1987-04-15

STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 21


Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: This Sunday, April 19, Mr. Speaker, thousands of Canadian men and women will celebrate Easter. For many of us Easter is a sign of resurrection and rejuvenation. But for many others, although it signals the onset of nice weather, Easter Sunday will not be cause for celebration. I have in mind those people who are without shelter, particularly youths. In Montreal alone there are close to 10,000 homeless youths between the ages of 15 and 30. For them there will be no special festivities to mark Easter. Without a permanent address, without gainful employment, without a decent income, and without any hope of improving their living conditions, they while their time away in bus shelters, in public parks, or in already overcrowded accommodation centres, the testimony to Government assistance.
Youths want to improve their situation. They seek encouragement in their search for independence. In this respect the Government should make a serious commitment to them by setting up employment and education programs. Youths are the future of this country. Are we not prepared to lend them a hand? If so, we must act now because tomorrow will be too late!


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Mrs. Suzanne Duplessis (Louis-Hebert):: Mr. Speaker, last Saturday I attended the twelfth convention of the Gens de Fair, the famous group of people who made a name for themselves by fighting for the use of French in air transport. I was told that although there has been some progress in this field, there is still a long way to go. Francophone pilots cannot
land in French in Ottawa, and if they insist on doing so they must be prepared to face lengthy delays.
I take this opportunity to congratulate Captain Wilfrid Allard who retired from Quebecair in 1982 and who was given the Roger Demers award for his outstanding career-33,000 hours of flight time, often under very difficult conditions.
I also commend Nordair Metro Vice-President of Operations Captain Michel Goyette for his brilliant career, to whom I had the pleasure of presenting the Bilcom award.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, in light of the fact that the employees of CN and CP, as well as many other workers, have been asked to accept wage rollbacks as part of their contract negotiations, it is interesting to note that Canada's top executives enjoyed caviar and champagne type pay increases last year.
While organized workers negotiated wages averaging a 3.4 per cent increase-the lowest increase in 19 years-the Financial Times (of Canada), through sources in the United States, indicates that, when bonuses are included, the top executives in Canada received an average 1986 salary increase of 19.7 per cent.
The chairman of the auto parts giant, Magna International, earned $2.2 million, or an average wage rate of $1,074.22 per hour during 1986.
The chairman of Rio Algom earned $1.3 million, which is a 25 per cent increase over the previous year.
The president of Alcan earned $1.2 million, up 64 per cent over last year.
This certainly demonstrates that the motto of the top executives is: "Do as I say, not as I do". While asking their employees to accept modest increases, hold the line, or take wage rollbacks, the top executives bask in pay increases averaging 19.7 per cent. To them I say shame!
We expect more from Canada's top business executives. When they request sacrifices from their employees during

April 15, 1987
these difficult economic times, yet accept excessive salary increases themselves, they fail to provide leadership by example, something which is so dearly needed today.


LAW DAY
Mr. David Daubney (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, today is Law Day, once again sponsored by the Canadian Bar Association. This year the theme "Legal Awareness for All" is the focus of activities being held across Canada by the association and by lawyers, lawmakers, and a variety of organizations involved with the law.
Our laws are more than paper and words; they are the embodiment, the essence of our values. They have been distilled from the process of public debate, the conflict of ideas, and the synthesis of different beliefs. Our laws reflect the variety and the complexity of our culture and our history. To understand what it means to be a Canadian, we have to understand how our laws affect us.
On the fifth anniversary of the establishment of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, a Charter which continues and extends the legal rights of all Canadians, let us work together to ensure that all Canadians know what rights and what obligations we have under our law and our Constitution.


HISTORIC EVENTS
Mr. Bill Attewell (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, since Parliament will not be sitting next week I want to recognize the 72nd anniversary of the Armenian genocide which began on April 24, 1915.
The masterminds of this despicable crime were the Minister of the Interior Talaat, and his associates.
The genocide was carried out in three stages. First, intellectuals, clergymen and other Armenian community leaders were arrested.
Phase two of the plan was to disarm Armenian soldiers serving in the Ottoman Empire armies and arrange for their wholesale murder.
Phase three was to collect and drive leaderless Armenians, village by village, and from town to town, to be forced to march to the Syrian Desert and ultimately to their death.
Now, 72 years have passed since the tragic beginning of this genocide. More and more people, institutions and Governments, are being made aware of the horrendous scope of this crime. We must do everything possible to ease the memory of those who survived while at the same time teach the young generation that a crime ignored is a crime encouraged.
In closing I would like to quote the words of a famous American-Armenian writer, William Saroyan, who said:
I should like to see any power of the world destroy this race, this small tribe of unimportant people, whose wars have all been fought and lost, whose structures have crumbled, whose literature is unread, music is unheard, and prayers are no more answered. See if you can do it. Send them into the desert without bread or water. Burn their homes and churches. Then see if they will not laugh, sing and pray again. For when two of them meet anywhere in the world, see if they will not create a new Armenia.


INCREASES IN PRICE OF GASOLINE-IMPACT ON TOURISM
Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, with the summer holiday season approaching, the tourism industry will be watching to see how many Canadians can still afford to take to the road after the latest gas tax increases.
Since coming to power the Conservative Government has raised gas taxes by a whopping 4 cents a litre, or 18 cents a gallon. That means higher costs, not only for transportation but also for home heating, food, and a range of goods and services-in other words, a disincentive for the travelling public and a bigger bite out of the incomes of Canadians already trying to cope with the galaxy of tax hikes imposed by a Government that finds it all too easy to raise revenues by raising taxes.
But people who are so heavily taxed have no spare cash to spend. It is inevitable that this shortsighted policy of "tax now, tax some more later", will put a damper on economic growth. The proof is in the Government's own dismal forecast of 2.8 per cent economic growth this year, the lowest rate in four years, in what is supposed to be a time of economic recovery.
* *
*


NARCOTICS
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, last fall the Parliamentary Library did an excellent study for me on mandatory drug testing. The study reviewed this issue under the Charter of Rights, human rights legislation, and labour standards. The study concludes: "In the final analysis, most employees in Canada are left with private remedies in contract or in respect of defamation as a sole means of recourse against drug testing by employers".
Mandatory drug testing in Canada is on the rise. Air Canada, CNR, American Motors and other companies are all known to demand urine samples for drug analysis.
Last week the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) said that there will be mandatory testing for train crews. I call upon the
April 15, 1987

Government to tell the House just what safeguards for individuals it is considering.
Many responsible organizations such as the Canadian Civil Liberties Group and many trade unions oppose mandatory drug testing for employees. There are many reasons to oppose drug testing, and among them are the reliability of the test and whether or not a person's private lifestyle is a concern of an employer unless it impairs the person's ability to carry out the job.


MINES AND MINING
Mr. Bill Tupper (Nepean-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, Canada is the third largest mineral producing country in the world. Each year it produces some $15 billion of mineral products. That production comes from some 280 mines in 65 communities across the country. The industry creates some 400,000 jobs, and 80 per cent of our mineral production in Canada is exported.
Furthermore, last year the industry raised about 70 per cent of its funding for exploration through the flow-through share arrangement, a program that the Government has enhanced.
The Canadian mining industry and all Canadians are asking if the Liberal Party and New Democratic Party are abandoning the mining industry in Canada. They voted in the House against free trade with the United States, and many New Democrats are not supportive of our flow-through share program for financing the mining industry. Are these Parties abandoning such communities as Bathurst, Murdochville, Val d'Or, Sudbury, Timmins, Kirkland Lake, Esterhazy, and Mayo in Yukon Territory? My Party and the Government are not. We want to build the mining industry into a world-class industry and keep it there. That is the objective of our Party.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


VISIBLE MINORITIES
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, it was 40 years ago today that the legendary Jackie Robinson became the first black player to play major league baseball, thus breaking a racial barrier dating back to the birth of baseball in the mid-1800s. This event influenced the beginning of a movement against racial segregation and the oppression of civil rights which eventually culminated in the great success story of Doctor Martin Luther King.
Canada's multicultural society remembers and cherishes the efforts of a pioneer like Jackie Robinson, and today on the fortieth anniversary of his symbolic first game it would be fitting for all members and all Canadians to recognize and pay tribute to this human rights champion.
He proved that courage and perseverance will bring down all barriers to change. It is my hope that we, as a Parliament, apply the same conviction to the parliamentary reports "Equality Now" and "Equality For All", so that all Canadians, from all regions of the country, can be full and equal partners and enjoy the rewards and opportunities that Canada has to offer to one and all.


DISASTERS
Mr. William G. Lesick (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, Sunday, April 26, 1987, will mark the first anniversary of one of the most tragic and frightening events in modern history, that of the Chernobyl nuclear accident in the Soviet Ukraine.
Literally tens of thousands of Ukrainian citizens will suffer from the after effects of the tragedy, with an estimated 6,500 cancer deaths over the next 50 years in 11 regions of the Soviet Union affected by the fallout.
Studies by the International Atomic Energy Agency have stated that between 5,000 and 150,000 extra cases of cancer will occur around the world during the next half century as a result of the Chernobyl accident.
Women who were pregnant and lived near the nuclear plant will have a 50 per cent greater chance of giving birth to mentally disabled children.
Nuclear energy and nuclear reactors are part of our lives, but they must be made safe for the future. For the sake of our children and for our future generations, it is imperative that we remember and learn from this senseless and careless tragedy.



Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, today we are saddened by the deaths of four Inco miners who were killed yesterday in a tragic accident at Levack mine in the Nickel Belt.
These workers are Rene Bedard, 41, married with three children; Wilbrod Gauvin, 43, married with three children;

April 15, 1987
Oral Questions
Donald Knight, 48, married with one child; and Germain St. Amour, 37, married with two children. They were inspecting the skip shaft at the 3,750-foot level when broken ore fell 900 feet on to the workers' platform, killing them.
There is no other occupation which is fraught with more danger than the miner's job. Yet, in spite of increased awareness for tougher occupational health and safety rules and practices for the mining industry throughout Canada, we experience tragic accidents like the one in Levack yesterday and Murdochville some weeks ago.
In fact, yesterday's fatalities bring to five the number of deaths at Inco for the month of April.
From time to time the House correctly recognizes the deaths of Canadians who have contributed to the building of our country. Well, Mr. Speaker, Rene Bedard, Wilbrod Gauvin, Donald Knight, and Germain St. Amour are representative of the millions of men and women who, without great fanfare, go about their daily work in building a better Canada yet face grave dangers to life and limb.
In fact these four men are a part of all of us, so we do not ask for whom the bell tolls. It tolls for us.
On behalf of all Hon. Members of the House I should like to extend our deepest sympathy to the families of these four brave men who died in the line of duty, and I would hope that we do the appropriate thing here and now.


Mr. Speaker:: I ask Hon. Members to stand for one minute's silence as a gesture of faith, hope, and solidarity with the families of the victims of this terrible tragedy.
[Editor's Note: Whereupon the House stood in silence.]


Mr. Speaker:: Oral Questions. The Hon. Member for Vancouver Quadra.


Mr. Turner (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr, Speaker, of course we join in the eloquent tribute of the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) in mourning the four dead miners and wishing their families our warmest sympathy.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I should like to return, if I might, to the Minister of Finance about Dome Petroleum, following upon the answers which he gave in the House yesterday.
Is he claiming that he knows nothing about what could be the largest tax ruling in Canadian history? Is he telling the
House that he is not involved in a tax decision which profoundly affects the economy of western Canada? Is he telling the House that he is not involved in a tax decision which could affect thousands of jobs in western Canada, Canadian ownership of our oil and gas industry, and could involve billions of taxpayers' dollars?
If he is, I am saying to him that it will not wash because it is not credible. What is he really trying to hide and who is he trying to kid in this House?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I am not trying to kid anybody. What I am saying is that tax rulings are the responsibility of the Minister of National Revenue. That is what I said yesterday.
A proposal has been put forward by TransCanada PipeLines to Dome Petroleum. It has not been accepted by Dome Petroleum. Until the time that a specific proposal is accepted by Dome Petroleum, I think we should wait to see what happens.


John Napier Turner: Technically, Mr. Speaker, the ruling has to issue from the Minister of National Revenue. The Minister knows full well that a tax decision of this magnitude must cross the desk of the Minister of Finance, he must be involved in it and he must know about it.


EXTENT OF MINISTER'S KNOWLEDGE
John Napier Turner: Does the Minister of Finance mean to say he is not aware of discussions regarding a tax ruling that may be the most important one in Canada's history, or of the fact that these discussions have been taking place since the beginning of March? Does he not know that his Assistant Deputy Minister, Mr. Ian Bennett, is one of the two senior officials who know all about this question? Doesn't the Minister know what is going on in his Department or doesn't he want Parliament to know?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am aware of what happens in my Department. I have not made any statement that would suggest that that is not the case. What I said in my previous answer and what I say again is that the responsibility for tax rulings is the responsibility of the Minister of National Revenue. I would have thought that the Right Hon. Member would know that, as a Minister of Finance himself at some time in the past.


John Napier Turner: The Minister is correct, Mr. Speaker. I would have known about a decision of this magnitude had I been sitting on his side of the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
April 15, 1987


REQUEST THAT ISSUE BE DEBATED IN PARLIAMENT
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a final question to the Deputy Prime Minister, if he can speak on behalf of the Prime Minister. The Deputy Prime Minister knows that this type of ruling is a purely discretionary decision. It does not flow from the Income Tax Act. He also knows that the Prime Minister claims to have made the final decision in the Gulf matter.
Will the Prime Minister have the final say on whether or not a tax ruling will be issued in favour of Dome Petroleum or a purchaser of Dome Petroleum? Will he undertake-I do not want to interrupt the hurried consultations on the front bench-


Mr. Mazankowski:: That is a silly question.


John Napier Turner: "A silly question", the Deputy Prime Minister says. It is a silly question involving thousands of jobs and Canadian ownership of our oil and gas industry! Oh, a silly question?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Gauthier:: That was a silly comment.


John Napier Turner: I think the Deputy Prime Minister needs the next 10 days to reflect on that particular interjection. Will he give an undertaking that before that discretionary decision is made by the Prime Minister and his Government he will bring the issue before Parliament, because the Canadian taxpayer has a right to know what has happened?


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, if the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition would permit me, I would say to him that he knows that this kind of a ruling is made according to well established processes. A taxpayer who wishes a ruling communicates with our Department, to the Deputy Minister or to the proper official. They seek to bring themselves within the income tax law. They set out the kind of proposition they have. We have the resources of the Department of Justice who assist in this very-


John Napier Turner: And the Department of Finance.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: We have the resources within the section in our Department as the Opposition Leader knows, having been Minister of Finance, to make a proper decision based on the law and in an arm's length fashion. He knows the way this thing works.


John Napier Turner: That is why I am asking.
Oral Questions GOVERNMENT POLICY QUERY


Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Yesterday the Minister of Energy said that when an offer is made to Dome Petroleum it will be considered by the Government in accordance with policies in place at the time. Policies, Mr. Speaker. What policies? The next policy of this Government on Dome Petroleum will be its first.
Why is the Government refusing to consider the problems and the choices affecting Dome Petroleum? They could have a devastating effect on 4,000 jobs in this country directly and probably another 20,000 jobs indirectly.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Hon. Member if he spoke out in the same way some five years ago in October, 1980.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: That is when the decision was made by the previous Government to put Dome in the position it is in today.


Mr. Rossi:: You're skating around. You're trying to fool the Canadian people.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The Hon. Member does not like the truth. He is very sensitive about this because he knows full well that the position Dome Petroleum is in today started right there on October 29, 1980.


Carlo Rossi: He's skating around and he knows it.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: I know Hon. Members are aware that when we get into an unsolicited exchange it is taking away time from Hon. Members who are here to ask questions.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the Minister of Finance that a Liberal Government would not back away from this problem and would not try to wash its hands of this very serious situation.
Why is the Government trying to have us believe that Canadians do not have a right to know about these choices and the proposals that are being made to the Government? Why is he refusing to keep Canadians informed of what is going on?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, we are not backing away from these problems and certainly we are not causing problems the same way the Hon. Member's Government did some six years ago.
Let me leave one thought with the Hon. Member so he can mull it over in his mind in the next week and a half. There are certain transactions which are under way right now that, and

April 15, 1987
Oral Questions
possibly the Eton. Member might agree with me, are still confidential at this stage. Until that degree of confidentiality has been removed, I am not in a position to say anything more in the House than the Hon. Member.


REQUEST THAT CABINET MAKE DECISION
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Finance and I preface it by saying that he is quite correct in pointing out the hypocrisy of the Liberal Party which gave away $1 billion to Dome Petroleum without bringing it before Parliament at all.


Mr. Penner:: Save your sermons for Sunday, Ed.


John Edward Broadbent: They are a little sensitive, Mr. Speaker.
On October 17 the Minister of Finance said in the House with reference to the Gulf Canada deal that this was discussed in Cabinet, "and discussed at some length because of the importance of that deal". If he said that with reference to the Gulf decision, will he assure us that this decision will be one that is made by the Cabinet as a whole because up to $2.4 billion of taxpayers' money is involved and that after Cabinet reaches a decision, he will, unlike the Liberal Government, bring it before Parliament?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is jumping ahead of things. Two private sector companies are talking today. We have been told, and it is in the newspaper this morning, that two other companies might be possible contenders for this company. However, decisions have not been made by those companies.
We do not have a specific proposal with requests from either company or the other before us on which we can make decisions. Until that time, there is really nothing to talk about. A lot of hypothetical questions are floating around in the House, but until we receive specific requests we are not able to make any decisions.


REQUEST FOR GUARANTEE OF CANADIAN OWNERSHIP
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, we are looking for a specific commitment from the Government that it will bring the matter before the House.
There is a recent report in the Financial Times of London and, according to this news story, there has already been a deal negotiated to sell Dome to a foreign concern. Whether or not that report is true is beside the point I want to make in my question.
Will the Minister assure this House that the ownership of this important petroleum resource will remain in Canadian hands? In addition, because of the millions of dollars of
taxpayers' money involved, will he see that the decision is brought before the Parliament of Canada?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member says there is a report out there that says a deal has been made. I can assure him that as of 12.30 this afternoon a deal has not been made. In that sense all of the questions are hypothetical.
The Hon. Member says we should bring the deal before the House or before Cabinet. We do not know yet whether we have a deal. We do not know what the relationship of the Government of Canada might be to that deal.
The Hon. Member then goes on to say we must have a Canadian buyer and we have to make sure that no decisions be made relating to taxpayers' funds which confer a benefit here. The Hon. Member has to understand which way he is going on this. For that reason I think he should wait and be a bit more patient and understand what the circumstances are before he starts making all these requests.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, we know which way we are going but we are afraid the Government has put Canada up for sale. That is what we disagree with.


