concerned about this matter, both as to the specifics of Prentice-Hall, which has dragged on for months and now years, and as to the publishing policy itself. How can we have a realistic cultural sovereignty policy if nothing is going to happen and if cases are going to be overturned?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, let me assure the Hon. Member that there is considerable happening as far as Investment Canada is concerned. However, she will have to accept that in the past these cases have taken generally a great deal of consideration. Sometimes the cases have been approved and other times they have been turned down. Let me assure the Hon. Member that the policy of the Government is the policy as enunciated in July by my colleague, the Minister of Communications, with respect to the publishing business. There is absolutely no question about that.


CUSTOMS TARIFF
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of State for Finance I
Oral Questions
would like to direct my question to the Minister of Finance. There is a small company in Surrey which manufactures wire products largely for export and which uses off-shore stock which it imports because there is no Canadian company which manufactures that type of stock. Can the Minister tell the House why a simple phone call from Stelco can induce tariff officials to prevent a one-item tariff change or duty remission on a product which this company, or any other Canadian company, does not manufacture, which thereby vetoes the jobs of employees in western Canada and the future of a good export market?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Hon. Member's concern about this particular matter. As he knows, it is a matter which falls under the responsibility of my colleague, the Minister of State for Finance, who is responsible for tariff changes. I will raise this with her the next time we discuss matters of this sort. We will get back to the Hon. Member with an answer.


PUBLISHING INDUSTRY
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion also in relation to the Prentice-Hall case. The Minister's colleague, the Minister of Communications, has stated that at this point the FIRA criteria will now apply to this particular case. If that is so, will the Minister be following the precedent set by FIRA, which was to insist upon divestiture or, at the minimum, joint Canadian ownership, in every book publishing case which comes before him? Are those the criteria that will be now applied?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I am rather surprised that the Hon. Members refers to precedent. As we checked precedent with respect to the publishing industry, we found that under the Government of the Hon. Member sometimes they were approved and sometimes they were turned down. In fact that is one of the difficulties with which we now have to live. There was no clear precedent set by the former Government.


REQUEST FOR EARLY DECISION
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, the Minister is wrong in his facts-indeed, as he normally is. The fact of the matter is that the key cases involving Bantam Books and Gulf & Western were turned down. If it is now FIRA criteria which are to be applied, will the Minister return to the efficiency of FIRA and make a decision sooner rather than later since we have waited a full year already? Under his new regime he promised efficiency and we are getting nothing but delay.

February 13, 1986
Oral Questions


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, it is almost laughable to hear the Hon. Member opposite talk about efficiency. When his Government was in power the fact is that there was a backlog in FIRA three times as severe as any backlog we have lived with. At the present time I am pleased to tell the House that, as far as applications are concerned, we have been able to process them not only within the new limits but within a much shorter period of time than they were ever processed before under FIRA or otherwise.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Studies released today detail the very high incidence of disease among members of the Serpent River Indian Band as a result of an old acid plant which was closed in 1963. In 1969 the federal Government sent in the Army and blew it up, thus spreading the contamination. Since these people appealed to the Minister and his colleagues in the Departments of National Health and Welfare and the Environment for help some time ago, why has the Government been so slow to respond by cleaning up this dangerous site, thus protecting the health of Indian people?


Hon. David Crombie (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday morning I met with the Chief and other members of the community. We indicated and agreed upon a course of action which would have the Minister of National Health and Welfare, the Minister of the Environment and myself met after there has been an opportunity for the advisory committee, which was set up by the Indian community, to consider that report. I indicated to the Chief, and to the community, that we would undertake a commitment to clean the site up according to whatever options were made available, discussed, and decided upon by the advisory committee, in consultation with the other two Ministers.


RESPONSIBILITY FOR CLEANING UP CONTAMINATED SITE
James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, to be very clear I would like to ask the Minister this. Is the federal Government prepared to accept full responsibility for cleaning up the site? Will the Minister tell the House when that will be done and completed?


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Chief asked me if I would commit the federal Government to seek a solution to the cleaning up of the site. I indicated that I would. Of course the timing is related to the discussion of the report and the operation of the advisory committee. It was a very
good and very positive meeting. I would like to thank the Hon. Member for his interest.


FISHERIES
Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is the only federal government Department which has sole responsibility for a natural resource. Other Departments have shared jurisdictions. Why is the Government of Canada cutting this very Department at a time when the fishing industry is in such trouble? Is it just to satisfy the Americans?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Absolutely not, Mr. Speaker. In fact, as the Hon. Member should know, the size of the budget of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans increased from $300 million a year in 1980 to $600 million a year by the time his Government left office. That in itself is sufficient reason for taking the very positive initiatives which were announced today. However, I would remind the Hon. Member of the words of his Leader who said, on July 24, 1984:
There must be a reduction of our Government expenditures . .. There is a lot of space to reduce and cut expenditures and duplications ... I believe that this reduction in expenditures could save us billions of dollars.
Those are the words of the Leader of the Hon. Member's Party.


EFFECT ON MARKETING DIVISION
George Baker: Mr. Speaker, it could have been an increase in the amount of money but not an increase in the number of people working there. The only guaranteed government office he has now is what he calls the redeployment counselling centre for surplus workers. That is all that is left. The Minister says this will have no effect on the fisheries. Who will do the job now of domestic fish promotion in Canada since as of today he has laid off practically all of those workers in the marketing division?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, again the essentials of the Hon. Member's question indicate his ignorance of the facts. In fact, we have not laid off all of the officials in the marketing promotion division. We have strengthened the management contact with his region of Newfoundland. We have enhanced the scientific program by consolidating and eliminating a lot of duplication.
Generally speaking, we will see a significant increase in the delivery of services to fishermen, not by bureaucracy in Ottawa but by the genuine delivery of the services they need at the regional level.
February 13, 1986


CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORTS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions, with the exception of four presented by Hon. Members on Wednesday, February 12, 1986, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.
Petitions presented by the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) and the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) do not meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.
The petitions presented by the Hon. Member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle), by filing with the Clerk of the House, also do not meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



POINT OF ORDER


Mr. Albert Cooper (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my point of order relates to something that just happened in Question Period. A short while ago, my colleagues across the floor walked out because someone apparently inadvertently listened to their private discussion in caucus. Today, someone was reading from something that was considered to be a private document. The other day we saw something in the press regarding private documents as well. I understand that there was quite a foo-fa-raw about that. Perhaps we should be looking at these items as well.


Mr. Speaker:: That is a representation.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, will the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn) outline the business of the House for the rest of this week and for the week of February 26? In so doing, will he tell us the exact hour at which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) will commence his Budget presentation on February 24 and tell the House when the six-day Budget debate will begin?
Finally, will the Minister also tell us the day when the Main Estimates will be tabled and whether the Government will, at that time, table a reconciliation between the figures in the Budget and those in the Main Estimates in order to avoid any confusion and assist in their study by the House and the Canadian people?


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, let me begin by indicating to the Hon. Opposition House Leader that we will continue with the motion in my name respecting reform of the House of Commons. Hopefully we can make progress on that and resolve it even today. As I
Committee Reports
indicated previously, we will follow that with the motion in the name of my colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Cote) dealing with the reference to committee of the paper on registration of lobbyists.
There are other items of legislation, such as Bill C-90, that will follow.
In the interim 1 was going to use the opportunity to carry on with Bills that I indicated in the last announcement with respect to House business. I will discuss with Opposition House Leaders the other items on which we may be able to make progress and will bring that to the attention of the House at the earliest possible date.
In terms of the Budget, I have already indicated to the Opposition House Leaders privately and would like to announce to the House and the people of Canada now that my colleague, the Minister of Finance, will be presenting the Budget on February 26, 1986, at 4:30 p.m., Eastern Standard Time. It is my intention at this time to proceed with the normal Budget debate immediately following the presentation of that Budget. It is my intention, subject to the consideration of other factors and consultation with Opposition House Leaders, to have continuous debate on the Budget until its conclusion.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, have the stock exchanges been informed that the Budget will be brought in? The Vancouver exchange will not be closed.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: At 1:30.


Ian Deans: Thank you.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Can the Government House Leader answer my final question? When will the Main Estimates be presented and will the reconciliation of the figures in those Main Estimates in the Budget be presented to the House at the same time?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, the Estimates will be tabled on February 27, 1986. There will be a reconciliation that will astound my hon. friend.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: I have the honour of tabling the nineteenth report of the Striking Committee in both official languages.

February 13, 1986
Statements by Ministers


ACID RAIN-FIRST REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE
Stan Darling: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the first report of the Special Committee on Acid Rain in both official languages.
[Editor's Note: For above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


CANADIAN INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Hon. Monique Vezina (Minister for External Relations):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have the honour to table the Government's response to the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts concerning the Canadian International Development Agency, pursuant to Standing Order 70(16), in both official languages.


REGULATIONS AND OTHER STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 70(16), I am pleased to table the government's comprehensive response to the third report of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments, in both official languages.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Hon. Erik Nielsen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to announce one of the key initiatives of the Government's agenda for economic renewal.
Today I am introducing the first statement of regulatory policy ever articulated by a federal Government and the first strategy for implementing meaningful regulatory reform on a national basis.
Regulation is the chief instrument used by Parliament and by Government to constrain private behaviour and limit freedom in the common interest. Obviously, it is difficult to think of regulation as anything but good if it advances an aspect of
the common interest-for example, controlling the safety of baby cribs, the quality of the environment and the regulation of monopolies.
Can it ever be bad? The insight of regulatory reform says that even regulation that seems otherwise good can sometimes balance out against the public interest.
Regulation begins to go against the public interest when it overwhelms personal freedom, undermines personal responsibility, penalizes hard work or stifles the creativity of conscientious Canadians.
Our awareness that there had been years of indiscriminate regulatory activity led this Government, in the fall of 1984, to identify regulatory reform as a key element of our agenda for economic renewal.
In this context, the Task Force on Program Review last year conducted the most comprehensive and intensive regulatory review ever undertaken at one time in any jurisdiction in Canada. Its work on regulatory programs was complemented by a separate study of policies affecting federal regulatory agencies carried out under a special mandate given to me in September, 1984, by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). This work has been integrated into the over-all regulatory approach I am announcing today.
As you know, Sir, the hard word of the program review was carried out by study teams made up of individuals drawn more or less equally from the private and public sectors. The private sector volunteers represented the professions, big, medium and small business, labour and consumer interests. Their mandate was to make federal programs simpler, more understandable and more accessible to the public. The emphasis of their work was on better service to the public, less red tape and greater efficiency. They were not simply concerned with cost cutting. They did an outstanding job, and on behalf of the Government of Canada, I express deep appreciation for their dedicated service.
Let me now turn to the findings of the regulatory review. The study team's diagnosis was certainly none too comforting. The scope of federal regulation is mind-boggling. There are 146 full-scale regulatory or regulatory-related programs and that figure does not even include the Criminal Code. The programs are administered by 35,000 public servants at a cost in this fiscal year of $2.9 billion. In the latest consolidated version, which is already out of date, the regulations fill over
10,000	pages in 19 volumes and weigh nearly 40 kilograms or, for comparison's sake, close to the weight of a 100 pound sack of flour. New federal regulations or amendments to existing regulations have been churning out at a rate of more than 100 per month. The preceding Government lost control of the regulatory system; their best estimates of its scope were understated by half. We found that there was no planning mechanism for regulatory activity and no effective system for controlling its growth. Getting these problems under control will be an important part of our new regulatory reform strategy.
February 13, 1986

At nearly $3 billion, the direct cost to the Treasury of federal regulatory activity is bad enough. However, it pales in significance compared to the cost to the economy of federal regulation; that is, the price paid by individual citizens, companies, non-profit organizations and so on as a result of regulation-imposed costs. The program review estimated the cost of federal regulation to Canada's economy to be at least $30 billion per year, a dimension which has been missing from decision making on new regulatory proposals until now.
Sir, the figures I have quoted refer only to federal regulation alone. The study team found that the scope and cost of regulatory activity by provinces and municipalities is at least as high. So as individual Canadian citizens, we not only pay taxes to three levels of Government, we pay a huge indirect regulatory price to at least three layers of regulators as well.
The major conclusions of the study team were as follows.
First, the cumulative effect of regulation at the three levels of Government constitutes an enormous impediment to economic growth, initiative, enterprise and personal freedom in Canada.
Second, federally elected representatives do not have adequate control over regulation and the regulatory system.


Some Hon. Members:: Right on.


Erik Nielsen: Third, the public has too little access to and involvement in the development and review of regulation. Now, that is quite an indictment and we intend to do something about it.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: The regulatory review did not prescribe wholesale deregulation as the desirable solution to the problems it found, however, it did identify a large number of existing regulatory programs needing reform in the sense of substantial improvement. With the benefit of the regulatory review's diagnosis and recommendations, the Government has decided to implement a comprehensive regulatory reform strategy. That strategy will have several elements. Indeed, the program review should itself be seen as the first element in the over-all strategy. Today I am pleased to announce two additional elements of that strategy: The adoption of the "first-ever" federal regulatory policy, and, on behalf of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), I am now announcing the appointment of a Minister responsible for regulatory affairs.

The fundamental objective of the Government's policy is to promote economic renewal and job creation by improving the management of regulations established by the Government, eliminating those that impede growth and encouraging the private initiative and the independence of businesses through an improved regulation framework.

The policy consists of 10 guiding principles.
Statements by Ministers
First, a reformed approach to regulation is and will remain a necessary and important instrument for achieving the Government's social and economic objectives. However, the Government intends to "regulate smarter".
Second, the Government recognizes the vital role of an efficient marketplace and a dynamic entrepreneurial spirit and that regulation should not impede those values without the most persuasive justification.
Third, the Government intends to limit as much as possible the over-all rate of growth and proliferation of new regulation while protecting the public wherever appropriate.
Fourth, priority is to be placed on reform, but there will be no program of wholesale deregulation.
Fifth, the Government will ensure that regulatory benefits clearly exceed costs before proceeding with new regulatory proposals.
Sixth, regulation will be brought more fully under the control of elected representatives.
Seventh, the Government will increase public access to and participation in the regulatory process.
Eighth, the federal regulatory system will be streamlined and made more efficient.
Ninth, the Government will place priority on increased regulatory co-operation with the provinces.
Tenth, a Minister for regulatory affairs will be appointed while individual Ministers with regulatory mandates will exercise their responsibilities in conformity with the spirit and objectives of this policy.
I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that anyone familiar with regulation will recognize the significance of these ten broad policy principles. For the average citizen they boil down to the Government's intention to stem the growth of regulation, especially economic regulation, and wherever possible to get the existing regulatory burden off the backs of productive Canadians.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: The policy makes clear our intention to tilt our regulatory emphasis in the direction of economic efficiency, market flexibility, and personal freedom. Yet it also confirms our intention to protect the public through the use of regulation wherever it is the best and most economical instrument for doing so. This Government knows that Canadians know best how to run their own lives. They want a Government to support their efforts, not to direct them.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: We are eager to reform all those regulations which second-guess business judgment or stifle initiative. In that respect, the policy is particularly oriented to small and medium-sized business which is the main creator of new jobs in our economy.

February 13, 1986
Statements by Ministers
The new Minister for regulatory affairs will be responsible for over-all implementation of the regulatory policy and regulatory reform strategy. The Prime Minister has asked me to inform the House today that that Minister is the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn), our most estimable House Leader.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: Members will know that the President of the Privy Council is also Chairman of the Special Committee of Council which has the job of reviewing and approving regulatory initiatives. The special committee itself will be given increased authority and responsibility for regulatory matters under the new policy.
The Minister responsible for regulatory affairs and the Special Committee of Council will be supported by a distinct regulatory affairs secretariat to be located in the Privy Council Office with a net saving of person years by virtue of the closing of the two offices heretofore responsible for regulatory expertise; namely, the Office of Regulatory Reform and the Technical Advisory Group, both of which were located in the Treasury Board.
Today my purpose has been to launch our new regulatory reform strategy and to underline the importance which the Government attaches to meaningful regulatory improvement. There are several additional and quite distinct dimensions to the over-all concept of regulatory reform which will be made clear over the next few months. These include special provisions for public participation and access, a package of regulatory improvements, system reforms, a federal-provincial initiative, and important reforms affecting regulatory agencies. Taken together, the various elements of the Government's regulatory reform strategy will comprise the most comprehensive and coherent regulatory reform initiative ever undertaken by one administration in any jurisdiction in Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: It will place Canada's federal regulatory policy and practice in the forefront of western countries. Most important of all, Sir, the regulatory reform strategy provides a further demonstration of this Government's commitment to economic renewal through more efficient, more open, more accountable, and less intrusive Government.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, I will try to match the excellent performance of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen) en frangais by making some of my remarks in the language of Shakespeare.
First, I would like to thank the Deputy Prime Minister for providing us with a copy of his statement well in advance. This has not been customary for all Ministers on the other side of the House. This is a very good example which should be adhered to by other members of the Cabinet when they have statements to make in the House.
This being said, I would like to thank the Government for letting us know that it intends to do something about regulation in the country. This document says just that. It says the Government intends to do something, but it does not say much about when or how it will do it. In fact, without being too vicious, I have rarely seen so many words-12 full pages of them-that say so little on the specific direction and methods the Government will take to solve the problems that have been outlined. Some directions are shown, but little is said about how the objectives are going to be attained and when.
On the first page of his statement the Minister gives us the impression that this is the first time the Government of Canada is doing something about the proliferation of regulation. The Hon. Member for Simcoe-North (Mr. Lewis) is nodding in apparent agreement with this statement. Memories are short. I am certain that if the Deputy Prime Minister and other members of the Government looked back they would remember that regulatory reform was started under the Liberal Government awhile ago, not only with rhetoric but with specific measures. For example, perhaps they will remember the Office of Regulatory Reform which was put in place by a previous Government. That organization had the mandate to publish regulatory agendas of Departments showing plans as to when regulation was to come about and inviting public input. Perhaps the Government has taken some inspiration from these past moves. There is one thing which we would like to know which is not in this statement. I understand that this program has been stopped. If I am right, as I think I am, I would like to know why that is.
Finally, I would like to go into some specifics. Let us look at the 10 guiding principles on pages 8 and 9. This is where the meat, if any, is found. I do not want to go through all of the items, I just want to indicate how some of them are vague. The first item simply says that the Government intends to "regulate smarter". What else does the public expect from the Government? However, if the Government intends to become smarter, that may be welcomed by the public.
The second big guiding principle is that the Government recognizes the vital role of the marketplace and wishes that regulation should not impede those values without justification. We all agree with this. I would say that this is sort of a motherhood statement. The same applies to number five: "The Government will ensure that regulatory benefits will cearly exceed costs-". We would not expect the Government to say the contrary.
Let us move to number six where, I believe, we find an important point. It says: "Regulations will be brought more fully under the control of elected representatives". This is definitely welcomed. It is needed and would be an improvement, but why is the Government saying that at the specific time it is doing exactly the contrary? For the past few days, and even today in the House, we have seen Members attacking the Government, especially the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald), because regulations regarding unemployment insurance have been changed, something that affects people in the country. The Deputy Prime Minister
February 13, 1986

knows that. He has written his colleague a letter. Members of Parliament were not consulted. As a matter of fact, backbench members of the Government are angry at their own Ministers for having proceeded in such a fashion.
I hope the Government will state not only that it wants elected representatives to have more control over regulations but that it will end up doing that instead of the contrary. If the ordinary back-bench Member of Parliament is to have some input in regulation, may I suggest, as an improvement, that instead of having one committee of the House looking after regulations arising from legislation maybe the Members of Parliament who have passed a certain Bill in a certain committee should be the ones to look after the regulations that follow a certain Bill. It makes sense to me. Maybe the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen) would like to look into this suggestion.
Another item of these guidelines says that the federal regulatory system will be streamlined and made more efficient. I am all for this. I believe it is again some sort of motherhood statement, but let us be wary and make sure that streamlining regulations will not again bring us tainted tuna, buffalo meat that is not proper for consumption, veal that has been injected with steroids or wine adulterated by antifreeze or other products. It is very important that regulations be stringent enough so Canadians are protected. I am sure the Government would like to bear this in mind when looking at the way regulations are made.
Finally, there will be the appointment of a Minister for regulatory affairs. This may be a good thing. I am not sure. It will depend upon the relationship between the Minister and other members of the Cabinet. I presume the new Minister will be co-ordinating the efforts of other Ministers. Obviously each Minister will have to have some responsibilities with regard to regulations arising from Bills that his Department brings forward in the House. It may be good, it may not. The whole scheme may be good.
I am going to put an old saying on the record. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating. Let us wait and see. [Translation]
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I will sum up my remarks by saying that we have before us a document which expresses good intentions in the area of regulations, a document which remains somewhat vague all the same. As I said, it is a shower of words in a vacuum of ideas. There is not much specifics in there. We have to go through a dozen pages before finding three or four points which give a certain direction to what the Government intends to do.
As a matter of fact, this document can be summed up this way: The Government has apparently decided to act in the area of regulations, and the general thrust seems to that be of reducing their quantity.
It does not say how or when the Government will act.
Statements by Ministers
The Deputy Prime Minister's statement in fact seems to be saying: We will seek to do what is right and avoid what is wrong. Yet, it does not provide much infomation on the way the Government will achieve this.
Perhaps the Government could have thought this thing over before coming to the House, in order to give us better indications on what it is really planning to do.
Nevertheless, this is a first step, and I want to congratulate the Deputy Prime Minister for bringing to the House this important document.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I read the statement provided in advance by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen). I want to thank him first for having done that. It is a practice the Government has been following that is a very useful practice in the preparation of some reasonable responses.
I want to begin by saying that, in a sense, this reform, like many reforms, is acceptable. The idea of reform itself is a good idea. I think the Government in bringing forward the reforms is, in many ways, in step with the public's desire to see things being changed that have been in place for a very long time. There is no question that there are a large number of regulations. The Deputy Prime Minister makes that point in his report, and he is absolutely right.
Over the years we, in this Party, have advocated such things as tax reforms and reform of labour standards. We have advocated and supported reform of Parliament. We will in a very general way certainly be interested in participating in the reform which the Deputy Prime Minister has indicated he intends to have the new Minister for regulations or some similar name undertake.
It is a positive step if Members of Parliament are involved in the process all the way through. There is no question about it that regulations have a way of growing on their own without any checks and balances, and the necessity to review those regulations and to determine the effectiveness, appropriateness, usefulness or necessity for the regulations is a process that we in this Party would subscribe to.
Having said that, I want to discuss for a moment or two the whole question of regulation, and put to the Government some concerns that we have about possible courses of action which might be taken that would not be desirable.
It is not always easy to identify the more positive aspects of something. The Deputy Prime Minister I am sure would agree that it is easier to identify the possible negative effects. 1 want to highlight those in order that we do not run afoul of them during the process of review of regulation and deregulating, as the Government has indicated it will do.
Let me read from a document that we prepared in response to the freedom to move document. It is an extract from what the Canadian Labour Congress put in its brief in that regard dealing with regulation. It reads:

February 13, 1986
Statements by Ministers
Government regulation is an attempt to state certain minimum social standards of behaviour that apply to any activity in our society. These minimum standards are a reflection of the social nature of economic activity, the role of Governments and taxpayers and workers in making that activity possible and the minimum rights that accrue to them as a result. Regulation, then, is not a "cost" that can be measured against a hypothetical unfettered market situation, but an assertion of general social rights that are as legitimate as the right to engage in business or the right to earn a profit.
1 say that because it must surely be against that kind of a backdrop that the Government undertakes its review and undertakes its new approach. Clearly we cannot see regulations simply as a cost to be borne. We have to look at them in terms of the benefits one derives, that society derives, from certain kinds of regulations. Although it may be that certain regulations do in fact impose a tax, that tax being a cost, or that certain other regulations do inhibit freedom of choice, by their very nature they are necessary to protect the public from inappropriate actions that can and, sometimes have in the past, been taken by others who do not have but themselves in mind when they make their decisions.
Many of the regulations were brought about as a result of actions in the market-place or in other parts of society that were deemed totally inappropriate by society as a whole.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Pollution.


Ian Deans: As my colleague says, pollution regulations for example. For many, many years we were unable to identify the sources of much of the illness that is created in certain parts of the country. It only came laterally to the minds of many that these illnesses were the result of pollution that had been unrestricted. Therefore, regulation of one kind or another has to be put in place. We must keep that in mind as we look at the whole question of regulation, what it is intended to do, where it came from in the first place and what caused it to be put there. We cannot rely solely on the goodwill of others to ensure that safety standards and protections will automatically be maintained if regulations are eliminated or abolished. That will be the way that this Party will approach the question of the review of the many regulations which are in place. In fact, I would venture the opinion that, although the Minister says that there are countless volumes of them, we have to look carefully to try to understand what caused the regulation to be put there in the first place and then make sure that there is in place some alternative means of protecting the public from an unacceptable action taken either against them or by someone inadvertently which causes them harm.
There is potential danger to Canadians in a wholesale program of deregulation. We have seen evidence of that in other parts of the world. We have to guard constantly against the tendency of Governments on the right to believe that somehow or other getting the Government off the backs of people, which is the phrase most frequently used, frees those people to do things they would be desirous of doing without any detrimental effect to themselves or to anyone else.
For example, the deregulation of banks by its very nature causes people to have concerns about whether or not banks are
safe, stable and using good and sound practices. That is not necessarily a particularly desirable thing for Government to do. If the deregulation of trucking, as it inevitably does, means that we will be able to send something more cheaply from point "a" to point "b", there will not be any guarantees of the safety standards necessary to guarantee that if we happen to be on the same highway we will not be the unwilling victims of accidents caused by a lack of proper maintenance. We must weigh that, and I come to the conclusion, therefore, that the deregulation of trucking, if it takes place in any wholesale way, has to be measured carefully against the potential for danger.
There is no doubt that one will be able to take a cheaper flight from here to some other point if the airlines are deregulated. However, will the airplanes be as safe? Will the necessary maintenance have been done? Will the checks and balances still be in place to guarantee that when we are up there we will get down safely? I think the record shows that there are some serious safety questions emerging in the United States now as a result of the deregulation of the airlines.
Over the course of the last few days we have been dealing in the House with a very serious accident. The Government has indicated, through the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankow-ski), that it intends to move toward deregulation of the railroads. But at what cost? It is becoming increasingly more apparent that the safety standards and inspection procedures are questionable even now. I predict that the deregulation and the necessity for cutthroat competition, which will supposedly result in lower costs, will result in a very dangerous situation. There is the potential for a very dangerous situation when it comes to safety and maintenance of the rolling stock and rail beds.
What good does it do to be able to buy a cheaper can of tuna if in fact it is cheaper as a result of not having been properly inspected? Of course that would flow from deregulation within that particular industry. While I accept the need to look at regulations very carefully and the proposal for reform of the regulations and the regulatory system, I caution the Minister that reform must always take second place to safety, that reform must always take second place to consumer protection, and that reform must always take second place to the paramount importance of guaranteeing that the public of Canada will be protected from abuses which flow from a market system that makes it very difficult to maintain a proper level of safety and maintenance. What becomes at risk, particularly in certain consumer areas when one starts to attack regulations, is the reputation built up over many years and acknowledged by the world of the quality of Canadian produce which we sell. As we are looking at the potential for deregulation, we must always bear in mind that there are other costs far greater than the cost of maintaining, updating and publishing the regulations which protect us from abuse.
I do not envy the Minister his role, not for one moment. It will be a very difficult task. To the extent that the Government is sensitive about the matters I have raised-and I have only touched the tip of it-there may well be room to reduce the amount of regulation which is currently within our society. I
February 13, 1986

will be the first to applaud when we uncover the areas where it can be done without social costs. However, I suggest that the Minister bear in mind that the free market system, the one which he and his colleagues are so eager to promote, carries with it certain dangers that can and have in the past resulted in inferior product and inferior work. With that in mind, the cost to Canada of deregulation in certain areas and the cost to individual Canadians of deregulation in certain areas, therefore, could turn out to be far greater than the cost of maintaining the regulation now in place which has been identified by the Deputy Prime Minister in his statement.
With those few words, I say that obviously we will want to take part because we believe that there must be a watchdog function. There is an absolute necessity for a vigilant review of what the Government proposes to do, of why the regulation was put there and of what would be the consequence of its removal, before we will subscribe to any change. I wish the minister well. I do not know where in heaven's name he will find the time to do this in addition to the responsibilities he now has. I know, from dealing with him on a daily basis, that it is difficult enough to find time to meet now. How we will find time to meet after he assumes this responsibility is somewhat confusing. However, I want to tell him, as I always do, that I am available at six o'clock in the morning for House Leaders' meetings. I am always here or hereabouts. If he cannot make it to my meeting at six o'clock in the morning, perhaps he can plan other ones.


Marcel Prud'homme: Are you not just arriving home by 6 a.m.?


Ian Deans: No, I am on my way back.
We are in support, but it is very qualified and the qualification that I place under the qualifications that I have mentioned-there are so many of them that I could stand all day and list them, I do not want to do that, it is not necessary. I think I have made my point.


PETITIONS
Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and my duty to present to the House a petition signed by 1,555 residents of the Crescent Town community in my riding, calling on the House to amend Bill C-20, the communications Bill, in order to exempt satellite television communication systems of condominium corporations from the requirements of licensing by the CRTC so the condominiums will be treated in the same way as homeowners.
Order Paper Questions


Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, it is once again my pleasure to present today petitions supporting the initiative undertaken by the SOS-"Save Our Shop"- Committee regarding the future of CN shops in Moncton.
Over 200 people from the federal constituencies of West-moreland-Kent and Moncton have signed these petitions, Mr. Speaker, in order to express their deep concern and demand that the jobs at CN shops in Moncton be protected.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I have received a large number of letters from a variety of young people who have been involved in Katimavik, and they all call upon this Government and the House to reinstate full funding for the Katimavik Program for young people of Canada, as its value to them is very great. We would like to pass it on to other young Canadians.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a petition on behalf of a number of people from Kamloops, British Columbia, who are still hoping that the Government will come to its senses and reinstate full indexation of universal family allowances and rescind the unfair tax increases that were in the last Budget as we await day by day now the tax increases in the new Budget. Nevertheless they continue to try.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by about 600 residents of Winnipeg and other parts of Manitoba who demand that Canada Post Corporation make improved and expanded postal services its number one priority. The Government should refrain from interfering with the operation of Canada Post so that it can expand into revenue-generating services which will lessen the dependency on Government subsidies to offset the deficit of the corporation.


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. 477 will be answered today.

Order Paper Questions
lText]


Mr. Robinson: 1.	Did the Government recently allocate a budget of $116 million to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) and, if so, what portion of the budget was used for the surveillance of groups and individuals in (a) Canada (6) the Province of Quebec?
2.	How many CSIS officers were designated for surveillance of groups and individuals in (a) Canada (b) the Province of Quebec?
3.	How many files on groups and individuals in (a) Canada (b) the Province of Quebec are kept by the CSIS?
4.	Does the CSIS keep files on (a) the Societe Saint-Jean-Baptiste de Montreal (SSJB-M) (b) the Mouvement national des Quebecois (MNQ) (c) Mr. Gilles Rheaume of the SSJB-M and the MNQ (d) the Groupe de recherche sur la paix et le desarmement de l'Universite Laval (GRPD-UL) (e) Mr. Louis O'Neil and Mr. Eric Poole of the GRPD-UL?


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Solicitor General of Canada):: 1. The
Government has allocated a budget of $116 million to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) to fulfil its duties and functions under the CSIS Act.
(a) and (b) It is not in the national security interest, however, to specify what portions of the budget are allocated regionally or to specific threats to the security of Canada as defined in s.2 of the CSIS Act.
2. (a) and (b) As specified in s. 12 of the CSIS Act, the Service collects "by investigation or otherwise, to the extent that it is strictly necessary" . . . "information and intelligence respecting activities that may on reasonable grounds be suspected of constituting threats to the security of Canada". It would not be in the national interest for security reasons to reveal any specific details in relation to CSIS' investigations.
3.	(a) and (b) S.12 of the CSIS Act authorizes CSIS to "retain information and intelligence respecting activities that may on reasonable grounds be suspected of constituting threats to the security of Canada". It would be improper for security reasons to comment further on separate files held by the Service.
4.	See response to question 3 above.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The question indicated by the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary has been answered. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 46, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway)-Environmental Affairs-Lake Ontario-United States program to clean up chemical dump; the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier)-Justice-Inquiry why anglophone appointed instead of available francophone; the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms Lynn McDonald)-Status of women- Portrayal of women in the media, (b) Apppointments to CRTC and CBC.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Hnatyshyn:
That the proposed amendments to the Standing Orders, laid upon the Table on Thursday, February 6, 1986 (Sessional Paper No. 331-7/37A) be adopted and made provisional Standing Orders of the House.
Provided that, unless otherwise ordered;
1.	the said provisional Standing Orders shall be in force from 11.00 o'clock a.m. Monday, February 24, 1986 until the House adjourns on the last sitting day in December, 1986;
2.	and futher 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.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: I wish to inform the House that because of the minister's statement, the sitting today will last 41 minutes longer. Therefore, the Private Members's Business hour will start at 5.41.
When the House adjourned at one o'clock, the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) had three minutes left.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, I shall ask for a minute of two at the end.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
February 13, 1986

But earlier today, when I finished at 1 p.m., and I was saying that all Members in the House-

-in a very orderly fashion find a way by which at long last we will stop sitting on Friday afternoon for the reason that 1 expressed this morning. I have received a lot of support for that from many Members, especially from the majority over there. 1 think that instead of finishing at five o'clock, because it looks bad if we do not, Members should go to their district. A federal Member of Parliament needs to be here five days a week and to look after his constituency on the weekend. I think we could find some consent on this.
There is another subject 1 would like to touch on because the famous McGrath Report did not touch on it. It is the question of the prayer in the House of Commons. Ever since I have been a Member of Parliament nobody has wanted to touch it because there was no agreement on it. Everybody agrees that we should change the prayer of the day because it does not reflect the multicultural population of Canada, but no one can agree on a prayer.
When I was at the Ottawa University in 1957 I created quite a shock and a scandal because I felt that in recognition of the multiconfessional aspect of the people attending the University of Ottawa we should have one full minute of silent prayer, so that everyone could call on whatever God they believed in to help them in their deliberations. Here we do it in secret; we do not even do it with the door open. I wish Canadians would ask for it. I have no objections to praying for the entire Royal Family, but it is difficult to believe how unCanadian and unmulticonfessional the prayer is.
If I had more time I would have liked to speak about the election of the Speaker. I believe very strongly in the sense of reform.
I see a very prominent member of the Standing Committee on Management and Members' Services, and I think the time has come to ask the Chairman of that committee, whoever he may be-at the moment I have the honour of having been chosen but I am not talking for myself-with your kind indulgence, Mr. Speaker if I could finish in an orderly fashion-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: I understand the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prudhomme) requires unanimous consent to proceed. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Marcel Prud'homme: I will not abuse the privilege which Members are giving me.
I would think that now that we have a new Board of Internal Economy, in order to have some input by the real back-bencher, the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Management and Members' Services should also sit on it. It is for the advantage of the Members.
I would also like to speak about the question of the lobbyists disclosure. I can imagine how strong the lobbyists are in this
Standing Orders
country because they succeeded in lobbying so strongly that the law that we were to see brought in will not take place.
There is also the question of conflict of interest of Members of Parliament conflict of interest that we are looking into in our Members' Services Committee. I think this is quite a severe task to do and we would have liked to speak about that.
I will conclude by saying that the committee has done an excellent job. We are very happy with the majority of its recommendations. I would hope that those who are deliberating with each other about what will be changed will have the necessary flexibility to allow us to dispose of this package. I know that while we are talking at the moment there is some deliberation taking place at another level where the three Parties are represented, so we may find some agreement in order to develop new rules. I will conclude by thanking you for having given me a little more time to put some of my thoughts in front of my colleagues.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Questions or comments. The Hon. Member for Bourassa (Mr. Rossi).