REQUEST THAT DECISION BE REFERRED TO PARLIAMENT
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, it is a perfectly straightforward question. Will the Minister assure this House that Dome will not be allowed to fall into foreign hands? Because about 20,000 jobs and $2.4 billion of taxpayers' money are involved, will he also guarantee the elected representatives of the people of Canada, namely, this Parliament, that when the decision is made it will be brought before Parliament?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give him that assurance because I do not know what the deal might be.


Some Hon. Members:: So what?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Hon. Members say "so what?".


John Edward Broadbent: When you make the deal come and tell us about it.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Possibly the Hon. Member should reflect on the fact that all we are talking about now is speculation. We do not know whether there will be a nonresident company negotiating a deal with Dome Petroleum. We do not know whether a tax concession will be requested. Until we know these things there is no point in making specific responses to hypothetical questions.
April 15, 1987


DISARMAMENT
Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Mr. Gorbachev appears to have made one of the most significant disarmament proposals in post-war history because it deals not only with intermediate-range nuclear weapons but also short-range, and we understand tactical battlefield weapons. The U.S. has said it is going to consult with its allies.
Will the Minister tell us whether the Prime Minister has contacted the President of the United States and encouraged him to respond favourably to this Soviet initiative?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, it does indeed appear, on the basis of news reports available to us, that there has been another significant step taken. The Americans have agreed to consultations and have indeed put in place arrangements for consultations. I will be flying tonight to Brussels and meeting tomorrow morning at nine o'clock Brussels time with Secretary Shultz and other Foreign Ministers of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I hope the Secretary of State will take this opportunity to persuade our American friends to give a positive answer.

Oral Questions


FINANCE
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Minister of Finance some further questions regarding Dome Petroleum. I believe he implied in his answers that there has been no request by TransCanada PipeLines for either a tax ruling or tax concessions. He is telling us there is no deal and until there is such a deal the Government will not know about it. However, I wonder how TransCanada PipeLines can make an offer or arrange a deal without knowing what the tax implications are. Surely TCPL is anxious to know what the tax concessions and rulings will be.
Can the Minister tell us whether TCPL is asking for tax concessions or a tax ruling? In any event, would the Minister assure the House that a decision of that magnitude, affecting public revenues of up to $2.4 billion, will be discussed and scrutinized by the House of Commons? It is a question of parliamentary control over tax expenditures.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think I answered that question previously. We do not have a specific proposal in front of us endorsed by TransCanada and Dome. There have been some statements in the newspapers today. However, until we have action from both sides there is no position that we can take. We are going to follow this closely as we have been doing. As soon as there is a specific proposal to respond to we will do so.


INQUIRY WHETHER ADVANCE TAX RULING SOUGHT FROM REVENUE CANADA REQUEST GOVERNMENT ENCOURAGE PRESIDENT REAGAN TO ACCEPT DEFINITION PROPOSED BY MR. GORBACHEV
Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, it seems that Mr. Gorbachev has made a new proposal about the extent of laboratory research on star wars.
Could the Secretary of State inform the House whether the Government will encourage the President to accept the definition proposed by Mr. Gorbachev?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, before either encouraging or discouraging, we would like to know the details of any proposal made by Mr. Gorbachev.
I hope that tomorrow, when I meet Mr. Schultz in Brussels, I will be able to get more details on the Soviet position and the position of the Alliance.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. Has his Department been asked by TCPL for an advance ruling? If so, would the Minister also keep in mind the opinion of his chief advisers and management who, in a report produced in August, 1982, stated: "It is the opinion of senior management that the focus of tax avoidance has switched from implementing schemes to obtaining departmental approval through the advance ruling process and that legislation branch is now the frontline of tax avoidance"?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, certainly I will keep in mind that thought he has so ably expressed. 1 will also tell him, and he knows this, that it is a tradition, for good and sound reasons, and I believe the policy is well-founded, that the Department does not make any disclosure of any aspect of tax rulings, whether or not they are asked for, or any of the details surrounding them, particularly when, as the Minister of Finance pointed out, it is at such a preliminary and speculative stage.

April 15, 1987
Oral Questions
[ Translation]


FINANCE
Mr. Raymond Garneau (Laval-des-Rapides):: Mr. Speaker, the answers we got yesterday and even today in the House are certainly not reassuring. Yesterday, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources said from his seat that the Government had no intention of making any objections if Dome Petroleum were purchased by foreign interests. And yesterday, the Minister of State for Finance said that he was not worried at all about Canadian brokerage firms being taken over by American firms, for up to 50 per cent between now and June 30, 1988 and 100 per cent after June 30, 1988. 1 would like to ask the Minister of Finance, who is responsible for our financial institutions and who is the senior minister in this area: Is the Government going to wait until three quarters of our brokerage firms, the Wood Gundys, the McNeil Manthas, and the Richardson Greenshields are acquired by German, U.S., or Japanese firms, before it decides to intervene? What does it take for the Government to act before it is too late?


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, the Government is not giving foreign firms unrestricted access to Canadian financial markets. On December 18 I brought forward our policy on this matter which included three principles. The first is to maintain a strong and healthy Canadian presence in the sector. The second is to foster competition within Canada, which includes some foreign entry which has occurred in various financial institutions over the years. The third is that, to protect the ability of our world-class financial institutions abroad, we must give them some sort of access domestically.
Those are the three principles on which we are working. Our world-class institutions want access internationally because they can do very well internationally. Those are the principles which will guide our decision.


PURCHASE OF STOCKBROKERAGE FIRMS BY BANKS-JUNE 30 DEADLINE-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, in his statement in December he said himself that as of June 30, foreign firms would be able to come and purchase our brokerage firms. What he just told the House is not only unsatisfactory, but there is also the fact that the big Canadian banks cannot purchase a controlling interest in a Canadian brokerage firm because they cannot get reciprocity in other countries.
So my question to the Minister of State for Finance is this. It will soon be June 30. If no action is taken, not only will our
big banks not be able buy brokerage firms in Canada, because they cannot conduct transactions abroad, but we are also leaving the door open to a wholesale take-over of our brokerage firms by American, German, or Japanese interests. [English]


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, I have to ask the Hon. Member to listen carefully to my answer.


Raymond Garneau: I did.


Thomas Hockin: Access of non-resident firms to the financial sector in Canada must reflect the kind of access that our firms are given abroad. That is the principle.


Raymond Garneau: You didn't answer the question.


Mr. Benjamin:: Tell that to Crosbie on his deregulation.


Mr. Blaikie:: Quiet, Les.


Mr. Andre:: That's the smartest thing you've said all year.


AGRICULTURE
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for the Wheat Board. Time is running out for the game of political chicken which the Minister is playing with the Government of Manitoba over the future of the sugar-beet industry.
Two years ago he assured the Government of Manitoba that it would not have to make any further contributions to the stabilization of the sugar-beet industry. Why is he now insisting that that Government share in any future deficits as a result of the tripartite agreement which the Minister wants that Government to enter into? Why is he insisting on that and thereby breaking the promise he made to the Manitoba Government in 1985?


Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of State (Canadian Wheat Board)):: Mr. Speaker, no one is playing political chicken. Growers find themselves in the very unfortunate position of being caught in a dispute between two levels of government. We think that the offer which we have on the Table is very reasonable.
The Hon. Member will know that in June, 1985, this House passed a Bill calling for tripartite stabilization in agricultural programs. He will also know that his NDP cohorts in Manitoba have already negotiated, with our very distinguished Minister of Agriculture, a tripartite scheme in hogs. If the Minister of Agriculture for Manitoba wants to talk about tripartite agreements with regard to hogs, I do not understand why he does not want to talk to the federal Government about tripartite agreements on sugar-beets.
April 15, 1987

We think the offer is reasonable. Everyone is accepting it except the Province of Manitoba. I urge the Hon. Member to do something with his cohorts in Manitoba in order that we can get away from this unfortunate position.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, the Minister did not answer the question. He knows that the Manitoba Government has made some concessions. It has offered to continue contributing what it began to contribute in 1985.


DEFICIT SHARING-GOVERNMENT POSITION
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I want the Minister to address the question of deficit sharing which is clearly the most unreasonable demand the Minister is making of the Manitoba Government. Why is he insisting on that and, in so doing, putting at risk the sugar-beet industry in Manitoba?


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, no one except the NDP Government in Manitoba thinks it is an unreasonable offer. The Province of Alberta would have signed this agreement over a year ago and will sign it tomorrow. As I said, no one except the NDP in Manitoba thinks it is unreasonable. It is very, very unfortunate that the NDP in Manitoba chooses this issue simply to attack the federal Government.
I concur with the comment in the Winnipeg Free Press that it is unfortunate that the NDP in Manitoba is using this as "an excellent opportunity to do some Ottawa bashing while saving a relatively small amount of money" at the expense of a very important industry to Manitoba producers. That is a very serious situation and we are trying to do what we can to break the logjam, as I said yesterday.


Mr. Murphy:: You make a promise and you don't keep it. Your word is not worth a damn thing in Manitoba. Not worth a thing.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Ed, make a phone call. Make him shape up.


Raymond Garneau: There is no discipline there.


An Hon. Member:: Show respect.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and is with regard to the tragic death of Southam reporter Christoph Lehmann-Halens in Libya yesterday under
Oral Questions
most peculiar circumstances. JANA, the official news agency for Libya, made the outrageous statement that Mr. Lehmann-Halens "committed suicide under the effects of what he saw of the damage caused by the American aggression".
We know the Government sent an envoy to Tripoli yesterday. Can the Minister tell the House what really happened? Can he inform us what has been determined by his Department as to the real cause of death of Mr. Lehmann-Halens?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that all Members of the House share my regret and that of the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier at the death of Mr. Lehmann-Halens in Tripoli. The member is correct that I have dispatched a consular official from Rome who is now in Tripoli and is carrying out investigations and conversations with authorities of that country and with other diplomatic authorities. I do not yet have a report from that consular official but, knowing the Hon. Member's interest, I will make that information available to him as soon as I have it.