Mr. Rossi:: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) mentioned the committee proceedings, what takes place in parliamentary committees. I would like to ask the Member for Saint-Denis if he could comment or be more specific on the work of parliamentary committees.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, very briefly, so that we can entertain as many questions as possible, yes indeed, I think that the difficulty might be to reconcile the idea that from now on there will be smaller committees-

-that from now on there will be smaller committees but at the same time we do not know how many legislative committees there will be. I suppose we always start with what we know best. I would like to have the honour of chairing, at the request of the Speaker, a legislative committee on the employment equity Bill along with a good group of people.
At the same time as there are legislative committees, there is also a multiplicity of other committees. There are 211 Government Members, so we must have that kind of flexibility. Canadians, in a very democratic way, chose 211 Government Members and only 40 official Opposition Members and 30 NDP Members. We must have the necessary flexibility and we must not have too many legislative committees.
The other committees, the standing committees, sit at night. This makes no sense. A Party's expert on a standing committee is of course the best Member to sit on the legislative committee. When I was a younger Member, I was happy to report to my electorate that I was the only Member of the House of Commons sitting on seven standing committees, until I received a letter from an oldtime Member of Parliament who told me to start looking into my work in an orderly fashion. He

February 13, 1986
Standing Orders
told me that if I tried to be an expert in everything, I would end up being an expert in nothing. He was absolutely right. I liked to please my Whip, so there I was running around. The Whip told me he needed a Member in this committee and 1 arrived at the committee and adjusted to the subject matter of it. Then the Whip said he needed someone to vote in another committee and I went. That made no sense.
We like to believe that we know everything, but I think we should become experts in a few subjects. If we really know the subject matter, we will be able to defend the interests of Canadians who elect us and want us to defend them. That is why we are here.
I look forward to having the kind of flexibility in the system that will not allow legislative committees to multiply unduly. Even though standing committees and legislative committees are not supposed to sit at the same time, a member of a legislative committee will have to attend committee meetings while the House is sitting and then at night he will have to attend meetings of the standing committee. This makes no sense.
[ Translation]


Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with great interest to the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Pru-d'homme), and you will agree that he is acting wisely, based of course on his intelligence as well as his long experience of representing his constituents. In his wisdom, the Hon. Member told us that it was most important for each Member of the House to spend time meeting people in their constituencies, and he in fact alluded to a rescheduling of the fridays. I would like the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis to elaborate somehow on this restructuring of Fridays which would enable Hon. Members to spend more time in their constituencies.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, we have indeed discussed that matter for years, but a prominent Member of Parliament was always reluctant and said: No, we should sit five days a week. But I have the feeling that we could now reach a conclusion, as I have noticed this morning a lot of support in favour of rescheduling our sittings so that on Fridays Members of Parliament could be free at least by 2 p.m. without the Government wasting time that it considers appropriate.
It is therefore just a matter of rescheduling the sittings of the House. The people of Canada do not have to tell us... The Canadian people are surprised that Members of Parliament are not even able to organize their own schedule.
It would just be a matter of meeting at 10 o'clock on Fridays, or even 9 o'clock and adjourning at 1 p.m., or starting at 10 o'clock and adjourning at 2 p.m., instead of 5 p.m. when there is no one left in the House or just three or four Members, which is often nerve-wracking for the whips because a Member might just decide to ask if there is a quorum, and that is most annoying.
And I strongly believe that as adults-

I strongly believe that we should put our own house in order and be flexible regarding Fridays without taking any time away from the Government or from private Members. All we have to do is to look around us on Friday afternoons between four and five o'clock. It is a disastrous afternoon.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I have three or four questions I would like to ask, and I will try to be very brief.
I wish the Hon. Member would tell us what he thinks about registration of Members' trips? Second, electronic vote versus recorded vote. I know his views on the subject differ from mine. Perhaps he would like to elaborate.
Third, the Government proposal includes a recommendation to limit the number of questions that can be put on the Order Paper. The number will be limited to four, and the Speaker will be able to say to a Member: your oral question should be placed on the Order Paper, and invite him or her to do so.
What happens if the Member in question already has four questions on the Order Paper? Will his oral question have to wait or has the Hon. Member already considered it might be possible to maintain the present formula, which has not been abused by Members, and also that one should not limit the number of written questions on the Order Paper of the House of Commons?


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, I am starting to regret the fact I did not put in my name for the McGrath Committee, because then I would have had a chance to elaborate on all these questions.
It is true that as far as the vote is concerned, my Whip and I do not see eye to eye.
The Party Whip would like to go on as is, and I think we should have electronic votes with the exception of votes on matters of great importance, on which all Members should have the opportunity to rise and be counted. I will not say which issues are of great importance. Each of us has our own issues which we feel are of great importance including the death penalty, abortion, the Budget and votes on non-confidence. Yes, I believe there should be electronic voting but with exceptions. Therefore, I am not totally in agreement with my very competent and tough Whip who does a good job. [Translation]
As to trips by parliamentarians, I think the time has come to stop all this hypocrisy. For years I have wanted to do this, because people see it as a big mystery, and Mr. Speaker, 1 really do want to answer that particular question, because it affects all parliamentarians, and I am sure that I will have the
February 13, 1986

unanimous consent of the House for saying what my experience has been in the last twenty years.
We are federal Members-

We are federal legislators. If I were not interested in international affairs, I would have run provincially. As a Member of the House at the federal level, I believe that it is my duty to be interested in international affairs. I am sure we would be able to explain that to the people who question these trips taken by Members. I am not afraid to explain that to members of the press if they give us a fair trial and I am not afraid to explain it to the people if we are given a direct connection, as we have now on television, with the people.
It is important that federal Members get to know the world and it is important that they introduce Canada to other parts of the world. I am not talking about Europe but more especially about the non-allied countries. When a Parliamentarian meets a counterpart in the eastern part of the world, he knows that that counterpart is directly connected to power. [Translation]
Mr. Speaker, that is my experience. When we meet parliamentarians in all the international bodies, usually they are directly connected to the Head of State or to those who run their countries. These issues are not as sophisticated as all that. And the contacts parliamentarians can make can only benefit Canada, and they can also be useful in showing others how we operate in this country.
We are being asked everywhere: How do your parliamentary committees operate? What does such a thing mean? What does that mean, officers of the table? Those people have not experienced the same development as we have in Canada which is a very fortunate country. Therefore we should not be afraid to go on those trips. And then on our return to the House, we should be given the opportunity to use 20 minutes of House time to report.

That is what there is in the Senate. Every parliamentary group which travels abroad has the flexibility to report back. In this way people can read what went on while it was away. Accordingly, I think the time has come to cut off the secrecy with respect to parliamentary trips. We are grown up men and women; we can take our responsibilities seriously. We can explain. If we cannot, and if we chicken out, then all we have to do is not to accept a trip abroad. If there is some mystery involved, then one does not have to go.
I believe that a book should be kept somewhere, perhaps in the Speaker's Chamber or even with the Clerk of the House, in which Members would write: "I, so-and-so, was the guest of such-and-such government", or: "I, so-and-so, went to such-and-such as a member of a delegation". I do not think this record book should be kept just for certain trips. For example, this Friday I am going to represent my Party at the Francophone summit.
Standing Orders

With respect to the Francophonie Summit, I have been asked to represent my party. There will be 1 NDP member, 8 PC members and four ministers. I do not see why that should be registered in a book even if it is an official delegation. Then all the members are treated on the same footing.

On the question of trips, it is a well known fact that every time a Minister goes abroad he or she brings along what I used to call the favourite Member. Nobody knows of this until several months after the trip when a colleague will say to the Minister: "I heard you went to such-and-such with so-and-so". Why should that fall under this veil of mystery, as if something not quite kosher had taken place? I appreciate the openness. 1 think that is what we should defend. Canadians want openness. I believe the men and women of the press will know what openness means. They will also know that everyone is being treated equally.
My colleague asked me questions with respect to electronic voting and trips taken by parliamentarians. As far as questions on the Order Paper are concerned, I agree with the Hon. Member. I have not made up my mind so I will leave the matter to the House Leaders who, at the moment, are deliberating on the matter.
I conclude by saying that the time has come for us to deal with these matters. Last night I spoke with God and she told me that she would prefer Members of Parliament to pray in public. What is so mysterious about the prayers of parliamentarians? I think we should have open doors and an open confessional which will truly represent the multicultural aspects of our country.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I rise with some hesitation because of the eloquence and inspiration which has been provided by the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme). It is always a pleasure to listen to a Member, who has such great experience and longevity in the House of Commons, give us the full benefit of his wisdom. I mean that with all sincerity. It is unfortunate that the rules of this place allow only a 20-minute presentation. We could have spent much more time listening to someone who has such a great wealth of ideas and views expound upon how we can improve our working place and how we can make it a better and more effective arena for the representation which we are all here to perform.
I offer my more limited credentials in this debate. The other night while I was picking up some papers from my home town, where I was reporting on the recently called election, it dawned on me that it has been some 13 years since I first found myself in an elected assembly. While that may not be long by comparison to the time which my friend, the Hon. Member for Hull-Aylmer (Mr. Isabelle), has spent here, the fact of the matter is that 13 years does give one a certain sense of both the privileges which one has in being a member of an elected chamber and the strangeness of life which ensues once elected. As we all know there can be no greater honour than

February 13, 1986
Standing Orders
having a group of one's fellow citizens choose one to come to this place full of grand hopes and expectations about what we can achieve, only to find oneself convoluted and convulsed by all the strange and exotic mysteries of how to make it all work.
After 13 years one thing which has impressed me greatly is how, over the years of evolution of parliamentary procedure, a remarkable balancing act has taken place. What we do not recognize is that Parliament is really a whole series of dichotomies, a whole series of opposites. There is the Government versus the Opposition, which is the standard type of see-saw we see. There are many others. There is the executive branch versus the legislative branch. One tries to make decisions while the other tries to hold the decision accountable. Obviously, there is an important balance between the interests of the individual Member of Parliament and those of his or her caucus. These factors also have to be balanced out. Every day that we show up for business in this place there is a balancing act taking place. There is an attempt at trying to find some type of harmony of symmetry with the issues of the day. There is an attempt at trying to find some way of making it all work so that things do not get out of balance. That is why a debate with respect to the rules is so important. The rules can substantially shift where the priority, the emphasis, the weight, the power and the influence lie in Parliament. If one makes a wrong choice with respect to the rules, if one shades them too far in one way, then one gives distinct advantage to one of the particular balancing acts about which I spoke. We know, for example, that if a football league decides to change the rules which apply to wide receivers and it prevents the defence from bumping them as they come off the scrimmage line, then one immediately gives advantage to the offence. Similarly, one can change the rules and all of a sudden the defence will have an extreme advantage.
The questions we have to ask are: Where do these rules come down? How do they affect the balance in terms of the workings of Parliament? How do they affect the rights of individual Members versus those of the collegiality to which they belong? How do they affect the balance between the Government and the Opposition? How do they affect the balance between the executive branch which makes decisions and the legislative branch which holds them accountable?
Certainly, the stated purpose of these rule changes as articulated by the special committee and the Government House Leader in presenting them to the House is to give greater emphasis to the individual Member of Parliament. Of course, that strikes music to the ears of individual Members, which is why 1 think that in many cases there is a natural inclination to support these particular proposals. We must also ask ourselves to what degree they may shade or push even further out of balance some of the other legitimate and important functions of this place. The role of Parliament is not just to have individual Members arrive here to present their own particular case. Obviously, the most important function is to hold accountable the actions of the Government. That is what makes us so distinctly different from any other form of Government.
The other day the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said that he wishes he had the same rights as the President of the United States and that he would not have to show up for Question Period every day. I suppose anyone who serves as a Minister would share those feelings. For them, Question Period is like the Garden of Gethsemane. It is the time when one is held to account. Anything which would change that would not only be unnecessary but it would cut into, and erode, some of the central principles of Parliament. However, when one looks at the changes about which we are speaking there may also be similar problems with respect to accountability. It must be asked: To what degree the law affects this place, as it does from time to time, in terms of keeping Government honest, open and responsible? It must also be asked: To what degree will the ability of a combined mass of Members coming together, whether in Question Period or in debate, be affected by these rule changes?
This is why the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) raised some serious cautions in his presentation. He raised them with respect to the functions of the committee and of the individual Member. He said that, in fact, we may be eroding or drawing down the capacity of Parliament to work as it should from time to time as the great crucible in which the issues of the day are exposed and in which the Government is held accountable.
Let me talk for a moment about the role of committees. 1 have been a member of many different committees and have seen how they operate. I believe that these rule changes fall short of achieving the objective that was established. Let me give some examples.
I thought that the committee in the last Parliament dealing with the problems of the handicapped played an invaluable role. It was chaired by the former Member for Don Valley West and was very much influenced by the former Member for Brandon-Souris, the late Walter Dinsdale, who died in office. He had a very sincere and incredible knowledge of this area. Those two Members were able to use that committee as a forum for drawing public attention to a series of issues that had been long neglected. As a Minister of that previous Government, I can testify as to how influential that committee was in putting those issues on the table and setting them on the agenda for Cabinet discussion. That committee achieved a remarkable record of success over three and four years of bringing forth legislation, regulation and initiatives on behalf of handicapped people.
Similarly, I can think back to my days in the provincial House when I was a member of the family law committee that worked for two years to overcome an incredible wealth of prejudice that had long existed in terms of property rights of men and women in marriage. Over a period of time, through the force of its public exposure, it was able to mobilize public opinion and eventually bring about major legislative change.
I also think of the recent action of the Joint Committee on Canada's International Relations, whose chairman is in the
February 13, 1986

House today. Last summer that committee served as a forum in the debate on star wars for a number of concerned Canadians. It gave them an opportunity to present their views and it ultimately mobilized public opinion, which obviously influenced the Government's decision about whether it should take part in star wars research.
These are issues in which parliamentary committees played an important role. They were able to fulfil that role because they had the ability to link with a high level of public identity and exposure. These committees were able to attract the attention of the media because of their partnership with the public on specific issues, which also mobilized the public constituency in the country.
I am concerned that there is nothing in these rule changes that will allow the new committee structure to provide for that kind of link with the public. One of the problems in the House of Commons is the incredible focus that is placed on Question Period. It is generally referred to as "show-biz time" because that is where all the media attention is focused. I defy Members to find any report of speeches made in the House or the work in committees reported in the local news, the national television news or even in the newspapers. It seems that Parliament has been turned on its head, and I suggest that the committee and these rule proposals have failed to address how to put Parliament back into its proper perspective as a debating forum rather than the show-biz arena with 45 minutes of comedy routines.
I understand the attraction of Question Period. Television has made the difference because the television audience does not enjoy talking heads, it enjoys conflict. That is why wrestling and other sports events are so popular; people like the one-on-one, hand-to-hand combat. To a great extent, Question Period has that quality.
I doubt very much whether people are educated or better informed by watching Question Period, because the question and response system is presently designed as a partisan form of game playing, with some rare exceptions. It is like a game show on television, competing for audiences during that particular time slot. This detracts from the role that Parliament should play in its committee and its debate on legislation.
We are concerned that the rule changes should not be implemented in an ad hoc manner but should reflect the broader perspective in order to make his place a far more relevant and significant institution for the debate of public issues. That is what I believe Canadians want, rather than relegating Parliament to the level of a game show or soap opera. It may be advantageous for attracting audiences, but ultimately Parliament must be a place for debate. I do not believe that the rule changes have addressed that issue at all.
We have heard much rhetoric about the role of committees but I suggest that those committees are only as good as their individual members. Furthermore, those members are only as good as their access to research, their staff and their ability to present informed questions about issues of importance to them.
Standing Orders
We know that the daily routine of Members of Parliament makes it difficult for them to find the time to do the necessary research to prepare for committees. They have far too many phone calls and constituency problems and caucus meetings to be able to obtain that substantial and useful information. Yet, the Member of Parliament is expected to become a paragon of wisdom under the new committee system and to take on new legislative initiatives and new levels of accountability. The rules do not take into account how the Member of Parliament will be able to get better access to research information and better staff resources. Unfortunately, this involves spending money and increasing the bureaucracy of Parliament.
I believe it is self-defeating to provide more responsibility to a Member of Parliament without providing the wherewithal to meet that responsibility. We are not taking a great leap forward if these reforms cannot be achieved because there is no capacity to meet those demands. That is why I believe parliamentary reform must take more than greater responsibility into account. We must also provide the means of meeting that responsibility.
What about the role of individual Members of Parliament representing their constituents? I was a Minister for almost five years, particularly in the portfolio of Employment and Immigration, in which there are numerous requests from Members of Parliament concerning immigration cases, unemployment insurance cases and job creation cases. Much of my time was spent acting almost like an ombudsman, trying to arbitrate the decisions of the bureaucracy brought to my attention by Members, as they legitimately should.
I ask all Hon. Members if they are satisfied that the system works effectively and they are able to deal effectively with the case work they receive in their constituency offices on the weekend? My colleague, the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis, said that if you are one of the Ministers' favourite sons or daughters, you may get a response. However, there are 282 Members in this House and all of us, to a greater or lesser degree, have individual cases of concern, whether it be immigration, pensions or unemployment insurance. What is the turn-around time? Three months? Four months? Some go on for six or seven months. Some immigration cases go on for a full year. I would suggest that if we are really concerned about how to achieve a greater role and responsibility for the individual Member, we have to recognize that a large part of the role is acting as a court of last resort for individuals frustrated by the bureaucracy. They cannot get access or fair decisions. The time honoured role of an MP is to provide that court of last resort and bring the issue to this Chamber or a Minister's attention.
However, the process, once the issue is brought here, is archaic and obsolete. Some Government Departments have two or three hundred correspondence secretaries handling these cases and telling people that, yes, the Minister has received their letter and we will get back. I do not have to go through it; any Minister knows exactly how the game is played. This is

February 13, 1986
Standing Orders
wrong. It is ineffective, and there are better ways of doing it. One technique we began to experiment with in the Department of Transport was establishing the office of Inspector General. That officer did not report to the Deputy Minister, but rather had direct access to the Minister and any level of the bureaucracy. Grievances and complaints could be raised in that way, and it would at the same time provide a focal point for Members of Parliament to refer these cases. That would be that persons' full-time job. When a particular problem in a given bureaucracy is identified, then they would have the right and responsibility to get it corrected. Why are we not doing that kind of thing to make the job of an individual Member of Parliament more successful?
I would just use the time remaining to say that I welcome with relief the opportunity of dealing with government appointments in committee. As Members of this House will know, we have been asking for close to five months to have the new trade negotiator, Mr. Reisman, appear before the committee so we can find out what his mandate is. We have been told consistently by the Prime Minister and others that that would not happen until these rules were established. Perhaps the time has now arrived and the day of reckoning will soon be here for Mr. Reisman and his points of view on trade. However, why do we have the power simply to hold hearings? I think we all realize that something like this is only significant when there is some power attached, some decision-making responsibility. The U.S. Senate has a very important function, it is called advise and consent. It is that ability to consent which is a very important bargaining point in establishing the rights of the legislative branch to hold the executive branch accountable. We have not gone that far. We have not given our committees the opportunity to restrain or restrict an appointment they consider to be totally unacceptable. Therefore, the process is, in part, meaningless. It may make certain information public but it will not give us the opportunity to ensure bad appointments can be withheld or stopped.
With those thoughts about where Parliament should go, I would say that the steps we are taking here are useful, but they are by no means the reforms which are necessary to make this place a modern place of work for all of us.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Questions or comments. [Translation]


Carlo Rossi: I should like to congratulate the Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) for his statement and ask him his views and his position concerning the power given to the Chair to suspend a Member for up to five days as a result of a decision.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I have to confess to some concern about that kind of power. As we know, the Speaker is the servant of the House.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: First Commoner.