REQUEST THAT SECOND INDEPENDENT AUTOPSY BE CONDUCTED
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, we share the Minister's sympathy for the family. Will he advise the family that they can indeed assist the inquiry by requesting that a second autopsy be done by a third party independent of Libya to establish the real cause of death?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I will certainly consider doing that. I will report to the Hon. Member any responses which may result.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister responsible for the Wheat Board. He is aware that there is a considerable amount of confusion among western grain producers because no announcement has been made with regard to initial grain prices. We understand that the Minister has made a recommendation to the Cabinet. Can he tell us whether he or the Government intends to announce the initial prices today or this week?


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his question. We are well along in the decision-making process and will probably be in a position to announce initial payments next week.

April 15, 1987
Oral Questions


WESTERN GRAIN STABILIZATION ACT-INTERIM PAYMENT INQUIRY
Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, the Minister was a Member of the House when it passed legislation which allowed interim payments under the Western Grain Stabilization Plan. Could he tell us when the farmers may expect an interim payment under this plan and how soon such payments will be made?


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, we are also well along in the decisionmaking process with regard to what level the initial payments under the Western Grain Stabilization Act will be made. We hope to be in a position at about the same time to announce the size of the interim payment. We also hope that the cheques will be in the mail and the producers will have them prior to May 1.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion I will direct my question to the political Minister responsible for Nova Scotia who is intimately aware of the Sysco modernization.
The people of eastern Nova Scotia have been waiting since July of 1984 for the Government to honour its commitment with regard to the modernization program.
On Monday, the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion added two new conditions with which the Government of Nova Scotia must comply before the feds would participate; a new universal mill and the cost to cover the cost of restructuring the debt. In response to this, the Premier of Nova Scotia said: "The universal mill and debt were not part of the modernization agreement-never made a commitment to Ottawa on either item".
The Minister is responsible and ought to be intimately aware of all the deals and items on modernization. Would he tell us who is telling the truth, the Minister or the Premier of Nova Scotia?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member knows, I am sure, that the federal Government is still committed to assisting Sysco in terms of improving its production and efficiency as well as to reduce its annual operating costs. Those discussions are taking place with the Government of Nova Scotia. The manner in which this assistance will be provided, and the most appropriate form, are
part of the debate which is going on. However, the commitment is clearly there and I am sure that it will be resolved satisfactorily.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER MEET PREMIER OF NOVA SCOTIA
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, in response to that answer my supplementary question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. I wish to quote the Premier of the Province of Nova Scotia in regard to the statement of his own Minister: "Getting tired of Ottawa and some of their foolish statements".


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Charles Dingwall: Members opposite may laugh but the people of eastern Nova Scotia are not laughing. They want to see-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Charles Dingwall: I ask the Deputy Prime Minister on behalf of labour, the business community and all those citizens of eastern Nova Scotia, will he dispatch the political Minister from Nova Scotia to Nova Scotia to meet with the Premier and resolve this issue this weekend?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Revenue has taken an active interest in this issue and has been intimately involved. I simply want to advise the Hon. Member that the business plan which is comprised of several points is being considered. I can assure the Hon. Member that the assistance which is committed will be provided in the best form possible so that this particular steel mill can be efficient, productive, and provide long-term jobs.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. The standing committee studying the Forget Commission report tabled a report in this House on March 18. The report made 90 recommendations, 89 of them unanimously. The Minister promised that the report of the Standing Committee will be given adequate consideration when he replies to the Forget Commission Report on May 15.
I have been reliably informed that the Minister appeared before the Cabinet Committee on Social Development and proposed a slashing of $600 million to $1 billion from the unemployment insurance program as well as recommending only four of the 89 recommendations of the standing committee. How does the Minister justify recommending to Cabinet
April 15, 1987

the slashing of $600 million to $1 billion from the unemployment insurance program at a time when this country is experiencing 1.5 million people unemployed?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, all I can say is that the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt has lots of imagination and that he is misinformed.


AMOUNT OF BENEFITS-REQUEST FOR MINISTERIAL COMMITMENT
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister thinks it is my imagination, perhaps he can give us all an assurance. In light of the fact that the present unemployment insurance program in the present fiscal year is scheduled to generate a surplus of $1.7 billion, will the Minister stand in this House now and make a commitment that in fact, whatever he announces on May 15, will not be a cut-back in payments to unemployment insurance recipients?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly not make any commitments, especially not on the basis of calculations by the New Democrats. I don't think that is the way to have a healthy economy in this country, especially where the Unemployment Insurance Fund is concerned.


STATISTICS CANADA
[Stage Direction]
1986 CENSUS-POSSIBILITY OF MISTAKE CONCERNING QUEBEC- EQUALIZATION PAYMENTS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for Statistics Canada.
The Minister is aware of the fact that the Government of Quebec, through the Minister of Finance, has said that the 1986 Census is wrong and that its estimate of the population of Quebec is short by 86,000 people, which means that Quebec is being deprived of $30 million in equalization payments.
I would like to ask the Minister responsible for Statistics Canada-if her colleague would stop shouting so she can understand my question-what specific measures she intends to take to ensure that the 1986 Census data are accurate and that none of the provinces will be penalized as a result of the StatsCan data?


Hon. Monique Vezina (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, the quality of the work done by Statistics Canada, which is a federal agency, is well known both nationally and internationally.
Oral Questions
We have here a technical and statistical matter and I certainly do not want to turn this into an occasion for political rhetoric.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, it is not Statistics Canada which is on trial, it is the way this Government has been running it.


DATA COMPILATION
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, given the fact that when the census people were appointed last year some people failed the tests with results of only 8 per cent or 9 per cent but were appointed anyway because they were relatives of Tory riding association presidents-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Don Boudria: -and given the fact that the Government had initially cancelled the census and reinstated it only at the last minute, can the Minister tell us what the Government is going to do to repair the damage caused by the previous Minister, who is now the Minister of Public Works, when he allowed that kind of political patronage to damage Statistics Canada the way he did?


Monique Vézina: Mr. Speaker, it is an insult to the students of Canada to assume the census was not properly taken because most of the work was done by students.
Yesterday, on the occasion of-


Don Boudria: That was not what I said.


Monique Vézina: -I assume the Hon. Member wants an answer . .. Yesterday I heard an evaluation of our census. It was very well done, and I have every confidence in the quality of the data collected by StatsCan.


APARTHEID
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. What is the Government's reaction to the proposed sale of 20,000 prefabricated houses at a cost of $200 million to South Africa for the use of the South African Government, this sale being entered into by Canadian businessmen?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, that sale is permissible under the existing law of Canada.

April 15, 1987
Oral Questions


REQUEST THAT FULL ECONOMIC SANCTIONS BE IMPOSED ON SOUTH AFRICA
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, given the promise of the Prime Minister a little over a year ago that, if there was no progress in the dismantling of apartheid, the Government would impose complete economic sanctions on the South African Government, does the Secretary of State for External Affairs not think it is about time to take that list of sanctions out of his pocket and impose complete economic sanctions right now, instead of allowing Canadian businessmen to profit by building houses so that people will be moved out of their homes at the behest of the South African Government?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, this particular question has been previously discussed between the Hon. Member and myself and others in the House, both in committee and in the House. The Hon. Member knows my view that it would be better for us to wait until the election, South African style, is concluded in South Africa. I think there are a variety of reasons for countries like ours not acting before that election.
I share what I am sure is the profound regret of the Hon. Member and the House that the Government of South Africa continues to take steps which become more ridiculous every day, leading to a situation now where it is illegal to carry a flower and illegal to sign a petition.


STATISTICS CANADA
Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Supply and Services, and it has to do with the Quebec census which allegedly underestimated the number of people. I am surprised that the Minister should be so categorical concerning the quality of the census, bearing in mind that the Chief Statistician himself states that he cannot now express an opinion on the quality of the census and would rather wait for the fall data review, and considering that his assistant, Mr. Petrie, says the number of Quebecers may indeed have been underestimated.
My question to the Minister is this: Would it not be possible to accelerate the review process with a view to ascertaining the real Quebec population figures at an earlier date so that this province, hers and mine, would not be penalized under the Established Programs Financing? Could the review not be made earlier?


Monique Vézina: Mr. Speaker, a moment ago I could have alluded to the low
percentage of mistakes that can be made in gathering such important data as those of the census. But I thought it was self-evident, that the Opposition would understand, that there is always room for slight differences in a census. That is the question. Data quality is good. The evaluations made by Quebec are different, while ours are final figures based on the official and national census which was carried out.


INQUIRY WHY GOVERNMENT DOES NOT COMMIT ITSELF TO ACCELERATED REVIEW OF DATA CONCERNING QUEBEC
Jacques Guilbault: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, you would think the Minister herself took the census. Her Chief Statistician says he is not sure about the quality of the data. Deputy Chief Statistician Petrie says the number of Quebecers may have been underestimated. I fail to see why the Minister cannot commit herself now to accelerate the data review process so that Quebec, her own province, will be treated fairly with respect to transfers under the Established Programs Financing. We are talking about a $30 million revenue loss, not peanuts by any means!


Monique Vézina: Mr. Speaker, he understands very well and he knows that the differences in earlier census were practically the same or, I am told, even much more significant in the last census taken in the 80s.


Mr. Speaker:: I wish to advise Hon. Members that there will be a single question from the Hon. Member for Cowichan- Malahat-The Islands, and then single questions from two government Members, the Hon. Member for Calgary South and the Hon. Member for Mackenzie.