Lloyd Axworthy: The extremely serious decision to deny a Member the privilege of occupying his seat should be taken by the House. Presently the Government House Leader must present a motion to expel a Member. While some may say that this is almost automatic, it is not necessarily so. I have been in this House when the Speaker's ruling was obviously seen to be the wrong one. After tempers had cooled, we found ways to rework or rearrange the decision. The Speaker is human, and all too human at times. We recognize that. I would refer to the comments made yesterday by the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps). She asked what would happen if a Member was expelled at the time when there was a major crisis in the Member's riding which was of extreme importance and he or she was denied the opportunity to speak.
I think in this case the changes have gone too far. Our House Leader on this side took the position that some rule changes should be carefully reviewed again before they are agreed to by this House.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I join with my colleagues in congratulating the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) on his remarks. I know him to be a hardworking Member and he has assiduously tried to fulfil his House, committee and constituency duties. I would like him, as a Member from Western Canada, to comment on the challenge to a Member in trying to cope with a series of legislative, standing and special committees, as well as task forces. This is in addition to the many other functions he has as Member of Parliament. How does he reconcile this with an increased workload for every Member of the House? Does he not think we should adopt the British system of queuing our legislation so that we have at the maximum seven or eight committees instead of 15 or 20 sometimes?


Philip Derek Lewis: Without the staff you used to have.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I thought for a moment our Whip was going to ask me how I, as a Liberal Member from western Canada, get by. It is a matter of sheer survival. In some ways the rules in which I am much more interested are those concerning the game laws in the Provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, in order to stay alive.
The Hon. Member raises an important point. About two weeks ago I had a conversation with a former Member of Parliament who represented a Winnipeg constituency back in the 1940s and 1950s. We bumped into each other. He was reminiscing about his days in the House and he talked about the time when Members would get on the train to go back to their constituency, having been in Ottawa for three or four months. The conclusion he came to was that modern-day communications have not been of great help to Members of Parliament, that they have in fact substantially increased our workload. We are overloading the system. I do not think that the human psyche, temperament or physiology are really built to handle all the responsibilities a Member of Parliament is expected to handle, to say nothing of a Minister of the Crown with administrative duties. We have to be a little more realistic and recognize that to do a good job you need the time and the
February 13, 1986

resources. It is foolish and foolhardy to think that somehow you can have an ever-expanding set of demands without having something to give. So what gives, the time you spend in your constituency? The time you spend with your family? That, quite frankly, is what usually gives. That is the real poison in the system. When you have a highly efficient and demanding Whip and a highly demanding set of committee responsibilities, you start shaving off time spent with your wife, children, and friends. You can no longer find extra moments for reflection and thinking. That must, after all, ultimately be the basis of strength.
We need a way of organizing the committee system to allow forward planning of one's time as well as much more careful consideration of travel requirements. There is a psychology that virtually every committee which is established must cover almost every city, town, village, and hamlet. If a committee does not go to a particular town, that town feels it has been ignored. As a result, there are many travelling road shows. Sometimes Members are expected to join three or four of those a year. Not only does the time spent in your office diminish, but the lack of personal time becomes a very major impairment.
In the consideration of these rules I strongly urge that one be more realistic and fair to Members of Parliament with regard to the responsibilities of committee work. If we are not going to do that, the least we can do is to ensure that Members have the resources to meet those demands, which resources we certainly do not have at the present time.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I want to pursue the point of having numerous standing committees going about their work while, at the same time, there are legislative committees dealing with the same subject matter. That makes it very difficult for Members as it is impossible to be in two places at the same time. I am thinking of the de Havilland committee, for example, which had expertise available to it. Members who were interested in this very important subject were called upon to attend legislative committees dealing with subject matters related to trade, the high technology industry, and the aviation industry at the same time.
We would like the assurance of the Government that these new rules will be put into effect with some sensitivity to the fact that Members of Parliament cannot be in two places at the same time. If a committee studies a subject which is of importance to Members who are required to attend other committee meetings at that time, we would like the Government to postpone making its decision until that committee has reported. I know the Member has experience in these matters. What is his experience in terms of task forces and special committees and how they should relate to House business?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, as we have observed many times in this House, there are occasions when it becomes more like a three-ring circus than a serious legislative forum. Our Party Whip has put his finger on one of the serious flaws in
Standing Orders
this package of proposals. It is not realistic to believe that that can happen.
I suggest that there should be some machinery for administering the special legislative committees, whether through a committee of Whips or delegates from each caucus. If we are seriously talking about Members of Parliament having more control over their own destiny and time, it should be worked out in a way that is equitable and fair to all, rather than simply leaving it to the whims of the Government House Leader who is under pressure from his Cabinet colleagues to get legislation through. There must be some countervail to that. Perhaps a formal committee of the House, set up under the House Leaders, to administer the allocation of time for committees would be a proper way of ensuring that it is not abused.


Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Hull-Aylmer):: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I welcome this opportunity to take part in this debate on the parliamentary reform proposals. I am sure that over the years, the experience I have acquired here in the House is quite considerable, but unfortunately, it would take more than fifteen or twenty minutes to elaborate on its various aspects.
However, I can inform my hon. colleagues that parliamentary life is a very complicated one, and that 1 am delighted the Government has finally decided to try to improve and enhance it, especially in terms of the role of the individual Member.
I must of course congratulate the members of the McGrath Committee, and especially the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), who so ably chaired the Committee's meetings, who produced this weighty and well-structured report, and who, I hope, will be ready to guide parliamentarians whenever further parliamentary reform will be necessary.
I have always maintained that the Hon. Member for St. John's East is a great Canadian parliamentarian, and he has demonstrated this, not only in the way he drafted and structured his report but also ever since he became a Member of the House of Commons. I have seen him at work for over twenty years. He is a lively speaker, a very active parliamentarian whose speeches are often colourful and always well-crafted. I would suggest his time and talents could be put to good use in areas other than his present concerns, and 1 think this would certainly benefit the House as a whole.
I wish him every success for the future, Mr. Speaker, and he has my full confidence and high esteem.
We talk about enhancing the role of the individual member, because that role has lost much of its effectiveness in this House.
If we take a brief look at the history of Parliament, I think that the British parliamentary system or at least the rules within the Commonwealth have formed the basis for the Canadian parliamentary system, except that over time, the Mother of Parliaments has introduced improvements and
10796

February 13, 1986
Standing Orders
reforms which we may have overlooked in Canada, although our Parliament is so closely modelled on that of Westminster.
I always tell my colleagues, and I was listening to my hon. friend from Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) with whom I have had the pleasure of sitting in this House for many years, I have always said that to any Member who has been sitting in Parliament for a number of years, the happiest day of his life as a Member is the night of his election when, in the middle of an enthusiastic crowd, he is on cloud nine, with music and dancing and a general euphoria all around. It is absolute heaven.
However, after the enthusiasm of the election campaign fades and he buys a new suit to pose for the cameras at his swearing in, his first session in Parliament begins.
I think that this Member, now sitting in his seat, probably lost in a single week all his illusions about his role as a Member in the House of Commons. The very same Member, who during his election campaign said what he was going to do and how he was going to make Parliament sit up and what he was going to tell the people who are responsible for forming the Government. Now all of a sudden he feels useless, and his feelings of inferiority will become harder and harder to hide, and that is why over the years, we have seen many legitimate complaints by newly elected members who become frustrated with the role they have to play in Parliament.
Today, being a parliamentarian is very exciting. It is a very important task but it is also very frustrating. There are a number of reasons for this, Mr. Speaker. First of all, there is the whole matter of the constraints put on the Member by his political party. Allegiance, the convention of confidence, and the structuring of Government Members all mean that these Members can do absolutely nothing unless they bow to those constraints. A Member may not, for whatever reason, vote against his party, especially if he is on the Government side, unless he wants to lay himself open to severe disciplinary action or even suspension from his party.
I can tell you that during the years I sat in this House I had occasions to vote against my Government on certain issues which were very important to my region and the riding I represent. There was some knuckle-rapping all right, but 1 was not alone, four of five Members from the National Capital Region did the same, a gesture which was then described as being odious. But I must say that things would be different if Members had more leeway, especially when a problem crops up in a region; the problem might be solved through a private Member's Bill, all the more so if the Member has been able to convince his colleagues that it will benefit not only that region but the country as a whole. I think that the Member's role would be immediately enhanced, and he would be able to make Canada a better country to live in because he would then be
echoing the aspirations of the great population of Canada from sea to sea.
Well, we do not have that much leeway. More often than not the Member feels quite powerless, he cannot even have a railway crossing removed even after campaigning on that issue in his riding. You are practically helpless, and all you can do is to attempt through a hard lobbying campaign to convince certain Ministers to make the change you are fighting for to improve the life of your fellow citizens or your constituents. But even that does not work out, Mr. Speaker, because the shackles are still there, the technocrats wield unbelievable power. Even when it comes to drafting legislation and deciding what should be in it you cannot get to first base, you are at their mercy for the simple reason that the technocrat is the one who decides the kind of political direction to be taken with respect to certain problems in Canada.
I am quite pleased to learn that Members will have more power, particularly in committees which are, in my view, the backbone of the House of Commons. The House of Commons is nothing more that a forum where bills are debated, analysed and screened as much as possible, a place where the remarks and views of Members may or may not lead to improved legislation.
I said earlier, I think that it is time for us to find a way, and I am very glad that this is being done, to make the role of Members of Parliaments more relevant, because we have all had this feeling of uselessness in the House of Commons and often in the committees. Even though we say to our constituents that we must be visible, that the role of a Member of Parliament is to be visible and present in his constituency, we know quite well that the House of Commons sits about 10 months each year, five days a week. How can a Member of Parliament be attuned to the needs and demands of his constituents and his region? It is impossible, Mr. Speaker! This is why, as statistics show, many Members are elected to the House of Commons, but few remain for long, maybe not through any fault of their own, but because they did not have the time to do the job of a real Member of Parliament, which is simply to be an ombudsman and a representative of his constituents in the federal Parliament. They are not able to do so because they spend all their time in Ottawa, because, often, they have to move their family to Ottawa, because they do not have any time to go back to their constituency. After four or five years, they are defeated simply because they have been completely cut off from reality and from the aspirations of their own constituents. This certainly shows a weakness in our parliamentary system. When we bring about reforms, we have to be very carefull not to be in too much of a hurry for the simple reason that reform often requires other reforms, but those are not brought about and this often unbalances the whole system. I am very happy that the role of Members will be increased, but I am really anxious to see how this will be done because the recommendations of the Committee have not
February 13, 1986

all been implemented. I hope that many others will be because it would benefit Canadian Parliament. I also hope that Members of Parliament will regain the role they had early in the Confederation, that of representatives of the people. We have become second-class citizens inside this House. We all legislate by lobby, by consensus, by Gallup poll, through the technocrats, through those who provide guidance and even political advice to the Government. We should give more influence and more relevance to the Member of Parliament so that when we legislate, it is in the best interests of Canadians. Perhaps one day, Mr. Speaker, we should perhaps even stop trying to legislate during four or five years and try to go back to improve the statutes which have already been adopted to correct the abuses and restrictions that some of them may have imposed on some groups in our society. In think that, in this way, everyone will take part in the development of Canadian legislation and will be happy to have been able to do so. It is essential for the Member of Parliament to regain his former role, and in this way, we can build a better Canada.
We will have fewer protests, fewer claims, because Canadians will be happier about the situation.
In the years 1930, 1933, 1935, 1940, and I could go as far back as the early years of Confederation, Parliament was not sitting ten months a year, Mr. Speaker. It used to sit three or four months. Perhaps, what with a larger population, greater organization, Parliament can do with six or seven months of session.
But we cannot govern Canadians by legislating ten months a year. If we legislate without knowing the aspirations of the people-and the aspirations of the Canadian people are only expressed here, in Parliament, through their representatives, Members from the 282 constituencies that make up Canada's electoral map.
I tell you in a non-partisan way that many Members realize their uselessness in this House because they have not been given a sufficiently important role.
I appreciate the intention to increase the efficiency and role of the committees, Mr. Speaker. But there again, it is recommended that 26 committees be created, I believe. There are 18 standing comittees, and the other ones, with seven members. This meant that quite a number of Members will still be sitting on those committees. If we add the legislative committees, and God knows how many legislative committees may be sitting at the same time, it then means that you are keeping almost all of Parliament busy, excluding the Ministers! There is nobody left in the House, because everybody is kept busy elsewhere ... You might say this is hypothetical, because all committees cannot sit at the same time. I agree. But I am also sure that if we had the facilities needed to have Members sitting, and I am talking about rooms that could be made
Standing Orders
available to committees, there would be days when 25 to 30 committees would be sitting at one and the same time.
Mr. Speaker, this is why I am very pleased to see that the Member's role will be enhanced, "revalorise" in the French version, and I like the word very much because it means the Member was not of a very great value before we came to use the word "revaloriser". I am therefore very happy that the term was used by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), if I am not mistaken, and that the House will become what it should always have been, an essential body for governing all Canadians by making laws, drawing up laws that meet the aspirations of the Canadian people.
And if we do not reach that goal, if again Members are prevented from fully playing their roles-I heard speeches, and almost everybody is singing the same song, it is absolutely vital to enhence the private Member's role.
Before I conclude, Mr. Speaker, I heard among other things, remarks concerning the suspension of Members. It is my view that Members will have their way because this is part of parliamentary life. There are people who are more aggressive than others. There are people who feel more strongly than others that they are being wronged, for the simple reason that they are under heavier attack or because problems come up in their constituencies and apparently the Government cannot or will not listen to them.
1 even read in the committee report that the intention was, that it was being considered that it might be better to pass legislation in this House to fine them, like when you go through a red light.
It should be realized, as this has been suggested, that Members are grownups, and responsible people, the proof being that they were elected. When we are told that Members are not very relevant, it must be kept in mind that there are 282 of us from all across Canada. If you divide our total population of 26 million people by this number, I think it shows that each one of us represents a very substantial segment of the Canadian population. Well, Mr. Speaker, that was the modest contribution I wanted to make on the subject of these proposals for parliamentary reform, which I hope will be put into effect as soon as possible-time tell how important these reforms will have been-and if they are not, I hope they will be discarded without further ado.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Questions and comments. The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier).


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a very brief question to the Hon. Member for Hull-Aylmer (Mr. Isabelle). In the course of my research on the subject of the Speaker's authority to name a Member and to suspend him from the service of the House for the remainder of the day, I was able to find only one instance in the history of this House. It was in 1942, when the Member for Laval-Deux Montagnes was

February 13, 1986
The Royal Assent
suspended from the House for the entire day, and a second time for seven days. Never in the history of this House, either before or after, as the Hon. Member for Hull-Aylmer is aware, has this disciplinary measure been used more than once. I wonder... I am not sure whether the Hon. Member for Hull-Aylmer was for or against the five-day suspension. Could he tell us exactly where he stands on these additional powers of the Speaker? Does he think it is putting the Speaker in a rather embarrassing situation, when we realize that the Government has never used this particular measure?


Joseph Gaston Isabelle: Of course, Mr. Speaker, I think the question asked by my colleague from Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) is both important and delicate. I would not want the Speaker of the House to experience problems in the discharge of his difficult duties, but the one thing I can say for sure-and I said so when some Hon. Members showed aggressiveness for reasons I would rather not delve into-is that a temperamental Member may get carried away at times, but I do not see why anyone should be thrown out or suspended for five days. 1 think that is more than anyone can say about a Member who has been suspended for five days, but I would rather see him pay a fine. I would like that to be left to the discretion of the Chair, we should maintain our time-honoured tradition whereby the Member is suspended for the rest of the day, but no more.


Mr. Speaker:: On debate, the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker).


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, 1 have just a few comments to make, because I understand someone else wishes to participate.


Mr. Speaker:: 1 apologize for interrupting the Hon. Member, but at this point I should like to give notice of The Royal Assent.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:
Government House Ottawa
February 13, 1986 Sir:
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Antonio Lamer, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, the 13th day of February, 1986, at 5.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain Bills.
Yours sincerely.
Leopold H. Amyot,
Secretary to the Governor General.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This being Friday-


Some Hon. Members:: It is Thursday!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: This being Thursday, I was going to ask Your Honour how you pronounce p-u-i-s-n-e.


Mr. Speaker:: I was going to ask the Hon. Member the same question. Resuming debate with the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, before you interrupted me I was about to suggest that one of the first changes that should be made to the rules of procedure is to have a permanent Speaker, but that came off my time, I think.


Mr. Speaker:: Let me be very clear. If the Hon. Member feels that way, it will not come off his time.


George Baker: Just a few words, Mr. Speaker. I say in all honesty that I think one of the primary things that should take place in a legislature under the British parliamentary system in the 1980s is certainly to have a full and complete debate on the proposition of having a permanent Speaker. Perhaps that is one of the two important subjects that should be dealt with in a debate in this Chamber such as this.
The other thing that should be dealt with is a subject that some Members do not want to deal with, and it is this. I was listening to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) the other day when he said that he would like to restore the power to Members of Parliament in this Chamber. He said that he would like to bring this House of Commons into the 20th century in the great British tradition. The other part of the question that has to be dealt with, if that is what the Prime Minister wants to do, is, first and foremost, that Members of Parliament will have to allow an impartial body exterior to this Chamber to have the power to make changes in the procedures of this House.
Members here in this House and members of the committee would say, "Well, that's a terrible thing to suggest". Not so, Mr. Speaker. If you were going to follow the British tradition or the traditions of any legislature under the British parliamentary system you would, first and foremost, have to accept that as being necessary for complete change, because that is exactly what the other legislatures-if I can refer to them generally-have done. They are Parliaments, but they are more than Parliaments-from the French word to speak- because they do more than that, they legislate. That is their primary function. How is that accomplished, Mr. Speaker? It was accomplished, first of all, by that body of Parliamentarians saying, "If we only allow ourselves to be restricted by our own suggestions, then we will never change and we will never get to the point where this Parliament become a legislative body". When the Prime Minister said, "Well, now, we would
February 13, 1986

like to get back to what the British parliamentary system was in this country", what he would have to be suggesting, in order to do that, to do what the British and the Australians have done, is to do what any legislature has done, and that is, to have an outside body recommend and implement rule changes in this legislature.
The other aspect is the question of a permanent Speaker. I think that all Members will agree that we have been particularly fortunate in this country over the last 10, 12, or 15 years. 1 believe that at any moment in time during that period either political Party could have instituted the position of permanent Speaker and there would not have been objections from the other side of the Chamber. I do not think there would be objections, because if you examine the role of the Speaker and what the Speaker is asked to do in this particular legislature, it is to try to provide a mix of customs in this House supported by the Standing Orders, the traditions of rules and procedures, and then you find, and I am sure you will agree, that he is in a particularly precarious situation. I would like to read into the record Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, Fourth Edition, 1958, at page 147: It reads as follows:
A question oral or written must not: be ironical, rhetorical, offensive, or contain ephithet, innuendo, satire or ridicule.
That's rule number one. Now, let us take number two:
A question oral or written must not: be trivial, vague or meaningless.
If that weren't enough, it says:
A question oral or written must not multiply, with slight variations, a similar question on the same point.
Then you have to look at the next one:
A question oral or written must not: repeat in substance a question already answered, or to which an answer has been refused.
An answer that has been refused, that's about all the answers you get here, the answers that are refused. Then it
says:
A question oral or written must not: inquire whether statements made in a newspaper are true.
Now just imagine, Mr. Speaker, you have not really been doing your job, have you?


Mr. Speaker:: No.


George Baker: It continues.
A question oral or written must not: contain an expression of opinion.
Mr. Speaker, you are supposed to rule 90 per cent of the questions out of order. A question cannot be hypothetical or contain inferences. Then it cannot be framed so as to suggest its own answer. It cannot refer discourteously to a friendly foreign country. It cannot contain or imply charges of a personal character. It cannot relate to matters which passed outside the walls of the House, or relate to any Bill or motion before the House. It cannot ask the Government's opinion on matters of policy. It cannot ask what advice the Minister proposes to give the Crown. It cannot seek information about matters which are in their nature secret, such as decisions or proceedings of the Cabinet.
Standing Orders
Mr. Speaker, I am sure you would have to agree that you have broken every single rule in Beauchesne in this Chamber. I suppose, Mr. Speaker, what is on your mind is, "You, Member for Gander-Twillingate, you have broken them yourself in asking the questions". Mr. Speaker has just said, in case it was not picked up, that I should read the section about relevance in debate. If I cannot read from Beauchesne on the rule changes I would like to know what is relevant and what is not in this debate. Mr. Speaker, I could go on. If we look at our rules of procedures-


Some Hon. Members:: Go on.


George Baker: Go on? Okay. Here's a good one on page 5 of the same edition:
No member shall walk out of or cross the House, or make any noise or disturbance.
Then:
When a member is speaking, no member shall pass between him and the Chair, nor interrupt him ...
The next one reads as follows:
When the House adjourns the members shall keep their seats until Mr. Speaker has left the Chair.
Now, Mr. Speaker, if you were to follow the rules in Beauchesne that you should be following as the Speaker of this House then, of course, Mr. Speaker, you would have some difficulty with our traditions, with our customs, but you have to provide a mix. It is a very subjective position. You make a value judgment, Mr. Speaker, with practically everything that happens in this Chamber. As to the proposition about making rule changes for Members of this House, 1 would like to disagree with that very briefly. The rule changes to be made in this Chamber are not for Members of Parliament, they should be for the people of Canada. They should be for the Parliament of Canada. Members of Parliament come and go, as you know. They are here one year and gone the next. The turnover here is 30, 40 per cent with each election. Some Cabinet Ministers think that they have not been appointed, they have been anointed for life. Certain Members of Parliament actually believe that. The changes to be made in this Chamber should be for the benefit of the people of Canada for all time and for the benefit of Parliament. There is an overriding principle here that we agree with in opposition. That basic principle of our democracy is that a Government is elected to govern.


Mr. McMillan:: How profound.


George Baker: The Minister is saying that that is profound, but sometimes it is forgotten that a Government is elected to govern. Therefore, the entire principle of our democracy is that the Parliament of Canada has only one function, and that is, to make the Government accountable to the people.
With the flow of legislation and the interruption in actions of the Government, the Parliament of Canada-


Mrs. Sparrow:: He's really winding up.

February 13, 1986
Standing Orders


George Baker: The Hon. Member is saying that 1 am getting wound up here. It is a very important subject, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure you will agree with me.
We have to remember that the Government has to govern. The Parliament is not here to prevent the Government from governing but to make the Government accountable to the people of Canada through Parliament, and that is the main point.
How do we go about making the Government of Canada accountable to the people of Canada? It has to be done through Parliament. A Minister should never be able to rise in the House to make an announcement on a policy change or change through Order in Council that will affect people throughout the country with no accountability to the people of Canada.
Nowhere in our rules of procedure or in the operation of Parliament does it say that a Minister has to answer to anything. Not in Question Period, in a committee or elsewhere does a Minister have to answer to the people of Canada on a policy.


An Hon. Member:: Election day.


George Baker: The hon. gentleman reminded me of election day. If that is the only way Ministers can be accountable, what is the purpose of Parliament?
I would return to my original suggestion that we look at other legislatures which are under the British parliamentary system. There we see a system which is completely contrary to the one which has evolved here. The actual action of accountability takes place in various forms, but it certainly does not take place in a chamber such as this. It takes place in committees that can originate their own terms of reference and in customs that have been developed in those legislatures.
If Hon. Members were to watch Question Period occurring in another legislature under the British parliamentary system, they would see that Government Members are just as critical of the Government as Opposition Members. You know that to be a fact, Mr. Speaker. Because of that, the tradition of the Speaker being able to recognize first a Government Member, then an Opposition Member, another Government Member and then another Opposition Member evolved. Is that not correct, Mr. Speaker? Of course it is. That would certainly not work in this Parliament with Government Members who have planted questions that waste the time of the people of Canada.
Hopefully we will arrive at such a stage one day. However, what I have to say is very basic and it is that if we really want to change the rules and procedures of Parliament, we should allow an outside body to make recommendations. It may be terrible that I am suggesting this to Members of Parliament, but I am only doing what the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said he was doing the other day. I am looking at the great traditions of our parliamentary system. We should allow an outside group to make recommendations on the condition that they be implemented by Parliament.
Let it not be forgotten that our function is to make the Government accountable to the people of Canada. Members of Parliament should realize that they are only here for a short period of time. Hopefully, opposition Members will be here a lot longer than government Members.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on the matter the Hon. Member raised regarding the Speaker. While you are in the chair, Mr. Speaker, this is a good opportunity to
do so.
I am one of the Members of the House who have perhaps had some run ins with the Chair in the last couple of weeks when posing questions.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Run outs.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I am not going to run out of the House. You have my confidence, Mr. Speaker, and I want to say that now since you are in the chair. I do not like the fact that some of the newer Members of the House are running to the press with critical comments about the Speaker. I do not think that that is the way Parliamentarians should handle things and 1 do not think that that is the way we should treat the Speaker of the House because the Speaker is our servant.
Perhaps Hon. Members will say that I should not talk about this because I have had some run ins with the Speaker, and it is true. However, I have never been publicly critical of the Speaker and I never will. Quite frankly, there have been occasions on which my supplementary questions have been too long.


Some Hon. Members:: No, no.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: It is true that we should be cutting back on them.
The Hon. Member made some remarks about a permanent Speaker. I do not think that we should have a permanent Speaker. I think we should choose our Speaker from among us because the Speaker has to be part of the House and part of the living House. There is a danger that a permanent Speaker would become a bureaucrat on the job.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member who just spoke and who received the support of some Hon. Members has just disagreed with the most respected authorities in the area of political science and parliamentary review in the British Commonwealth and certainly in North America-


Thomas Michael McMillan: Name one, George. One author.


George Baker: The Minister says that I should name one. I suggest that in his spare time, he read the journal entitled The Parliamentarian or any of the recent literature-and by recent, I mean written in the last 20 years-that has been written on the subject.
It is interesting to see that a Cabinet Minister is disagreeing with me. Now I think I really have a point. It would be like

arguing that the Officers of the Table should only enjoy tenure of office while Parliament is in session and be dismissed when Parliament is not in session. That is the same thing, no matter how we look at it. The more one reads about it and studies it, the more one realizes that there is only one solution to the problem.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Baker: It is not a problem, but I think, Mr. Speaker, you would have to agree that it is funny that the same Cabinet Minister who is disagreeing with me now is the very person who disagreed with having an outside body propose changes to our procedures in Parliament.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Hon. Member could assist me as I pore through those learned journals by giving me the name of one author so that 1 could find the relevant material more quickly.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member does not realize this, but while I was the Chief Clerk-


Thomas Michael McMillan: Name one.


George Baker: Just listen now. While I was the Chief Clerk of a provincial legislature-


Marcel Prud'homme: You wrote them.


George Baker: -and the Secretary of the Canadian Branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, I did, under my own name, write an excellent article in The Parliamentarian, and I would recommend it to the hon. gentleman at any time.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House to express my support, of course, for reform generally and the principle of reform, and if I am somewhat hesitant to declare my support for the amendments as submitted, it is because I have some reservations, and I think they are quite justified, about three or four points which I consider very important. Mr. Speaker, the main goal of these reform proposals should be to enhance the role and powers of each Member of the House, especially the backbencher.
Mr. Speaker, I think that to a certain extent we are just deluding ourselves and others by claiming that the individual Member or backbencher will have greater powers as a result of reforms like the proposals before the House today. When I say we are deluding ourselves, I say this because I have been sitting in the House for thirteen years, and the British parliamentary system is designed in terms of parliamentary groups and not in terms of individuals. And in this House, it is the parliamentary groups,-the group of the party in power and the Opposition party groups,-who conduct the exchanges in the House and debate the questions of the day. The role of the
Standing Orders
individual Member is, as we said earlier, to hold the Government accountable to the Canadian people, and that forms the basis of our democratic system which harks back to the British system and British traditions. So when we say that we are going to enhance the powers of the individual member, I think we are in fact deluding ourselves, and perhaps dangerously so, because in my view, we as Members of this House, as full Members, have the power to use the rules and traditions and to do whatever else we can in the way of influencing the order of business in the House, to obtain from the Government the accountability we need to be able to carry out our task.
That being said, Mr. Speaker-I said so earlier, and I know I do not have much time to repeat this-I would simply tell the House that as Whip of my Party, the Liberal Party and the Official Opposition, I did run into some problems with the provisional Standing Orders of last June. There were quite a few difficulties concerning legislative committees, for instance. I think it was necessary to review the legislative committee system over the past six or eight months, and we were unable to change or modify this approach because both sides were reluctant to do so and the Standing Orders made no provision for this.
So I see in this reform an opportunity to ask the Government-to demand, if need be-to guarantee that during the ten month period when these Standing Orders will be in force we in the Opposition will be able, with the Government guarantee, to reconsider now and then some of the measures to be adopted which might indeed need to be adjusted as we go along. Therefore I think that if the Government is in good faith, if it is prepared to give us the assurance that it will listen to us and perhaps even take part in improving the rules or helping smooth out some of the difficulties, then I would consider that a very constructive step.
The second point, Mr. Speaker, and it has been debated at length over the last three days, is the question of allowing the Chair to suspend a Member for five days after he has been called to order for the second, third or fourth time and been named by the Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I have no problem with the Chair's power to name a member once and ask him or her to withdraw from the House. But I have quite a problem with the additional power which you would have to exclude a member from the House for five consecutive days. I suggested earlier that this change is not in line with our practices, customs and traditions either as the House of Commons or Government. 1 just cannot see why you should be given this power or authority.
Mr. Speaker, 1 see that that the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn) is back. I am told that he is about to make a few remarks. I am quite willing to defer to him at any time. Of course, I could certainly elaborate on the problems which I foresee concerning for instance the Private Members' Hour. I suggest adjustments will have to be made so that every Private Member's Bill be dealt with equally and equitably.

February 13, 1986
Standing Orders
that no committee should have the authority to limit the number of hours devoted to the consideration of a bill, but that every bill should be debated for a minimum time and for a maximum of five hours.
Mr. Speaker, I see that the President of the Privy Council wishes to rise, so I willingly defer to him. But I want first to thank the Chairman of the committee who has prepared the reform report we are dealing with today. I congratulate all the members who sat on this committee, especially the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) and the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner) for their contribution. Mr. Speaker, we are very much interested in the reform and we will listen gladly to what the President of the Privy Council has to say.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to seek the unanimous consent of the House to have myself, the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) and the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) address the House at this time and conclude this debate. I would now ask for that consent.


Mr. Speaker:: May I be clear that, if the Hon. Members go beyond 5.41 p.m., it is the intention of the House to guarantee Private Members' Hour, even if it should begin two or three minutes later than might otherwise have been provided? If that is the unanimous consent sought, fine.
Is it agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, I know there have been agreements. We have participated in the debate. If some Hon. Members would like to ask brief questions after the House Leaders have concluded, will it be possible to do so?


Ian Deans: Yes, of course.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: I think I have a sense of the request. We will now proceed to hear the Hon. President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn), after which we will proceed to Private Members' Hour.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with great interest to the points which have been raised during the course of this debate. I wish to congratulate every Member who participated in it. I think it has been a full debate, which was asked for by many Members of the House. We have had the benefit of hearing a number of points of view.
As I mentioned earlier, I have had the opportunity of consulting with my opposition House Leader colleagues about the way in which we could respond to the matters which have been raised in this debate. As a result of those discussions, we have been able to arrive at a consensus. There is a disposition to conclude the debate at this time.
I would like to indicate at the outset that 1 will be seeking consent at the time that the package is adopted to have the following changes deemed to be adopted in the proposed Standing Orders. I think the best way of doing this is to read them. They state:
That the proposed amendments to the Standing Orders laid upon the Table, Thursday, February 6, 1986. (Sessional Paper No. 331-7/37AO) be amended
(a)	at page 1646 of the Votes and Proceedings of February 6, 1986, by striking out the lines thereon relating to Standing Order 16 and substituting the following therefor:
"(6) (a) The Speaker shall be vested with the authority to maintain order by naming individual members for disregarding the authority of the Chair and, without resort to motion, ordering their withdrawal for the remainder of that sitting, notwithstanding Standing Ordere 8".
(b)	at pages 1649 and 1650 of the Votes and Proceedings of February 6, 1986, by striking out proposed Standing Order 38(2) and substituting the following therefor:
"(2) Unless previously disposed of, selected public bills at the second reading stage or selected motions shall receive not more than five hours of consideration and, unless previously disposed of, an item having been once considered, shall be dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence and again considered only when it reaches the top of the said order.
Provided that, unless otherwise disposed of, at not later than fifteen minutes before the end of the time provided for the consideration of the said item any proceedings then before the House shall be interrupted and every question necessary to dispose of the selected motion or of the selected bill at the 2nd stage, shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment."
The effect of those changes will be evident from the document itself, inasmuch as they deal with two aspects of concern that have been raised. One was to assure that in terms of Private Members' Business there will be no arbitrary curtailment of the time available for discussion of Private Members' Business unless it is done by the consent of the House. I believe that is a fair and reasonable proposition. We will then make sure that we will be guided by the wish of the House with respect to the length of that debate.
The second is one which, I think is fair to say, I have have spoken to you about. You indicated that you were quite happy and satisfied with respect to the change. We are removing any second naming offence under the rules of the House of Commons. We will proceed on the basis that you will have the power and ability to name, as recommended by the committee chaired by the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath).
That is the effect of those two items. These changes address the concerns raised during the debate with respect to the extended expulsion of Members for breaches of order and with respect to the length of time to be provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business.
Members have also raised concerns with respect to the length of time to be provided for statements under S.O. 22, the selection of report stage amendments and the number of questions that Members will be permitted to place on the Order Paper. The provisional Standing Orders are being brought forward on an experimental basis for a trial period because we are all aware of the fact that there will be a need from time to time to modify or make improvements in the
February 13, 1986