FISHERIES
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Will the Minister tell the House what he is prepared to do in conjunction with his colleague, the Minister of Transport, to ensure that there will be continued access by fishermen and other users of the Department of Transport wharf at Horseshoe Bay which has been used by fishermen for over 40 years? As of today fishermen are being told that they have to vacate it by Dan Sewell whom the Minister has just appointed to his regional advisory committee. What will the Minister do to ensure continued access to this public facility?


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, this problem results from a complex deal
April 15, 1987

involving a water lot owned in the name of the Municipality of West Vancouver which Mr. Sewell has leased from a previous marine operator. I can assure the Hon. Member that Transport Canada and the new owner, Mr. Sewell, are making every effort to ensure that these fishermen continue to have adequate moorage in that location.


FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Finance. Is the Minister aware that certain large Canadian insurance companies which have mortgage departments have informed their branches recently that so far as industrial mortgages are concerned no new money is to be lent in Alberta due to the province's economic difficulties? If the Minister knows about the situation, is there any action that he can take to ensure that industrial growth in Alberta is not curtailed as a result of this directive?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad that the Hon. Member has asked that question. It gives me an opportunity to tell her that I have been able to make some preliminary inquiries. I have not yet found any instances of any blanket lending freezes in Alberta, or anywhere else, although I have found some instances in which institutions will be reviewing their lending practices in light of certain regional economic problems.
I wish to take this occasion to tell the Hon. Member that the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and the Federal Business Development Bank are studying this matter. The Federal Business Development Bank hopes to be very active in this regard. Both the bank and the Minister are looking at this situation very carefully.


BANKS AND BANKING
Mr. Jack Scowen (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Finance. What is the Government advising individuals and companies to do who feel that Canadian chartered banks have overcharged them interest and, in some cases, most substantially? As the Minister is aware there has been at least one court case in which the court has agreed with the bank customer.


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, last week I answered questions similar to the one asked by the Hon. Member. To repeat the answer, the courts
Privilege-Mr. Gauthier
have proven to be the best place to deal with these situations. In come cases variable rates have been upheld and in others fixed rates have been upheld. The question of a constituent having to put down a deposit with the bank in order to have an inquiry made is something that concerns me. The issue is whether these charges are reasonable and reflect the actual costs of doing this type of research.
I want to say to the Hon. Member that if he has a constituent who feels that he has been wrongfully dealt with in this way, will he please get in touch with me. Perhaps after that it might be useful for me to get in touch with the institution concerned.


EASTER RECESS
Mr. Speaker:: I would like to advise Hon. Members that in view of the fact that Parliament is breaking for the Easter recess there will be the usual reception in Room 16. I hope that Hon. Members who wish to meet together might be there from 5.30 p.m. on.
I now have a ruling to deliver, one which has been long awaited by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Speaker:: On December 4, 1986, the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) raised a point of order concerning the right of members to ask for a recorded division, notwithstanding Standing Order 9(1). The Hon. Member also asked for clarification of the Chair's decision to declare a motion lapsed at the usual time of adjournment. On April 9 last Thursday, the Hon. Member raised another point of order when the Chair declared another motion lapsed at the time of interruption for lunch.
In the course of his comments, the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier quoted Section 49 of the British North America Act which to him means that when a question is before the House, it shall be decided by a recorded division. The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier also referred to Beauchesne's, Citation 217, which describes the practice of having the Party whips march up the aisle and bow to the Speaker to indicate their members are ready to vote.

April 15, 1987
Privilege-Mr. Gauthier

The Hon. Member for Ontario (Mr. Fennell) argued in support of the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier stating that he felt on December 4 the Deputy Speaker's decision was premature and that the division ought to have taken place.
I should first like to deal with the question of the time. I have reviewed the record and have come to the conclusion that the Chair intervened at the proper time. Second, the lapsing of motions is not new to this House and, in fact, pre-dates the 1982 bell ringing incident referred to by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier.
On July 23, 1969, Speaker Lamoureux refused to put a motion to the House after having put an amendment to it because by the lapse of time the main motion had become a nullity. Speaker Lamoureux felt that to put and divide on a motion that would in fact be inoperable was a waste of the time of the House. 1 refer Hon. Members to page 11513 of the debates of that day.
More recently, to quote only one of many precedents, Madam Speaker Sauve, on May 17, 1983, as reported at page 25530 of Hansard, ruled as follows on a motion to adjourn the House when the ordinary time of adjournment had been reached:
As the House had not seen fit to vote on this motion by 6 p.m., I have decided that Standing Order 8( 1) must come into force.
Standing Order 8(1) was the Standing Order then dealing with the ordinary time of adjournment.

On December 3 last year, the motion before the House was: That the House do now proceed to Introduction of Bills. At 6 p.m., the usual time of adjournment, it would have been impossible for the House to proceed to Introduction of Bills, even if it had agreed to do so.

On April 9, 1987, the motion before the House at one o'clock was similar in that, if adopted, the House would have proceeded to Introduction of Bills. However, on Thursday it is not possible to proceed to Introduction of Bills after one o'clock because of Standing Order 19(4).
Previous Speakers have ruled consistently that motions such as to adjourn the House, to adjourn the debate, to proceed to the Orders of the Day, that an Hon. Member be now heard, are all inoperable beyond the ordinary hour of adjournment which is set by Standing Order 9(1). Such demanded divisions when the bells are ringing at six o'clock are therefore quite
unnecessary and the application of Standing Order 9(1) supersedes their taking place.
The motion moved on April 9, 1987, was equally inoperable at the hour of interruption for lunch.

The Chair does not believe this practice infringes on our constitutional rights. The relevant sections of the Standing Orders prevail and render such motions null and void. A recorded division is, therefore, entirely useless.

Prior to the new rules, my predecessors have taken, from time to time, the initiative to suspend the sitting of the House when the bells were ringing beyond the ordinary time of adjournment on a substantive motion. This was done only after consultation with the Whips.
This approach was subsequently confirmed in a Standing Order which now allows either the Opposition or Government Whip to ask the Chair for a deferral. This can only be done on motions of substance.

I want to thank the Hon. Members for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) and Ontario (Mr. Fennell) for raising the matter and for giving me this opportunity to comment on the subject. I therefore declare that the rulings made at 6 p.m. on December 3, 1986, and at 1 p.m. on April 9, 1987, conform to the letter and the intent of the Standing Orders and also to rulings made by my predecessors. I also want to thank the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier for his comments.

The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier wishes to rise on a question of privilege. I think I should advise Hon. Members that the Hon. Member came to the Chair during Question Period and advised that he wished to raise this.
His difficulty, of course, was that the proceedings about which he wishes to raise the question of privilege did not conclude until approximately one-thirty this afternoon, if my facts are right. The Hon. Member will indicate if I am wrong.
However, the rule is that notice in writing must be received and I do not want to be in the position of having the Hon. Member's question of privilege interrupted on that account. Therefore, I would ask that the Hon. Member perhaps give me written notice and this will be raised immediately upon the House resuming.
1 understand, having had discussion with the Hon. Member, that this is not something of vital import that would have to be settled before that day. In other words, the committee and the proceedings will not be functioning during the break.
April 15, 1987


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, since we will not be sitting on Thursday this week, has the Government House Leader informed the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Lewis) what we will be doing when we return on Monday, April 27, 1987? Will he give us the menu and state exactly what it is that we will be asked to proceed with?


Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I can give a Wednesday answer to the Thursday question. When the House returns on Monday, April 27, through Friday, May 1, we will call Bills C-22, C-37, C-42 and the motion respecting capital punishment. The exact order of these items will be announced at a later date.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Government's response to petitions, Nos. 332-1280 to 332-1298 inclusive, 332-1339 to 332-1342 inclusive, 332-1418 to 332-1420 inclusive, 332-1454, 332-1456, 332-1511, 332-1515, 332-1525 to 332-1528 inclusive, 332-1533, 332-1536, 332-1537, 332-1546 to 3321553 inclusive, 332-1562, 332-1571, 332-1652 and 332-1753.
I also move:
That the House now proceed to motions.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion, the yeas have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.
Tabling of Documents


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried. Motion agreed to.

April 15, 1987
Time Allocation


Mr. Speaker:: Motions. The Hon. Minister.


Some Hon. Members:: Point of order!



PATENT ACT


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I move:
That in relation to Bill C-22, an Act to amend the Patent Act and to provide for certain matters in relation thereto-


Some Hon. Members:: Point of order!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Point of order!


Harvie Andre: -one further sitting day be allotted to the consideration of the report stage and two sitting days to the consideration of the third reading stage of the Bill; and
That fifteen minutes-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Point of order!


Harvie Andre: -before the expiry of the time provided for government business on the day allotted to report stage consideration and on the second and final day of third reading stage consideration of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required, for the purpose of this Order and, in turn, every question necessary in order to dispose-


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


Harvie Andre: -of the stage of the Bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Point of order!


Mr. Speaker:: I find that the Hon. Minister had the floor.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I don't see you standing, Mr. Speaker!


Mr. Speaker:: Mr. Andre, seconded by Mr. Mazankowski, moves that in relation to Bill C-22, an Act to amend the Patent Act and to provide for certain matters-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Point of order!


Mr. Speaker:: -in relation thereto, one further sitting day be allotted to the consideration of the report stage and two sitting days to the consideration of the third reading stage of the Bill;-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Is that fair play in the House of Commons?