rules as we gain experience with their operation. I simply want to reiterate the comments that I made in opening this debate, that the Government will carefully monitor the workings of the House rules and I, in co-operation with the Opposition House Leaders, will not wait until the end of the trial period to make any necessary changes. Instead, in the true spirit of reform, we will attempt to fine-tune the rules from time to time to ensure the success of this experiment.
Some Members have suggested that information about Members travelling on Government-sponsored business should be required to be disclosed to the register of Member's travel. I thought, at this point, that it might be useful to remind Members that the public disclosure of that information is currently required under the provisions of the Senate and House of Commons Act. In order to conform to the provisions of the Act an Order in Council is required to be passed every time that a Member travels on a Government-sponsored trip. Upon passage of the Order in Council, the information is made public.
I know that Members on all sides of the House have raised concerns about the matter of monitoring legislative committees and the demands on Members' time. The House Leaders have discussed this matter and we have agreed to monitor committee activities on an ongoing basis to ensure the smooth scheduling of committee work. We will undertake this work as part of our regular negotiations on the legislative agenda.
In summary, I believe that with the changes that I have outlined and with the commitment of all House Leaders to co-operate to ensure the success of reform, the House is now ready to proceed with the proposed Standing Orders and with what I believe to be a very important turning point in the development of the Canadian House of Commons.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, when I opened the debate a few days ago on behalf of the Official Opposition, I said that as far as I and my colleagues were concerned, if we and especially the Government were serious about the role of the private Member, then the test would be the extent to which the Government was willing to listen to what private Members, particularly in the opposition, had to say in the course of that debate on the Government's formal and latest proposal for amending the Standing Orders.
During the course of that debate private Members, particularly on the Opposition side, raised a number of concerns. Principal among those concerns were the ones enumerated by the Government House Leader in his statement. Of course, some of these concerns were greater than others and those which appear to be of immediate concern are reflected in the Minister's proposal for amending the draft Standing Orders.
With respect to the others, I must say that as far as we are concerned, the changes in the rules are very much on trial. The period of 10 months in which they will go into operation is not necessarily, in our view, just the first step in making them permanent. We will be watching the entire package very closely, not only the measures the Government House Leader says he will keep under review. The test of any organization,
Standing Orders
whether it be a legislative body or a country, for that matter, is the way minorities in that system are treated.
Therefore, we believe that the litmus test for assessing the way these rule changes work is the way individual Members of Parliament on the Opposition side fare under the rule changes both as individuals and particularly as members of organized Party groups. As I said in my remarks a few days ago, our system is not based on Government facing off with private Members but on Government facing off with Members organized in Parties. We believe the litmus test will be not only how this system works for us as individual Members in Opposition but, in particular, how it works for us as Opposition Parties.
Therefore, it is important that we be ready to assess how it is proceeding and to make changes as soon as problems are seen to arise. We will be assessing how ready the Government will be to respond to our concerns. In particular, we will be looking to see how effectively the House Leaders, as part of their ongoing work, are able to monitor the operations of the committee system, particularly the legislative committees, to avoid the conflicts and proliferation which have disturbed so many of us.
As well, Mr. Speaker, and I am coming to a conclusion, the Government House Leader properly pointed out that travel by Members of the House on Government business has to be recorded and disclosed under the House of Commons Act through Orders in Council. However, I invite him to work with us on a system whereby these Orders in Council, as a matter of course, are brought into the hands of the Registrar of Members' travel so that they will be as available for inspection as the material which Members file directly with respect to other kinds of travel.
Having said all that, I want to conclude by stating that what we have seen today is very much the result of all of us, especially the Government, taking into account what was said during this debate by Members of Parliament, particularly on the Opposition side. I am glad to see this response and I look forward to the test period for these rules being fruitful and useful. However, I say to the Government: Please do not think that this is for us merely a first step toward making anything permanent. These rules are very much on trial and the test for us will be how fairly we see these rules waching for us as members of the Opposition, both individually and in groups.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to speak twice in this debate. However, let me say simply that I think what you are seeing here today is the result of parliamentary reform. It is the change in attitude which is necessary if we are to make parliamentary reform acceptable to everyone. I have no doubt at all, if the mood which prevails now continues throughout the year, that we will resolve whatever problems arise. We will find a way to accommodate the needs of the Government, taking into account the needs and desires of the Opposition. I look forward to the challenge of the new rules. I hope they work in the way which the committee that worked so hard to draft them intended them to work. I

February I 3, 1986
Standing Orders
hope they provide for back-benchers and others a better opportunity to participate in the process. It certainly would be my wish, and I am sure that of the other two House Leaders, that that would be the case. I look forward to the end of this year, when we are asked to review them, to a review which may require some further adjustment but which will make these the permanent rules governing the actions and efforts of Members of the House of Commons.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, before we proceed I would like to ask a question of the Government House Leader. If we adopt the motion, the standing committees as they are now, as well as the legislative committees, will fall. Does the Minister have a motion to reinstate these committees as they are now for the rest of the week or until this is operative? Has he given that any thought?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, that is a very good point. These rules come into effect on our return from the recess on February 24. We are now preparing the necessary motions with respect to the transitional requirements. By way of example, there are certian references to existing standing committees. In order to get over this transitional period we will suggest to the House tomorrow, probably after Routine Proceedings, that we have the consent of the House to make certain extensions. We will then reorganize the rest of the committees on the new basis.
With respect to Private Members' Business, there will have to be a period of time in which the Table Officers can organize things under the new rules. We will be proposing tomorrow, and I have discussed this with the Hon. Member's House Leader, that we extend Private Members' Business rules for a sufficient period of time to allow the Table Officers to implement the new system. We will have transitional motions which I hope to bring forward to the House after Routine Proceedings tomorrow in order to cover the various problems the Hon. Member so correctly identifies.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I still need one explanation because members of my Party will be asking me about this. Questions on the Order Paper, I take it, will be proceeded with in the traditional manner and allowed to stand as they are now?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: It is a matter of negotiation.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Suppose a Member is allowed four questions on the Order Paper. If the Speaker decides that a question being put should be referred to the Order Paper, how do we cope with that directive when the Member already has his four questions on the Order Paper? I am just putting that to the Minister because I think it is going to cause some problems and I had wanted to mention that in my speech.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The new rules clearly limit the number of questions any one Member can have on the Order Paper at any one time. Those rules also obligate the Government to respond within a certain time. There is an exchange of friendly services there. I do not want to get involved in a procedural
discussion right now, but I am not aware that the Speaker can direct a Member to put anything on the Order Paper. He can suggest that it be put on the Order Paper. Without attempting to articulate the Speaker's ruling, I think that probably is the situation that applies here.


Mr. Speaker:: I take it there is consent that the motion regarding the amending of the sessional paper shall be put?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the amendment carry?


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


Mr. Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question!


Mr. Speaker:: Mr. Hnatyshyn, seconded by Mrs. McDou-gall, moves:
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.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion (Mr. Hnatyshyn) agreed to.



[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Deputy to the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the House went up to the Senate Chamber.
And being returned:
['Accordingly, the order is discharged, the Bill withdrawn and the subject matter thereof referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.\nOrder discharged and Bill withdrawn.']
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that when the House went up to the Senate Chamber the Deputy Governor General was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name,

the Royal Assent to the following Bills:
Bill C-59, an Act respecting Customs-Chapter No. 1.
Bill C-82, an Act to amend the Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax Act and the Income Tax Act-Chapter No. 2.
Bill C-46, an Act to amend the Divorce Act-Chapter No. 3.
Bill C-47, an Act respecting divorce and corollary relief-Chapter No. 4.
Bill C-48, an Act to provide for the release of information that may assist in locating defaulting spouses and other persons and to permit, for the enforcement of support orders and support provisions, the garnishment and attachment of certain moneys payable by Her Majesty in right of Canada-Chapter No. 5.
Bill C-84, an Act to amend the Income Tax Act and related statutes and to amend the Canada Pension Plan, the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, the Financial Administration Act and the Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax Act- Chapter No. 6.
Bill S-6, an Act to implement an agreement between Canada and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, a convention between Canada and the Cooperative Republic of Guyana and an agreement between Canada and India for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to income tax-Chapter No. 7.



Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal) moved: that Bill C-261, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (child abuse), be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure for me to have this opportunity, finally, to present to the House of Commons Bill C-261 for the purpose of giving it second reading. The purpose of the Bill and this opportunity is to draw the attention of the House of and the public to the serious concern we have as Parliamentarians and that we should have as Canadians about the seemingly rising problem of child abuse.
I would hope that the utilization of the material in the Bill will heighten the awareness of the House and of the various committees associated with it to the problem of child abuse and to the fact that it is time that we as Members of Parliament did something and took some action.
I understand there is a disposition at some time during the proceedings to move a motion to have the Bill withdrawn and to move the substance of the Bill to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. I am also aware that because of the Royal Assent that has just been given our allotted time is shortened somewhat. I hope all those who wish to speak on the matter will bear that in mind when making their comments.
1 would like to give a brief background of how 1 became aware and concerned about the substance of the Bill. On my arrival in Ottawa as a Member of Parliament some seven and a half years ago I noticed what seemed to me to be the
Criminal Code
alarming incidence of reports on child abuse contained in the national newspapers. This Bill is my response to the issue.
I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that it took a substantial amount of time to prepare the Bill after much research and consultation with fellow Parliamentarians and with people who were and continue to this day to stress the importance of dealing with this serious issue.
I would like to pay tribute to the office of the Law Clerk, who co-operated substantially in the drafting of the Bill, and to the Parliamentary Counsel. In addition, 1 would like to thank my parliamentary assistant, Miss Pike, who spent countless hours helping me in the development of the Bill and working with me to ensure that this day finally came to fruition.
It is also appropriate at this time to state unequivocally that the Badgley Report contributed significantly to the drafting of the Bill and to the terms and conditions of it. I want to acknowledge the efforts of the Hon. Member for Outremont (Mrs. Pepin) who participated not only on the Badgley Commission but who has been a ceaseless and tireless worker in her efforts to ensure that the plight of helpless children is brought to the attention of the proper authorities.
I hope that at the end of my remarks the House will recognize that I am simply requesting that it take the material in the Bill into consideration. It is not perfect. It does have some warts and I recognize that but the purpose of the Bill is to make the House and the country aware of the concern we share.
I anticipate that sending the subject matter to the committee by withdrawing the Bill will accomplish the concern expressed in the the Bill itself.
As the Badgley Report indicates, the special legal status of children is based primarily on three considerations: first, the special needs of children who, by reason of their age and immaturity, need the care and guidance of others in order to develop into healthy, responsible adults; second, the substantial vulnerabilities of children to persons older and in many cases more powerful than they; and, third, the actual or presumed incapacity of children to perform legal acts of daily life.
Child abuse can range from being exposed to sexual intercourse, to deprivation of basic needs and to death. There are three main types of abuse: physical abuse or battering, failure to thrive or neglect, usually involving food or water deprivation or inadequate hygiene, and sexual abuse involving incest, violent molestation and pornographic exploitation.
Child abuse knows no bounds. It cuts across all economic, religious and geographic levels. The myth should be dispelled that it happens in only low-income, uneducated families. The facts speak differently.
Child abuse, both sexual assault and battering, is still largely a whispered crime. Many people choose to ignore that it happens or choose to make excuses for it. More people are beginning to address the issue, but for the most part, victims live in an aura of silence and fear.

February 13, 1986
Criminal Code

Mr. Speaker, the basic principle should be that everyone must be able to live in complete security in his own home. The home should not be a place where there is violence or sexual abuse.

Statistical evidence from all regions in Canada indicate an alarming increase in child abuse cases coming to the attention of the authorities. The question exists: Do the rising figures show a growing rate of child abuse, or are they a reflection of growing awareness of the problems that exist and a willingness to bring these incidents to the attention of the authorities? The secrecy of the crimes make the proportions of the problem an unknown quantity.
The concept of child abusers as strangers largely underestimates the type of people who abuse children. Abuse is inflicted by relatives, such as parents, aunts, uncles, cousins, by people in guardian positions such as step-parents, legal guardians, or by those in a position of trust, such as baby-sitters, teachers, family friends and acquaintances.
Abuse manifests itself in a wide variety of social, psychological and behavioural ways. An abused child may suffer from an inability to form social relations. It may have difficulty relating to authority. It may suffer from child-parent conflict, have a poor self-image, become suicidal, suffer a variety of health problems, and even suffer sexual diseases. It can develop phobias, have eating problems, suffer mental health problems, have trouble sleeping, turn to drugs or alcohol, become aggressive and assaultive. Unfortunately, some of these problems can continue throughout a lifetime no matter how much counselling the child may receive afterwards.
The Committee on Sexual Offences Against Children was established to examine the adequacy of our laws to protect children from sexual abuse and to offer recommendations on our legal shortcomings. The report offered specific recommendations to be implemented in the law as well as revisions that would clean up outmoded concepts or gender discrimination. The findings of the Badgley Report were influential in the development of the sexual abuse portion of Bill C-261.
The report indicated that one out of every two females and one out of every three males are at some point in their lives victims of unwanted sexual activity. In a substantial number of cases, this occurs under the age of 18 years. The Badgley Report indicated the following:
There is no basis for the alleged harmlessness of unwanted sexual acts committed against children or for the belief that most of the offenders are harmless individuals. We have found that young victims are encouraged, seduced and intimidated by sexual offenders. Some of these children sustain physical injuries. Many experience enduring emotional and social harms. Our findings clearly show that these children have special needs and vulnerabilities which must be recognized and protected by the criminal law and that existing provisions do not adequately accomplish these purposes.
The principal victims of sexual offences are children and young people, and females are twice as often victims as are males. In the majority of cases a sexual offence against a
person occurs before that person is 18 years of age. The age of battered children is dropping, and pre-school children are particularly vulnerable to abuse as they are not subject to the watchful eye of teachers or of other authorities.
The Badgley Report provided alarming figures regarding the relationship of children and youth to their offenders. Almost one in four of the sexual offences was committed by a person prominent in the child's life or to whom the child was vulnerable. About three of every five offences were committed by persons the victim either knew well or was acquainted with.
Badgley also reported that young persons were at greater risk from blood relations and persons in positions of trust than from other persons. The greater proportion of sexual offences committed by persons in a position of trust was against a child under the age of 12. A full 86 per cent of offences by a person in a position of trust concerned a child 11 years of age or under.
Reports of child abuse are growing. Last year, in Ontario, reported cases jumped by 19 per cent. This figure includes five deaths as a result of abuse. In Nova Scotia, the number of reported cases doubled in 1984 over the previous year. Authorities in Saint John, New Brunswick claim sexual offences against children and young people are among the fastest growing crimes. In Saskatchewan, there was a 300 per cent increase in the number of reported cases of abuse between 1979 and 1984. This figure also includes a dozen abused-relat-ed deaths. All across Canada abuse statistics are jumping. Sexual assault homicides are also on the increase in both real and proportional terms. These figures have more than doubled between the early 1960s and the late 1970s.
My Bill can be divided into two parts. The first part introduces new provisions regarding sexual abuse to a person under the age of 16 years. The second part lengthens the terms of punishment for assaults inflicted upon persons under the age of 16 years.
I should like to take this opportunity to deal in depth with the fundamental provisions of the Bill, but time does not allow me to do so. In conclusion, let me indicate that immense frustrations are felt by people all across the country. There is a concern that most cases of child abuse go unreported. Efforts must be made quickly to protect children in conjunction with efforts to make the public more aware. They must complement the efforts of our social agencies and our law enforcers. It is my hope that the Bill will bolster and contribute to the deterrent aspect of the law. Deterrence is a part of our justice system and is a major factor in the arrest of this crime. If awareness is created because of the Bill, it will be a positive step forward. My position is simply that if the Bill or awareness of the material contained in it, which will hopefully be referred to committee, should save one child from abuse, the substance of the Bill and my efforts will have had some purpose.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the Hon. Member for bringing forward this initia-
February 13, 1986

tive. I should also like to congratulate the Hon. Member for Outremont (Mrs. Pepin) who has been extremely constructive in her work on this issue, not only here in Parliament but when she was in fact a representative on the Badgley Commission. I am speaking today as a private Member, but the Hon. Member for Outremont has expressed extreme regret that she could not be here because of a prior commitment and has certainly armed me with a number of facts, figures and questions which I will bring to the attention of the House in anticipation of this particular matter being referred to committee.
One question the Hon. Member for Outrement would like the Government to answer concerns the amendment dealing with the issue of imprisonment of clients of young prostitutes. A number of Members sat on the committee looking at the changes in the prostitution laws. In fact, the Hon. Member for Outrement presented an amendment to the committee studying Bill C-49 which would have included imprisonment of two years for clients of young prostitutes. It was an attempt to suggest that the clients of prostitutes should face certain sanctions, particularly clients of young prostitutes. That is one issue with which this particular Bill deals, but it is also an issue which was rejected by the Conservative Party only two months ago. If the Hon. Member for Outremont had been here, I think she would have said the following:

This is exactly what I wanted to do in my amendment, but it was rejected out of hand by the Conservatives.
Mr. Speaker, my colleagues opposite have an unfathomable logic, it is true. The problem is that, two months ago, when the Government had a chance to amend Bill C-49, it decided to reject the amendment proposed by the Hon. Member for Outremont (Mrs. Pepin), maybe because she is not a Government Member. The Government has Finally accepted this idea, and we are pleased to support it. However, I would like the Government to say for the record why this same amendment was rejected two months ago.

I have a couple of concerns about the reference of the Bill. Hon. Members who have studied the issue will no doubt share in my concerns and questions. Let us look at Bill C-261. In Clause 1 there is a call to increase the age of consent for a person to have sexual intercourse from the age of 14 years to the age of 16 years. Bill C-261 calls upon the Government to amend Section 140 of the Criminal Code so that it will become illegal for a 14 year old or a 15 year old to engage voluntarily in sexual intercourse. However, in the same Bill it is suggested that the age of consent should be raised to the age of 16 years, except if the partner is three years older or younger than the person in question. We find ourselves with the rather confusing situation of the law saying that it is all right for two consenting teenagers to have intercourse, but if one teenager is four years older than the other one, it is wrong. We should address the issue of the age of consent. If the age of consent remains at 14 years, as it is in the current Criminal Code, that is one
Criminal Code
particular point of view. If the age of consent is raised to 16 years, that is another particular point of view. We cannot bring in a Bill which changes the age of consent to 16 years except when two 15 year old teenagers are involved in a relationship. Essentially that is the effect of that particular provision. I think there is some confusion and inconsistency which will be dealt with in the reference to committee.
In trying to develop laws which we perceive as flexible, sometimes we create labyrinths that would be an absolute horror show for the courts to pursue and, in fact, would be in violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. To suggest that the age of consent be 16 years except under circumstances where either of the parties are within three years of the age of the other is incomprehensible to most people.
As well, I hope this reference to committee will spur the Government on to begin its response to the Badgley Report, something which has been a long time coming. I know that the Hon. Member for Outremont has been promoting this issue in the House for the last number of months. In fact, she was waiting with eagerness to hear of the news release issued by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) only yesterday and received by Members on all sides of the House today, the day before Valentine's Day. In this news release, the Minister of Justice announced a contribution to the Canadian Council on Children and Youth. He announced that he will be setting up a fund for a private-sector mechanism to follow up on the major concerns raised by the Badgley and Fraser Reports and that he is giving $25,500 to the Canadian Council on Children and Youth of Ottawa. This $25,500 is to be used to have the Council reach out to the private sector and find out about its response to the Badgley Report.
It seems to me that in seeking a private-sector response to a problem which is of incredible public dimensions is carrying the Conservative notion of privatization a little too far. There have been extensive consultations, as evidenced by the Badgley Report. We have heard from community groups and individuals from across the country. Now is the time for the Government to bring forward some specific changes to the Criminal Code. I would hope that the reference to committee of this Private Member's Bill would precipitate the receipt of some answers from the Government rather than another study to look into the private sector's response to the Badgley Report.
Certainly, the Hon. Member who presented the Bill has the will to get to the root of the problem with the legislation. However, I would further point out that all of us, in our daily lives, have to reach beyond the simple issue of changing laws. Again, the Hon. Member for Outremont has said:

Obviously, the answer to family violence does not reside simply in a new definition of existing criminal offences, but in a change of attitudes as concerns enforcement of the law.
This means, Mr. Speaker, that if the rules are changed to say that someone will be sent to prison for 10, 14 or 15 years.

February 13, 1986
Criminal Code
this will not change public attitudes to this problem because, as mentioned by the Hon. Member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Corbett) most of the incidents and cases of abuse occur within the family or among people who know these children and who will never be reported to the authorities.
In my opinion, one thing that we should begin doing in our constituencies is to become more open to discuss these problems and be better informed of the fact that these children or families need our support. It is by changing attitudes, not by changing the law, that we can bring about real change. For instance, when I was sitting about two years ago on a provincial committee examining family abuse and violence in Ontario ... Mr. Speaker, even two years ago ... it is a good thing that the situation has changed, and it did because of our study. However, two years ago, when police officers were sent to school to get acquainted with the problem of family violence, they were told to consider the problem as a private and domestic problem and not as a criminal act.
Conditions are now changing. Heavy pressures are brought to bear not only by legislators but also by people who say: "Abuse or violence in the family is illegal. It is not a matter or a problem that should remain within the family".
Mr. Speaker, I think that public conscience about child abuse in 1986 has reached the same level as attained by domestic violence five years ago, that is domestic violence is now being discussed more openly by authorities and by people.
We are always rather discreet when discussing sexual abuse especially when families are concerned. This is what we should do and I think this is a good reason to make that order of reference to the committee since we will begin to discuss not only an amendment to the legislation but also an attitudinal change in Canada. This will emphasize a problem so enormous that many people will not acknowledge its existence.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that even if there are some deficiencies and a few problems with the Bill as it now stands, the Members of our party are surely ready to defer it to the committee because we would like to ask the Government where the answers are to the Badgley Report. Where are the answers for families with problems? Amendments to the legislation will not be enough but social services should also be made available. We know, for instance, that the federal Government is reducing transfer payments to the Provinces as related to social welfare and education.
Mr. Speaker, this will have a far greater direct impact on the offer of services for families. The advice for instance, the possibility of somebody stepping in when parents abuse their children. This will have just as clear and strong an impact as would have any committee. I therefore think, Mr. Speaker, that this is a step in the right direction, but we should also have the financial support of the federal Government, with that referral to a committee, with the work that is still being done in that area by the Hon. Member for Outremont (Mrs. Pepin), and I think we will get there little by little. But there
are still a number of things to be done, and I appreciate this opportunity to take part in the debate.
I am disappointed that the Hon. Member for Outremont could not be here, but I am most confident that all my colleagues from the Liberal Party will support the referral to committee of that most important issue, which is a partial response to one part, the legislative part, of course, not the economic and social part, but we require changes if we are to meet the needs that have been most clearly identified in the Badgley Report in 1984.


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak on behalf of the New Democratic Party on this private Member's Bill dealing with child sexual abuse. I would like to commend the Hon. Member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Corbett) for bringing this important subject and on the whole very reasonable proposals for changes in the law to the House for discussion. I will certainly support the reference of the Bill to committee for further study.
In reading the recommendations, the survey results and the vast amount of research that came from the Badgley Report, most people were struck by the extent of the problem of child sexual abuse. We all know that it exists, but I do not think the people understand just how pervasive it is. One-half of Canadian women and one-third of Canadian men have at some time been victims of a sexual offence. In the great majority of cases, 80 per cent of the time, these offences have occurred during childhood. It is children who are particularly vulnerable, and an increasisng number of them are very young children.
This is not to say that the problem itself is increasing. Badgley warned against being alarmist about this. The problem has existed for many, many years. It is not getting worse, but it has always been bad and very vigorous measures are needed to deal with it.
Of the victims, three-quarters of the women and nine-tenths of the men did not seek any assistance or make a report after the event in question. Many of the offences committed did not cause physical harm, but the psychological harm caused has been enormous. People suffer for years and years after the fact with psychological problems, emotional problems, problems in marriage and problems with relationships. Child sexual abuse often results in alcohol and drug abuse among victims.
Some of these offences are themselves physically serious, although these are a minority. Four per cent of girls were raped and a similar number of boys were homosexually raped. Twenty per cent of females were victims of exposure and 9 per cent of boys were victims of exposure. Some people may think that that is always a harmless offence, but the Badgley Report tells us otherwise. It tells us that it is a myth that exposure may be an unpleasant event but is not something to worry about. Eight per cent of the females and 4 per cent of the boys who were victims of sexual exposure were also sexually assaulted. In spite of the great seriousness of these offences and the importance of the Badgley Report, in the time the
February 13, 1986

Government has had we have not seen the action which we should have seen. I would point out to Hon. Members that the Government has had a year and a half since Badgley reported in the summer of 1984. 1 would now like to quote from the conclusions of the report which state:
Sexual offences are committed so frequently and against so many persons that there is an evident and urgent need to afford victims greater protection than that now being provided. The findings of the National Population Survey clearly show the compelling nature of the fears and stigma associated with having been a victim of a sexual offence.
Badgley continues:
What is required is the recognition by all Canadians that children and youths have the absolute right to be protected from these offences. To achieve this purpose, a major shift in the fundamental values of Canadians and in social policies by Government must be realized.
The report adds that if no action is taken, or if only token action is taken, then the risk is intolerably high that sexual abuse will continue.
Among the recommendations in the Badgley Report, the first two are of particular importance. They have been singled out throughout the report for comment. The first proposal was that owing to the complexity of the problem because of the number of agencies, the levels of government, the different professions, the medical people and police who deal with victims of sexual abuse, there be an office of commissioner for the implementation of these recommendations. This commissioner would report to the Prime Minister, would be responsible for legal and social reform and co-ordinate the work with voluntary agencies and other government Departments. The second proposal is that there be extensive public education and health promotion on the issue for prevention purposes.
I stress these two very positive recommendations of the report which Badgley recommends become law. Of course, the proposals we have before us today are with respect to changes in penalty. That is one way in which a society can say: "We disapprove of this. We do not want you to do it and we will punish you if you do". So society can make its views very clear.
Education is also extremely important, as are all types of support services. I regret to say that the Government has been very negligent in not acting on these matters. Unfortunately, the Hon. Member is not in a position with a Private Member's Bill to spend any money, nor is he in a position to advocate further reforms. What is needed is vigorous Government attention to the problem.
I would now like to deal with some of the specifics in the Bill. First, I would like to deal with Section 146(1) regarding the position of authority offence. This is interesting new concept. It breaks new ground in terms of our legal provisions. It is similar to the recommendation Badgley makes but it is not exactly the same. The wording is not as specific as that of Badgley who warned against the continued use of vague language. The position of authority offence is an important one because so much of sexual abuse is committed by people in positions of authority, whether it be authority by age, author-
Criminal Code
ity because one is a parent or some other adult in the family, or because someone is known to a child and is in a position of authority. This makes children particularly vulnerable. The stigma is great, as is the aftermath, because the victim has to continue to interact with the aggressor in the situation.
Section 158(1) would give protection to the victim. This is similar to those provisions which forbid the evidence of a victim of a sexual assault, generally, having had previous sexual activity with another person brought into court except under particular circumstances. My concern here is that the wording is not strong enough to protect victims of sexual assault. We have a long history of victims who have been placed on trial and their past history has been brought up and related at great length to the courts. Thus, the victim becomes the person being scrutinized.
Section 140 deals with the age of consent. The Bill would have the age raised to 16. There is also a proviso with respect to a three-year age difference. This is, of course, a contentious matter which could clearly have enforcement problems, especially with the three-year difference. Badgley recommends an increase in the age of consent to 16 but does not recommend the three-year difference. The reason for raising the age of consent to 16, even in a time when sexual mores are changing, is because of health considerations, quite apart from any moral ones, which are sometimes debatable in that some people share them and some do not. However, the health requirements apply to everyone. The dangers of pregnancy are much greater for girls under 16, as are complications in cases of abortion for young women who are pregnant.
Section 146 deals with physical contact for the purposes of sexual gratification or sexual stimulation. It provides for different levels of penalty depending upon the age of the victim. This provision is a gender-free provision. I would like to note that the gender-free world in criminal law can be rather foolish and sometimes go too far. We certainly want equality of opportunity. We want men and women, boys and girls, to be free and equal members of society. However, there are physical differences between the sexes. I am disturbed by some of the criminal cases we have seen in which judges have said: "This is discrimination in the law because it is an offence for a sexual act against a girl under 14 but not for a boy under 14". The judges have said that this is discrimination against men who commit these offences against girls. It is absolutely preposterous. Boys under the age of 14-boys at any age-do not get pregnant. There is a physical difference which requires that there be particular protection for girls. One hopes that the legalists will not be so caught up in the concept of equality and that they will treat this as a challenge, a vision, and not miss the important fact of life that protection is really needed for young girls.
Finally, I would like to deal with Section 245. This is a section which specifies a higher penalty for sexual assault of child victims as compared to older victims. This is the area in which I had the most reservations because sexual assault is reprehensible no matter what age the victim is. 1 think we would probably find some sexual assaults more repugnant than

February 13, 1986
Criminal Code
others, especially in the case of very young children, disabled persons who are unable to defend themselves or, similarly, very elderly people who are unable to defend themselves. Otherwise, I do not see why age should be a factor. Sexual assault is repugnant in any circumstances. I have reservations about making differences in penalties.
I would like to make a final comment on the issue of penalties. They are high in the Badgley Report and in this Private Member's Bill. We must realize that raising penalties for offences will not necessarily give people any greater protection. We know that people receive greater protection from the probability of being detected and dealt with as an offender. That seems to have more effect than the length of the penalty. Raising the penalties should not give us a false sense of security. It should not make us think that this will somehow give people protection. I do not think that differences of this sort will have any kind of impact. We know that if 10-year imprisonment penalties were brought in for parking offences, then people's parking offences would certainly go down since that type of difference would make people change their ways. However, an offence with an already heavy penalty will not be much more of a detriment if two or three years is added to the penalty. People do not read the laws and check to see whether penalties are 12, 14 or 15 years and gear their behaviour accordingly. People do not make decisions in that way.
If we want to give protection to children, which I am sure all Members would want to do, what we have to do is provide education, prevention and work with the provinces and the voluntary agencies to do all of those things in order to provide a really safe environment for the children of Canada.


Mr. Bob Hicks (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, with your permission, I would like to move a motion with respect to this Bill. I move:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "That" and substituting the following therefor:
"Bill C-261, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (child abuse), be not now
read a second time but that the Order be discharged, the Bill withdrawn and
the subject matter thereof referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and
Legal Affairs."
I would also like to make some comments on this Bill, time permitting.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Do I take it that the motion is before us at this time and, if so, who has seconded the motion? Did the Hon. Member actually put the motion or is it just for discussion purposes?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Before the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) rose to bring this matter to the attention of the Chair, I believe the Hon. Member for Scarborough East (Mr. Hicks) seemed to indicate to the Chair that he was putting the motion forward for the purposes of discussion. That is my conclusion. It not being seconded at this time.
Putting it forward for discussion will enable him to continue to speak until 57 minutes, otherwise he would not be able to speak. That is the inference I draw from his putting the motion. Perhaps the Hon. Member can help the Chair, if 1 am correct in that sense.


Robert Nelson David Hicks: I believe so, Mr. Speaker. But for clarification, can the Bill be seconded and voted on at 7:56 p.m.?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: It can be seconded and voted on at 7:56:59 p.m., as long as the Hon. Member watches the clock, and, as the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier will tell us, there is a seconder.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: And with seeing the clock at 6:57 p.m., rather than 7:57 p.m., Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The only real clock in the House is the Speaker. The Hon. Member for Scarborough East.


Robert Nelson David Hicks: For a moment I thought 1 had an extra hour to speak on this Bill. It gives me great pleasure to have the opportunity to address this subject because I have spent 30 years in education. With such a background, I think one becomes very aware of some of the problems. I want to congratulate the Hon. Member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Corbett) for bringing this Bill forward to the House after a great deal of hard work.
I also want to congratulate the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) and the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald), both of whom appear very concerned and made some very worthwhile comments.
The purpose of this Bill is to provide further protection to children under 16 years of age from sexual offences. Several new, non-existent offences would be created, based principally on the prohibition of physical contact with children for the purpose of sexual gratification or stimulation.
A few years ago, the Department of Justice, together with the Department of National Health and Welfare, appointed a committee to consider the problem of sexual offences against children and youths. The committee, under the chairmanship of Dr. Robin Badgley, reported in August, 1984. While this committee was working, a special committee was formed by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie), under the chairmanship of Mr. Paul Fraser, to report on issues in pornography and prostitution. Several Members have already alluded to many of the facts outlined in these reports.
The Badgley committee assumed that the principal way in which to deal with the sexual abuse of children would be to invoke the criminal law. Consequently, the Badgley committee proposed the reform of the sexual offences as part of their recommendations. The Badgley committee recommended that the offence of under-age sexual intercourse be retained and treated as almost self-evident that having sexual intercourse with a girl of 13 years or less should continue to be a crime. It was also recommended that the Criminal Code be amended to specify that the consent of a child under 16, rather than 14 as
February 13, 1986

at present, is no defence to a charge under Section 146. I believe that was also alluded to very well.
Although I have many other comments, 1 will sit down and allow this Bill to be seconded and voted upon.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: 1 understand that the Hon. Member for Scarborough East is now putting his motion. The motion is as follows: Mr. Hicks, seconded by Mr. Redway,
moves:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "that" and substituting the following therefor:
"Bill C-261, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (child abuse), be not now
read a second time but that the Order be discharged, the Bill withdrawn and
the subject matter thereof referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and
Legal Affairs.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment to the main motion?


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


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


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Accordingly, the order is discharged, the Bill withdrawn and the subject matter thereof referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Order discharged and Bill withdrawn.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, as you are aware, some 20 per cent of all Canadians draw their drinking water either from the Niagara River or from water that has passed through the Niagara River. Along the shores of the Niagara River on the American side there are many toxic chemical dumps, but four in particular stand out in my mind, and I suspect the minds of most people who are familiar with that problem. Those dumps are the Love Canal site, the Hyde Park dump, the S Area dump and the 102nd Street dump.
All of these create a great potential danger for Canadians and Americans who draw their drinking water from the
Adjournment Debate
Niagara River, Lake Ontario and down the St. Lawrence River to the Atlantic Ocean. I have described those dumps as four obscenities on the American side of the Niagara River. I also think of them as a gigantic catastrophe that is waiting to happen.
In November last year, the United States Government, the Government of the State of New York and the owners of the Hyde Park dump, Occidental Chemical Company, came to an agreement relating to the clean-up of that particular dump with a view to ensuring that there would not be the potential of seepage of these toxic chemicals into the Niagara River and Lake Ontario.
Shortly thereafter, on November 28, I addressed a question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Gurbin) about that agreement. He indicated to me at that time that first, the agreement provided for the clean-up of certain chemicals in those dumps and for the containment and destruction of certain of those chemicals. However, we are all aware that there are a great many chemicals in that dump, at least 25 toxic chemicals. We are concerned whether all of those toxic chemicals or just a portion of them are being cleaned up.
The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary indicated at that time that the position of our Government, as we all hope and desire, is that the agreement is not just to contain the chemicals but to remove and destroy them. He also indicated that the Minister and the Department of the Environment in Canada were assessing the whole agreement to see whether or not it solved the problem of the Hyde Park dump as far as we in this country were concerned. He also indicated that there were 60 days after the agreement had been reached before the American Courts had the opportunity to approve or disapprove that agreement. That period of time has obviously passed since November 28, so I hope the Parliamentary Secretary is going to shed some light on this situation.
First, will he tell us whether or not that agreement was satisfactory to Canada, whether it will contain not just the toxic chemicals but also provide a mechanism for destroying them. I hope he will also tell us the details, if any, of the approval by the U.S. Courts on this subject.
Since I asked that question, there have been other developments. The head of the Environmental Protection Agency indicated his concern that the Super Fund which the American Congress set up to clean up chemical dump sites across the U.S. is in danger of running out of money. He indicated the money will probably run out in April of this year, and no more funding will be available. There are, of course, three proposals for providing more funds. There is a proposal before the U.S. House of Representatives which would provide some $10 billion by way of a tax on the petrochemical industry. There is a proposal before the U.S. Senate for a fund of some $7.5 billion financed by a manufacturing tax. There is a proposal by President Reagan for a fund of $5.8 billion to be funded by a petrochemical tax as well.