Mr. Speaker:: -and that 15 minutes-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Is that common sense and fair play, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: -before the expiry of the time provided for Government business-


Jacques Guilbault: There is a point of order here.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Point of order!


Mr. Speaker:: -on the day allotted to report stage consideration and on the second and final day of third reading stage consideration of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required, for the purpose of this Order and, in turn, every question necessary in order to dispose of the stage of the Bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre).


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Harvie Andre: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


B. Keith Penner: Order!


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to finally have this opportunity-


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


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


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I have never seen such behaviour on the part of a Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Either your sight is wrong or your hearing is not there. I was trying to rise on a legitimate point of order after the vote. I immediately rose in my place and asked to be recognized. You did not see me. You preferred to see that Minister over there, which 1 think affects my privileges as a Member of this House.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Why did you see that Minister over there and not see me? Under what rule did you see him rather than me?


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


Some Hon. Members:: Out!
April 15, 1987


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I am asking questions because my privileges have been infringed upon-


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: It is not shame. I want to know from that Speaker why he recognized that Minister when I was up on a point of order. Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Comox- Powell River (Mr. Skelly) came in after the question was put by you, sat in his place and voted. That is not regular. Citation 223 of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition makes the point very clearly and I want to read it to you:
A Member must be within the House and hear the question put in its entirety, in one of the official languages, or his vote cannot be recorded. It is not sufficient for him to hear it while he is in a gallery or behind the curtains.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the Member for Comox- Powell River was not in his seat, did not hear the question and that, therefore, his vote should be scratched. That should have been dealt with before you recognized the Minister over there who, I do not know why, got the floor. It was a fix as far as I am concerned.


Carlo Rossi: It's a fix.


Mr. Speaker:: I will hear the Hon. Member for Ottawa- Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), of course. He may want to rise again. He makes a very fine contribution to this place and is more knowledgeable about rules than many other members. However, I should indicate that there is a plethora of precedent for recognizing the Hon. Minister. I refer specifically to May 16, 1984, when Mr. Speaker Francis was in the Chair. He said:
In accordance with established practices, when the Chair is to make a choice between a representative of the administration and the Government and another Member of the House, it is clear from Bourinot and parliamentary practice that the precedence goes to the representative of the administration who seeks to be recognized. That is the practice of Parliament and I am a servant of Parliament.


Some Hon. Members:: But not on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: The Minister was recognized on Motions. I am indicating to all Members of the House that that is certainly not without precedent. There may be additional points of order raised and I am quite prepared to hear them. I will listen to the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary for a few minutes.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, with specific reference to my colleague, the Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly), I believe the Hon. Member was within the bar of the House when the vote was called. He was not in his seat, but as far as I am concerned-and I think I speak for my Party-the Hon. Member was certainly within the confines of the House when the vote was called and I think his vote should be counted.
Time Allocation


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I realize that we are taking up valuable time on the closure motion which has been dragooned into the House of Commons, I think inappropriately.
I want to ask a question and seek clarification from the Speaker. When the result of the vote was announced I rose in my place on a very important question of privilege. It has always been my understanding that a question of privilege takes precedence. Will the Speaker indicate whether that is the case and under what conditions he chose to ignore my question of privilege?


Mr. Robinson:: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a brief intervention as well.
Your Honour quite properly recognized the Minister under Motions. I do not think any Member of the House would disagree that that was in order. The difficulty is with respect to what followed. As I understand it, as the Minister rose and began to speak under Motions Members rose in the House with questions of privilege and points of order. Your Honour chose to allow the Minister to conclude reading the motion. That is one thing. However, I would submit that what happened at that point is totally unprecedented and really quite remarkable.
Instead of turning at that point to those members who had been seeking the floor on questions of privilege or points of order, your Honour chose to return to the Minister for debate.
1 respectfully suggest that when Members of this House are standing and attempting to seek the floor on questions of privilege and points of order, for your Honour to turn a blind eye to those members and instead recognize the Minister for debate at two minutes to four is not only unprecedented but completely out of order.
I have one further point to make, Mr. Speaker. The Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Lewis) gave notice of a motion. He indicated that he wished to proceed to Motions. My understanding is that the motion which was read by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) was in fact a Government Notice of Motion. It was not a Private Member's Motion but a Government Notice of Motion.
Your Honour will note that under Routine Proceedings there is provision for Government Notices of Motions and following that there is provision for Motions. The Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council did not move that the House proceed to Government Notices of Motions. The Parliamentary Secretary moved: "That this House proceed to motions". In doing so he clearly bypassed all of the intervening proceedings including Government Notices of Motions.


Mr. Tobin:: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) has the floor and I am listening carefully to what he has to say and taking notes. While he is speaking I am consulting with the Table Officers. I heard somebody call for a point of

April 15, 1987
Time Allocation
order. 1 hope it will not be necessary to interrupt the Hon. Member for Burnaby. The Hon. Member for Burnaby has the floor and I am listening.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Just to conclude, Mr. Speaker, there are two fundamental points which I would ask the Chair to address. The first, with respect, is the totally unprecedented decision of the Speaker to ignore both points of order and questions of privilege which were pending before the House and to recognize the Minister for debate, knowing full well that other members were seeking the floor on questions of privilege and points of order. As I say, in my view that is both unprecedented and really quite unacceptable.


Mr. Speaker:: It is my understanding that the period of debate for time allocation commences when the motion is presented.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: We know that.


Mr. Speaker:: This is the advice the Speaker has available. The period of debate commences when the motion is put, not when I recognize the Hon. Minister for debate. As a consequence, it is difficult for me to understand what difference it would have made even if 1 could have distinguished one shout from among the others. 1 think all Hon. Members are witness to the fact that there were a great number of members rising and expressing their points of view. In any event, it seems to me that it makes no difference because I am now entertaining any point which any member wants to make. As I said, I will courteously hear them.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, just to conclude, the point is surely not whether or not the two hours for debate on closure began to run at a particular time. The point is that there were members on their feet attempting to be recognized throughout the time that the Minister was reading the motion. Your Honour chose to ignore those members at that point.
Even more seriously, your Honour chose to continue ignoring those members and then to return to the Minister for debate. That is the point, not when the two hours start to run. With respect, I think the Speaker should explain to the House why those members who were on their feet with questions of privilege and points of order were completely ignored, and preference given to the Minister commencing his debate.
The second point-


Mr. Speaker:: Allow me to answer that.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Let him finish.


Mr. McDermid:: He's repeating himself. He said it all before.


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me that immediately after recognizing the Minister for debate I interrupted him to hear these points of order.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, without belabouring the point, the question is why the Speaker recognized the Minister in debate at all while those other points were pending.
My second point is the one I want to conclude with, that is the point I made with respect to the propriety of accepting this motion at all. As I said, there can be no doubt that the motion of which the Minister gave notice is in fact a Government Notice of Motion. It is not a Private Member's Motion. It is a Government Notice of Motion. Under Routine Proceedings we have obviously skipped over Government Notices of Motions.
Yesterday the President of the Privy Council and Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) moved that we proceed to Government Notices of Motions. Had that been done today, and had the vote been positive, obviously, we would have done so. However, I would submit we have passed not only Petitions and Introduction of Bills but we have also passed Government Notices of Motions. Therefore, the motion which was introduced by the Hon. Minister was improperly accepted, with respect, by the Chair. We should have proceeded to Motions not to Government Notices of Motions as per the motion of the Parliamentary Secretary.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I have been in this House for some eighteen and a half years. I have now seen six different Speakers. I want to suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, with respect, that what we saw this afternoon was something which was without precedent. In the 18 years I have been here, after every vote was taken, because of practice, convention, or precedent, Hon. Members were allowed to rise on points of order or questions of privilege to point out possible irregularities in the voting. There was that possibility today with two Liberal Members who walked around during the vote and the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly) who came in during the voting procedure.
In my 18 years in this House, there has been a practice, precedent and perhaps a convention that that be done. Today two Members of this House rose on a point of order or question of privilege to make those very points and the Chair did not recognize them. As far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, and I say this with great deference and respect, I think your action was unprecedented and unacceptable for the House of Commons.


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to begin by saying that I also have been sitting in this House for close to 19 years. I have never once seen a person rise either on a point of order or a question of privilege, not having precedence over any Member of this House who seeks permission to speak on debate or on Motions. I have never seen that happen with an Hon. Member, let alone a Minister.
I do not know how this came about. However, I would like to refer to yesterdays Hansard at page 5120. At the bottom of the page Your Honour is describing the function of the Speaker as follows:
April 15, 1987

One of the functions of the Speaker is to ensure that the House is able to transact its business. This does not mean that the Chair plays any part in assisting the Government in the management of its business agenda.
I do not know if I have the attention of the Chair but I will continue. The Speaker then said:
I want to repeat that; this does not mean that the Chair plays any part in assisting the Government in the management of its business agenda.


An Hon. Member:: He just did.


Jacques Guilbault: A Member has said that the Speaker just did. One thing which makes this suspicious is that Your Honour had a ready made ruling by a previous Speaker sort of handy, which comes as a surprise because this has never happened. Now, after we have had a pledge from the Speaker, the pledge I just read-and 1 do not know if I have Your Honour's attention but I would like to read it again- you said, Mr. Speaker, that the role of the Speaker is to ensure that the House is able to transact its business, and I quote:
This does not mean that the Chair plays any part in assisting the Government in the management of its business agenda.
1 am not sure whether this is what you were trying to do, Mr. Speaker, but all I am saying is that you are treading on thin ice. As a Speaker whom we respected from the time you took that office this is probably the first occasion that the Official Opposition may have to disagree with one move you have made.
I would like the Chair to reflect on this. Meanwhile, my colleagues and I will not be attending the reception Your Honour is giving at the end of this day in protest.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, what we have heard from Hon. Members opposite is indeed quite unfortunate. I have heard, if not direct, at least indirect challenges to the Speaker's ruling. The Hon. Member who just spoke said that in his 19 years he can never recall such an action. Those Members have short memories, Mr. Speaker, because 1 recall very clearly when we were debating the Western Grain Transportation Act, more familiarly known as the Crow debate, we were engaged in this same kind of exercise. I got into a bit of a dispute with the Speaker at that time because 1 tried to be recognized on a point of order.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Have fun, Don.


Mr. Young:: You can have the whole thing, Don. Debate it yourself.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The then Minister, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy)-


Mr. Keeper:: Call an election.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -was seen by the Speaker, moved the motion and spoke.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I take exception, particularly, Mr. Speaker, to the comments from members opposite to the effect
Time Allocation
that the fix was in. If there was clearly any fix in, it was the deliberate actions of members opposite who were moving around during the course of the vote being taken deliberately attempting to interfere with the orderly process of the vote so that they could stand after and raise a question of privilege, in fact, two Liberal Members moved around quite freely and it was quite obvious it was deliberate because they are well-seasoned members, having been around here for a long period of time.
The Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly) came in later, very deliberately. That was going to create an occasion where a point of order could be raised, to engage in more frivolous, dilatory tactics, which is really interfering with the orderly process of this House.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: It is quite clear, Mr. Speaker, that members opposite cannot have it both ways. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. What we have seen today is a clear and deliberate attempt on the part of the Opposition to frustrate the orderly progress of this House.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It might make it easier for the Chair, under not particularly easy circumstances, if all Hon. Members kept their remarks to themselves unless they want to stand and be recognized and put a motion through the Chair.
First, I have listened to admonishments from certain Members in the Chamber in the last few minutes directed toward the Chair. Those members are respected members of this place and members for whom I have a very high regard. I would, of course, consider those admonishments and hope that in due course, perhaps, the fervour of them might be somewhat muted. However, it is not unusual, at times when there are matters of considerable division in this place, that feelings run very high. As a consequence, it is always a possibility that the Chair can be in the centre of that cross-fire. I do not feel that I am that much different from any other Speaker, knowing that it can happen to me as it can happen to others. I hope that most of the time it will not happen.
It seems to me that what has irritated some Hon. Members and made them feel that the ordinary practices were not followed in this place is specifically the question of whether or not the Chair should have recognized the Minister. The Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) indicated that it was not appropriate for the Minister to introduce this motion on "Motions", that it should have been introduced on "Government Notices of Motions". Time allocation motions have been moved under "Motions" since as long ago as 1971, as I am informed, so this is not something new.

April 15, 1987
Time Allocation
Second, I would like to try to give some indication, especially to the public, that what we saw this afternoon has happened before in this Chamber. When 1 say "has happened before in this Chamber" 1 mean that a number of members have felt that they had points of order or questions of privilege to raise at a certain stage in the proceedings. I want to remind Hon. Members that on October 26, 1983, as reported at page 28349 of Hansard, the following is indicated:


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
The following is what is shown in Hansard, and those who work for Hansard may well have missed some of it:
Madam Speaker:: Motions.


An Hon. Member:: A point of order-


Donald Frank Mazankowski: A point of order.


Madam Speaker:: The Minister of Transport.


Mr. Axworthy:: Madam Speaker, I move-


Donald Frank Mazankowski: A point of order.


Mr. Nielsen:: A point of order.


Mr. Epp:: A point of order.


Mr. McKnight:: A point of order.


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Vegreville.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I move:
That the Hon. Member for Yukon be now heard. Madam Speaker.


Mr. Pinard:: -
Mr. Pinard was the House Leader of the Liberal Government at that time.


Yvon Pinard: A point of order.


An Hon. Member:: There is a motion on the floor.


Yvon Pinard: A point of order.


An Hon. Member:: Where is this leading us?


Mr. Speaker:: I am just trying to give some indication that while some members may not have been happy with the fact that the Chair recognized the Minister, it is not the first time that it has been done. Mr. Pinard said:
Madam Speaker, with due respect, you are aware that I may raise a point of order before the Chair puts the motion, which it has not yet done. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy) had already started to speak when the Member opposite was recognized on a point of order, and consequently, he is out of order and does not have the right to move his motion at this time.


Erik Nielsen: The motion must be put. Madam Speaker.
Then, on the next day, on October 27, 1983, the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) rose and raised this entire matter. Madam Speaker dealt with it, and I will not go into all of what was said. I want to indicate to Hon. Members, and I will continue to hear debate on the point of order, that it just may be that what happened here in the House this afternoon is not as unprecedented as some Hon. Members have thought.
The Chair recognizes the Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Lewis), and will then recognize the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme).


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that my associate Parliamentary Secretary and I have worked long and
hard with the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) and we are seeing definite signs of improvement.
1 wish to touch on one or two matters, Mr. Speaker. First, with respect to the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly), he was, as I indicated earlier, definitely within the confines of the House. He was in the House when the vote was called by the Chair. I very clearly felt that he should have the right to cast his vote, whether or not he was technically in his seat, since he was making an effort to get to it, albeit a belaboured one.
With respect to recognition by the Chair, I think the precedent which Your Honour has cited is very exact in regard to what does happen in fact in this Chamber; that is to say, we all rise to make an effort to be recognized. 1 do not think there is any Member in the House now or any member who has served in the House prior who was recognized first every time he or she thought he or she should be recognized first. Those are the breaks of the game and it happens.
1 respectfully suggest that the operative words, the words which in fact started the clock ticking on this motion, and which were placed as I understand it from the Table at 3.56 p.m., were the words: "1 move". The Minister for Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) used those words as quickly as he could.
Finally, I would like to deal with the comments of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson), who takes issue with the exact position on the Order Paper and Notices where this motion was moved.
Mr. Speaker, in your ruling yesterday you specified that you could best serve the interests of the House by allowing the motion moved yesterday by the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council. That motion was to move to Motions. 1 point Your Honour to Standing Order 117 which states:
A Minister of the Crown who from his or her place in the House, at a previous sitting, has stated that an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 115 or 116 in respect of proceedings at the stage at which a public bill was then under consideration either in the House or in any committee, and has given notice of his or her intention so to do, may propose a motion-
It does not state "may propose a motion under Government Notices of Motions". It seems to me that the results of Your Honour's ruling are very definite. Once we got to Motions, and abiding by the tradition that a Minister of the Crown is normally recognized first, then it was entirely in order that my colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, be recognized first and, second, used the words "1 move", and therefore set the clock ticking on this two hour debate.
In closing, 1 suggest that this two hours would be better spent by members of the Opposition arguing the merits of whether or not time allocation should apply. The real merits of a time allocation motion are, first, is the amount of time appropriate, that is, the amount of time left to complete the Bill; and, second, is it appropriate that the Government place
April 15, 1987

the motion at this point. I submit, Mr. Speaker, I could read into the record the figures with respect to the amount of time but, in fact, most of that is referred to in your ruling. I do not believe in repeating things that are already in Hansard. In Your Honour's ruling you referred to the amount of time that has been spent on this Bill to date. If I were a member of the Opposition disputing the question of whether or not there should be time allocation, then during this two hours in which I had a chance to debate I would be debating whether or not there should be time allocation rather than trying to split hairs.
I leave the floor with those remarks.


Mr. Prud'homme:: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the Hon. Member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis) said that he will leave the floor. I find it extremely arrogant that the Hon. Member should tell members of the Official Opposition and members of the other Party-


Philip Derek Lewis: I suggest!


George Albert Proud: -how we can use our time. We do not need to be told by the Deputy House Leader-


Philip Derek Lewis: Just trying to save you from yourself.


George Albert Proud: -how we should use our time. It is as arrogant as the Minister saying: "It will be my way or else". We have had such an experience before. I am sorry to say to you, Mr. Speaker, that the events of today will poison for quite some time the relationship that we have with the Chair and with the Government.
I would now like to say to you, Mr. Speaker, that we have to get back to the series of events which took place. We all know that it was at 3.56 p.m. We all know that the motion means two hours of debate. However, we also know that as soon as a vote has taken place there has been a long practice in the House, which I have never seen broken, where a member could get up and say: "I did not vote for the following reason . .. ', "I was late, therefore strike my name", or "I have seen a member who had no right to vote therefore he should not have voted". That has always taken precedence as a point of order. More particularly, when a Member of the House such as the House Leader of the New Democratic Party rises on a question of privilege, I submit that surely that takes precedence over anything else, even my point of order.
We saw, in an extreme arrogant and bouffon way-and the television will prove what I am saying-the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) bent over and talking into the microphone. You will see that this is not the best day in the House of Commons. I suggest that members watch the television later and see how the Minister introduced his Bill in the most bouffon way I have seen in the House of Commons. Before members quarrel with me, I suggest they watch the television and ask if that is how they want to
Time Allocation
conduct the affairs of the House of Commons. We do not have lessons to learn-


Mr. Cote (Lac-Saint-Jean):: You would be so puritan!


George Albert Proud: The Hon. Member for Lac-Saint-Jean (Mr. Cote) says that-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) has the floor and, as a senior member of this place who has a great deal of experience, is certainly entitled to be heard. The Hon. Member for Saint-Denis.