February 13, 1986
Adjournment Debate
When I was in Washington in September of 1985, this matter was up in the air and there has not been agreement since then. We are now six months along the road and if there is no agreement now or in April of this year, the Super Fund money will disappear. That includes the funding to clean up some 2,000 dump sites in the U.S., 105 of which are around the Great Lakes. I hope the funding to be provided by this agreement we are talking about for Hyde Park is not dependent on the Super Fund. If it is, we are going to face another potential setback, or even disaster, before we can get the Hyde Park site cleaned up.
That site, of course, is only one of the potential problems along the Niagara frontier. The other three I referred to are just as dangerous. I hope we will hear from the Parliamentary Secretary tonight some words of wisdom, encouragement and hope, indeed, definitive words concerning a clean-up, first of all of the Hyde Park dump site, a clean-up of the Love Canal dump site, the S Area dump site, as well as the 102 Street dump. If we are going to have safe water for about four million Canadians who draw their water from the Niagara River and the Great Lakes, we have to get those dumps cleaned up, and fast.


Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I doubt any Member of Parliament could have made the point more forcefully or clearly than the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway). I will try and deal with the specific points he has raised.
February 24 is not 60 days from November 28. It happens to be the end of the 60-day period which the U.S. Court defined for public comment on the proposal. I regret to have to inform the Hon. Member that our position and the final determination of the U.S. Court is keyed to February 24. I cannot offer him any more specific comment than I did on the day he asked me the question.
The second point, to amplify and precisely explain what the Hon. Member said concerning the danger which exists in the four areas referred to, in fact in the Hyde Park area alone there is probably a ton of dioxin. As the Hon. Member has mentioned, this is one of four specific areas, but there are many other point sources that have been identified along the American border as well as the Canadian border. On balance, probably about 90 per cent is coming from the American side. However, we both take water, and that area serves between four million and six million people for drinking water supplies. It then runs down through Lake Ontario and out into the St. Lawrence River. The Member has very clearly identified the situation in the United States.
The dependency of the super funding for this, as far as I know, is not really an issue for this specific resolution. This is a court determination of a settlement with a chemical company that has a responsibility. This is really what is being worked through now. The EPA is very much involved, as are the American courts. My understanding is that the total job is very much dependent on the Super Fund. One of the Bills
which the Member mentioned has passed one of the Houses. We do not know where they will all end up.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to make it very clear that we are talking about a very complex and untried type of situation in terms of the technologies and the clean-up that needs to be done. I will correct any impression that was left that we are only interested in some of the chemicals. The final position of the Canadian Government is that none of the chemicals which exist in that dump site or other dump sites can be allowed to escape through the dump sites and into the Niagara River. That is our final position and that is what we must aim for.
The question is how we are going to reach that goal and how effective is the initial stage of the solution that is being discussed. What is being discussed is a containment proposal which, along with the containment, removes chemicals that would have otherwise seeped through which will, in turn, be destroyed.
The technologies that are important here have to do with the problems that will exist in dump sites in both the United States and Canada in terms of massive volumes of contaminated soil that would have to be transported if we were talking about excavation and removal. We must develop technologies that will extract the chemicals from those sites so that we can avoid other serious dangers involved in transportation. We would still end up having to eventually destroy those chemicals. It is a continuum, Mr. Speaker. Our position is final. We do not want any more of these toxic chemicals in the Niagara River.


JUSTICE-ENQUIRY WHY ANGLOPHONE APPOINTED INSTEAD OF AVAILABLE FRANCOPHONE
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, on February 4, 1985, we asked the Minister of Justice why he failed to appoint six bilingual francophones to the Court of Appeal of Ontario, in view of the great number of Frenchspeaking lawyers and judges available. That question, Mr. Speaker, was in no way aimed at disparaging a judge who is known for his qualifications and credibility. It was simply aimed at understanding the behaviour of a Government that ignored the dearly acquired rights of 500,000 Frenchspeaking Ontarians. In any event, Mr. Speaker, the Minister answered that the important thing was to appoint a first-class person, in other words there was no first class person among our Francophone jurists.
Mr. Speaker, since 1953, the tradition in Ontario was that at least one bilingual French-speaking judge should be appointed to the Ontario Court of Appeal. Although this gave no additional rights to the Francophones, French-speaking Ontarians were proud of having such a representative, until their rights would finally be recognized.
It was therefore in May 1984 that the Ontario Government finally passed the Courts of Justice Act, 1984. As we know,
February 13, 1986

that Act allowed the 500,000 French-speaking Ontarians to be heard by a judge or judges speaking their own language. For French-speaking Canadians, that new Act was a giant stride along the road to rights they had always been denied.
The Mulroney Government comes to power and with it a 33-year old tradition disappears. In fact, by appointing Justice Horace Krever to the Ontario Court of Appeal, the Minister of Justice of the Conservative Government has broken with this tradition and, I feel, violated the right of Franco-Ontarians to have a sufficient number of permanent Francophone judges to hear their cases in their own language.
Mr. Speaker, the next day, on February 5, in reply to another question, the Minister answered: There are 18 judges at the appeal level in Ontario, three of whom are bilingual, or 17 per cent. There are an additional four bilingual judges who can be used on appeals from the High Court. Of these seven, four are Francophones. In 1985 there were two appeals among 1,400 applications which required a French panel. What the Minister omitted to say was that of those 18 judges, 16 are permanent and two are supernumerary. Of the 16 permanent judges, only two are bilingual, while three judges are needed to hear a case, to form the minimum quorum of three judges at the Court of Appeal-what is referred to as a panel. The Minister therefore admitted that he felt like using a supernumerary judge or the bilingual judges from the Superior Court to constitute the so-called panel.
Mr. Speaker, this is absurd, especially since the problem could easily have been avoided by appointing a bilingual Francophone judge to the Court of Appeal! Furthermore, when he stated that only two appeals had been heard in 1985, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) forgot that the 1984 Courts of Justice Act is not in effect throughout Ontario, but will be by the end of July. By his comments, the Minister also quantified the rights of Canadian Francophones. He, of all people, should know that one does not quantify a right and that rights are given freely and generously to all.
Mr. Speaker, on February 5 last week, I also asked the Prime Minister what he thought of this appointment and whether he agreed with his Minister of Justice that no bilingual Francophone could be found for this position. I was frustrated if not shocked at the Prime Minister's reply. He claimed he had personally contacted a Francophone judge or lawyer-he was not sure-he said he was distinguished and that for health reasons he had been unable to accept the appointment. He had to decline, according to the Prime Minister.
Mr. Speaker, these comments do not make sense, to say the least, when we know that in the Province of Ontario we have at least fifteen very good lawyers and fifteen judges in the courts at the present time who could easily fill the position of
Adjournment Debate
Judge of the Court of Appeal and would make very competent and, incidentally, very healthy legal experts.
The Court of Appeal of the Province of Quebec has a total of 15 bilingual permanent judges, four of whom are Anglophones, while the 1984 legislation on judicial courts in Ontario gives Francophones the right to be heard in their own language by a judge who speaks that language. Why do we not have at least one judge-one is not very much to ask for-one permanent bilingual French-speaking judge to the Court of Appeal? Is that not a blatant injustice to French-speaking Ontarians?
Mr. Speaker, in an interview with the media, the Minister of Justice claimed that all the fuss about the appointment of a French-speaking judge to the Court of Appeal is nothing but a charade to discredit him for being unilingual. That statement goes to prove that actually the Minister does not understand anything about Francophones. He does not understand anything about the daily reality of 500,000 French-speaking Ontarians. Francophones are not concerned about the Minister of Justice being unilingual. What francophones care about is the rights they are being deprived of by the Minister of Justice. This is not a political issue but a matter of justice and equity, supported by the non-political, and I repeat non-political association of the French-speaking legal profession in Ontario, by the once again non-political Commissioner of Official languages of Canada, and also by one of his own colleagues, the Hon. Member for Richelieu (Mr. Plamondon).
Mr. Speaker, for all those reasons, it is clear the Minister of Justice does not care about French-speaking Canadians. By gulping his words, the Prime Minsiter has shown that Francophones cannot depend on this Conservatives Government to safeguard their rights. This could not be more tragic, when we think of the numerous efforts of the French-speaking community in Ontario to acquire those rights.
By appointing a unilingual English-speaking judge to a seat that was traditionally reserved to a bilingual French-speaking judge, the Minister has broken a 33-year tradition. It is sad that this Government's vision, in the context of a bilingual country, is very much different from the approach and views of that government.
Mr. Speaker, I would conclude by saying that we do not ask for much, we are only asking for justice, we are asking that one of the members of the Court of Appeal of Ontario be a bilingual francophone.


Mr. Bernard Valcourt (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, it is amazing that the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), whom I was told had a reputation for being a defender of the rights of French-speaking minorities not only in Ontario but all across Canada, to see him use the appointment of Mr. Justice Krever to score political points on the back of the Government, tell all Canadians that the Conservative Government does not care about francophones outside Quebec, and suggest that only the

February 1 3, 1986
Adjournment Debate
Liberal Party cares about them. As Parliamentary Secretary and also as a French-speaking Member of Parliament from outside Quebec and an Acadian from New Brunswick, I can assure the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) that, as long as the Government Members will remain alert, which they have always been, as I can see every day, Canadians have nothing to fear.
When someone rises as the Hon. Member has just done to embarrass someone who has been appointed to the Court of Appeal, in this case, Mr. Justice Krever, whose ability the Hon. Member is not questioning as he speaks only of tradition, he should also look at what services are available to Franco-Ontarians. Everyone is entitled to be heard in French by Ontario courts, French-speaking magistrates are always available. Seven members of the Ontario Supreme Court are perfectly bilingual and four of them are francophones.
The appointment of Mr. Justice Krever is the result of consultations with the Chief Justice of Ontario and the Attorney General of Ontario, Mr. Ian Scott, who has even supported publicly the appointment of Mr. Justice Krever and confirmed that he was consulted from the very beginning about the whole procedure. The Ontario Attorney General even added, Mr. Speaker, that he did not understand why the federal Liberal Party was raising this issue and using it to try and suggest that we do not care about francophones outside Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, when someone speaks about an obvious injustice, we have to look at what is in fact happening. The information at the Department of Justice is that Franco-Ontarians can be served properly in their own language by the Court of Appeal and the Ontario Superior Court, and the appointment of Mr. Justice Krever was approved by chief justices throughout Canada, including the Chief Justice of the Quebec Superior Court. This attack on the character of Mr. Justice Krever is sure to be embarrassing for a man who has devoted so many years to the service of justice. He was appointed because of his ability and because he was the best choice.
Finally, I can assure you that the rights of all francophones in Canada are a priority consideration for the Minister of Justice, whatever the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier might suggest, and that all francophones can be heard in their own language in Ontario.


STATUS OF WOMEN-PORTRAYAL OF WOMEN IN THE MEDIA. (B) APPOINTMENTS TO CRTC AND CBC
Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, on February 3, I raised a very important question with the Minister of Communications (Mr. Masse) regarding the report on industry self-regulation entitled "Sex Role Stereotyping in the Broadcast Media". The report shows that effectively there has been no progress made in improving the portrayal
of women and participation of women in the broadcast media. The Minister did not care to comment upon the report, although previous reports have also shown no progress. They have been available for many months, particularly the "Media Watch" report and the report by the CBC itself.
The Minister gave his assurance that decisions of the Government would be based upon discussions held in hearings which are to be scheduled in three Canadian cities. 1 have to ask: Why three more hearings? The question has been studied far too long without action. The problems have been documented for years. I asked him another question about action the Government could take immediately and had entirely at its disposal, and that is with the appointments to the CRTC and the CBC, which should be half and half, men and women, according to our notion of equality of the sexes.
The Minister gave a very poor reply here as well. He mentioned the name of one woman whom he had appointed. Well, there are seven men and five women on the CBC board, and there are three vacancies. There is certainly an opportunity to have equal representation. I hope that among the next appointments there will be people who know something about the subject of the failure to give adequate portrayal of women and who will use that opportunity to put pressure on the CBC. This is one thing Government can do in its appointments. It cannot interfere in the operations of the CBC. That would be entirely improper. However, it could appoint people who will say that equality for women demands fair treatment in the broadcast media.
With regard to the CRTC, there is also an underrepresentation of women. There are currently 14 men and seven women appointed. Canada, in making recommendations to the United Nations for the plan of action, recommended in its communication section that half the appointments be of women to Government appointed boards in that field. It is quite wrong that the Government has not acted here. It is hypocritical when we consider that this was a Government of Canada recommendation to the United Nations.
What are the facts? In the two years of so-called self-regulation, which industry asked for, they said: "We don't want Government regulation, don't touch the Broadcasting Act, don't make us do anything. We will reform on our own and in two years we will show you what a wonderful job we have done". It has done almost nothing, and some statistics show a deterioration of the situation.
Let me begin with CBC English channels. I will start with one statistic in the area of drama; how men and women are shown at the place of work. Who is the supervisor and who is the employee reporting to a supervisor? In 1981, 71 per cent were male supervisors, 26 per cent female. In 1983, the number of men had increased so it was 81 per cent male and 16 per cent female. On The National, the major newscast of the country, in 1981 there were 8 per cent women reporters. It rose to a grand total of 18 per cent, one of the few statistics to show any increase. That is only to 18 per cent. Of the
February 13, 1986

interviewees, 16 per cent were female 1981 and only 13 per cent in 1983, a deterioration. The anchor people were all men and all the substitutes were men.
On the expert witnesses, we do not get information year by year, but the average is 5 per cent. It is certainly an insulting notion that 5 per cent of the expertise in Canada is female and the other 95 per cent is male, that somehow women are not as capable as men.
Even for random interviewees, only 36 per cent were female. Women, who only have to be alive and have a comment to make, are underrepresented. For the French network, in drama the situation in 1981 was 77 per cent male, up to 78 per cent in 1982. Women were badly underrepresented. [Translation]
On the French network in 1980-1981, announcers on newscasts and other current events programs were men and women, respectively 57 per cent and 43 per cent. In 1981, 1982 and 1984, 82 per cent were men and 18 per cent were women, therefore a drop in the representation of women. In 1980, 29 per cent of interviewees were women, but that figure dropped as low as 15 per cent in 1984.
The percentage of women reporters in 1980 was 20 per cent, dropping to 12 per cent in 1984.

These are appalling statistics. For children, the cartoon characters are 61 per cent male and 16 per cent female. Even the portrayal of who is alive and doing things in cartoons for children overrepresents men. To add to those statistics, 23 per cent of neither sex. Therefore, women are very, very badly underrepresented. Voice-overs in English advertising, 91 per cent had a voice-over, of these 90 per cent were men and only 6 per cent women and four of both sexes.

And the same thing goes for French advertising.

Women are twice as likely as men to be shown partially clothed. Women are shown as sex objects on television. As far as age distribution goes, there are fewer women and younger women as well. The study showed very few trends because it was an expensive study and it would be very hard to replicate. We are concerned that the CRTC has not provided the material in a way that it can be replicated so that progress reports can be made.
There have been vigorous recommendations for action. I would hope that the Government would begin to act on this serious question. If women are to be equal in Canadian society, they must have equal access to the airwaves. Women's events must be covered equally with those of men and women must be seen as experts and as full participants in Canadian society. There are many recommendations from Media Watch and other women's organizations as to practical measures the Government could be taking to that end.
Adjournment Debate


Mr. Jim Edwards (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has raised an important issue and we are all, I am sure, appreciative of her concerns about the problem of sex-role stereotyping in the broadcast media. I would like to provide some background information on this issue to the House.
In September 1979, at the request of the Government, the CRTC established a task force on sex-role stereotyping. In September 1982, the task force released its report entitled "Images of Women" which called for industry self-regulation with public accountability to improve the portrayal of women in the programming and commercial content broadcast by the Canadian broadcasting system. This report was the culmination of three years of co-operative effort among members of the broadcasting and advertising industries, the public and the CRTC.
As recommended by the task force, a two-year period of industry self-regulation, beginning September 1, 1982, was undertaken. The CRTC has recently released a report summarizing the initiatives taken during this self-regulatory period as well as the results of an independent content analysis of Canadian broadcast programming conducted at the request of the CRTC.

The Hon. Member asked the Minister of Communications what was the Government's position with respect to the report on the self-regulation period which has just ended. I would like to repeat the remarks made by the Minister in the House, and more particularly that it is too early for the Government to make any comment about it. The third phase of the process recommended by the CRTC task force is that the report be used as the basis for public discussions on the efficiency of industry self-regulation. With that in mind the CRTC has announced that public hearings on that subject will be held in April and May in Vancouver, in Montreal and in the National Capital Region. After these hearings the CRTC will assess the efficiency of self-regulation and decide whether new measures might be considered.
Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member also asked the Minister of Communication about the Government's intention concerning the appointment of women to the CRTC and the CBC board of directors. The Minister clearly indicated that increased woman representation and participation in these areas was a major consideration and that he would keep that in mind when vacancies occurred. In this connection, the Minister mentioned the recent appointment of Mrs. Lorraine Duguay as Director of the CBC. I am sure that the House shares the Minister's eagerness to appoint competent women such as Mrs. Duguay to important positions.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make clear to the House that the Government recognizes that the problem of sex-role stereotyping is a broad and complex one and one that

February 13, 1986
Adjournment Debate
will not disappear overnight. Indeed, as members of the CRTC task force have noted, societal attitudes toward women must change dramatically before that goal is entirely realizable. I would, however, like to reassure the House and the Hon. Member that the Government is following the CRTC's activities in this regard very carefully.
[ Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 7.30 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, February 14, 1986