George Albert Proud: Mr. Speaker, I want to put on the record that we have rules in the House and we just want and expect them to be followed.
It is not every day that we see the Member for Ottawa- Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) rise in such an outrage. I have never seen him like that. Some may say that it is a show, but there are shows and there are shows in political life. He was on his feet and the Minister insisted on keeping the floor in order to put the motion which should have been put at least after hearing the question or privilege of the House Leader of the New Democratic Party about the right of a Member to vote or not to vote.
We know that it was 3.56 p.m. and that the Government decided to get rid of this today before six o'clock no matter how it does so. I want to say that the Government may get rid of it, but people at home should know, because I checked with the Chair, that while I am debating I am taking up the two hours. These questions of privilege are taking away from the two hours for the time allocation debate. That is probably why the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader is asking why the time is not used better, but there is a more important matter than a two-hour debate. It is the rules of the House and how we conduct ourselves.
Without a shadow of a doubt, the Speaker must always remain out of the debate. It is for Members of the House to decide on how they want to dispose of matters.
Many abuses by the Official Opposition took place in the past when we were in government. Surely no one can say that we have done so since September 4, 1984.
I can say to the House Leader, my respected friend, that if the affairs of the House are to be run this way he, or whoever takes his place, will have a hell of a time from now on. That is not in the best interest of the Government in conducting its own affairs and it is not in the best interests of the Minister who imagines that he will ram this Bill through the House. That fight is far from over.
I submit that today's events should never have occurred. There are ways in which to conduct the affairs of the House and we know when there is abuse. We wanted to make our point and there was no abuse. I ask my respected friend, the

April 15, 1987
Time Allocation
House Leader, what difference it would have made to have given another 15 minutes and completed the two hours of debate on the Bill on April 27 or later. Is it not possible to wait a few more days in light of the great passion in this debate?
Of course, the Government was elected and has the right to govern its own affairs. However, it must also understand the frustration of Members on this side of the House who have worked in the committee for months.
The spirit of the McGrath report was to give more power to the members and, at long last, give them an input into legislation. The Opposition put 43 amendments, and 43 amendments were rejected by the Government. I respectfully submit that if that is the spirit of the McGrath report, we might as well bury it today.
Our representative, the Hon. Member for Cape Breton- East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall), devoted all his time in committee in the belief that he could make the Bill better. I accept that many of the amendments are not acceptable to the Government, but surely a few of them could have been acceptable. Since they are not acceptable we are using the last resort.
If the Government wants to pass its Bill as is, if it does not want members to work in committee and propose amendments, and then rams it through when it returns here so there will be no chance to expose the amendments that were rejected in committee, I say to the House Leader that he will be in trouble because the Bill is far from finished. The spirit of today will be reflected in the months to come. I dare say to the Minister that if he thinks he will have his Bill sooner as a result of his actions today, he is wrong because it is far from finished. I very much regret the events that took place today.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on the same question that my colleague, the Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), raised earlier before you did what you did.
I guess that it is with a great deal of sadness that you refused to acknowledge my colleague and, indeed, the Member from the New Democratic Party on a question of privilege and proceeded as you did. I have had great respect and admiration for the Chair, but particularly for the individual who occupies the chair.
I suppose what is particularly difficult about your recent behaviour on this aspect is the fact that, just by coincidence, you were well prepared to cite precedents, as you say-


John Napier Turner: Order.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Order.


David Charles Dingwall: Perhaps the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski)-


Mr. Speaker:: I think 1 asked Hon. Members that, unless they stand and put questions to the Chair, they keep remarks to themselves. The Hon. Member is making a point. It might be more helpful if the Hon. Member confined his comments to
exactly what it is that may or may not have been done correctly. The Speaker is not omnipotent and may well make a mistake. However, I know that the Hon. Member, no more than he would want to impugn the motives of any Hon. Member, would not want to impugn the motives of the Speaker. It should not be surprising that a Speaker who is trying to pay attention to the complexities of this place will often have authorities available. I would ask the Hon. Member to continue.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I thought I was being heckled by the Deputy Prime Minister who does it quite regularly, despite his assertion.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I did, if you want to call it heckling. I do not think any Hon. Member has the right to impute motives to any other member, particularly the Speaker, and he should recognize that.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I should like to respond-


Mr. Speaker:: I will hear the Hon. Member, but the point which is being argued here is basically whether or not the Speaker was right or wrong in giving the floor, under the circumstances, to the Minister. That is the point.
I have suggested that that has been done in the past. I am listening to Hon. Members. Those of us who have been in this place a long time will recognize when people feel very strongly about something. The Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) referred to this particular Bill evoking strong emotions. The Chair knows that and understands that.
However, surely at this stage we could call upon our collective experience and allow Hon. Members to make their statements. The only thing the Chair is asking is that comments be directed to the specific point. No Chair will make the right decision all the time; the Chair could well be in error, but I am listening to the points which are being made.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, in my view the Deputy Prime Minister continuously likes to take cheap shots. The only one in this Chamber today who has impugned the motives of other members is the Deputy Prime Minister who sits over there. It is not Members on this side of the House; it is the Deputy Prime Minister. What can you expect, Mr. Speaker, from a used car salesman?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Charles Dingwall: What can you expect, Mr. Speaker? The civility about which he likes to talk in the scrums is just not there.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame.


David Charles Dingwall: With regard to what happened, the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier stood and repeatedly called to the order of the Chair-
April 15, 1987


Mr. Nowlan:: If you are going to get that personal, you will have to take it too.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps Hon. Members would leave it to the Chair to decide what is-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Two years to go, Pat, the longest two years you guys will ever see.


Carlo Rossi: Go back to sleep.


An Hon. Member:: Don't lose your hair over it.


Mr. Speaker:: I ask all Hon. Members, unless they have the floor, to constrain themselves, please. The Hon. Member has the floor and the Chair is listening to the Hon. Member. I ask Hon. Members to co-operate in letting me listen.


David Charles Dingwall: As I was saying, the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier rose and shouted to the Chair to be recognized. In addition, the House Leader of the New Democratic Party did likewise. For whatever reasons, the Chair chose not to look. Either the Table Officers did not inform him, intentionally or unintentionally, but Members rose on questions of privilege and points of order which they believed, and still believe, were important. For whatever reasons, the Chair chose to recognize the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre).
You well know, Mr. Speaker, as a result of your ruling yesterday in this Chamber, that the Bill on which the closure motion has been put to the House evoked a great deal of emotion on all sides, so much so that numerous amendments have come forward, some at the legislative committee and most, if not all, at report stage of Bill C-22.
I find it to be particularly odd in view of all the circumstances-the rising of the Minister, your having quick access to information to support your decision, the refusal to recognize Hon. Members who stood in their places and begged for the attention of the Chair, and nothing happening from the Table to inform the Speaker as to who was trying to seek the floor. All these events are quite annoying, in view of what was said yesterday in the ruling in terms of the common sense, fairness, and civility you wished to have in the Chamber.
I am ashamed to have to rise and speak the way I am. This is an important piece of legislation. For Hon. Members opposite to construe as they have this particular course of action, I find to be despicable.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief, but I do not know how sweet. I am not very happy about what I have been exposed to this afternoon.
I did not intend to participate in this question of privilege. I understand the opinions on the Bill. Quite frankly, Hon. Members opposite may be very surprised at even how I may finally vote on the Bill.
Time Allocation
I am absolutely bothered, as we head toward the Easter recess, to hear the sham and hypocrisy we have heard in the House this afternoon on what occurred about an hour ago.
The reason I am standing is not a result of the remarks of the last speaker who got most personal. I uttered from my seat some personal remarks too, which do not make me happy. However, when one starts to reflect upon the backgrounds of Members of Parliament in an attempt to support one's argument and starts to reflect upon the heritage of Members of the House, it shows how weak the argument is.
I would say, never having been a used car salesman but having been from the last of the priesthoods, the law, that used car salesmen in the country most likely are held in higher repute than lawyers, in view of all the shysters in the world.
I am completely and absolutely horrified that a colleague from Nova Scotia would stoop to such low tactics when he has the ability to conduct himself in a logical way. However, that was not the reason I rose, although I was listening. I rose because-and I am glad he is here-the crown prince of selfrighteousness, the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom), tried to pull the shrouds of experience by standing in his place and piously saying: "Mr. Speaker, I never saw this happen before. I never saw a Minister recognized when Members of the Opposition were standing on points of order, questions of privilege". They were points of garbage.
I will update the Yorkton-Melville prince of righteousness, the Prince Dauphin of the New Democratic Party of Saskatchewan that he would like to be. With three more years in the House than he has, with 21 years in the House, I understand the frustration of Hon. Members opposite. Frankly I do not know if I have made the transition. I am not in the Government. I am not in the Opposition. I am just a government back-bencher.
I understand the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) whom I respect thoroughly. However, his argument falls flat on its face. He referred to the "passions of this debate". Why not let the debate get on? That is what the Minister wants, and we use procedural tactics perhaps to bring it into focus.
As I said, the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville said that this had not happened before. I sat where my hon. friend sat for many years, and often I would rise on a question of privilege, sometimes real, sometimes sort of suspect. Sometimes it was a political question of privilege. Sometimes it was a real point of order. Sometimes it was sort of a partisan point of order. And do you know, Mr. Speaker, what happened? The Speaker sometimes recognized me, whether he or she-usually she didn't because I never got along with that Speaker-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I certainly had problems with other Speakers, Speaker Jerome, for instance. Speaker Lamoureux was my

April 15, 1987
Time Allocation
first Speaker. He was my trainer, in effect. Sometimes he recognized me and sometimes he did not. But if he did not recognize me, Mr. Speaker, I did not stand up on another spurious point of order, cast aspersions and reflect on the character of the Government House Leader who was trying to carry on the government debate. Many times I did not get recognized, but I took my lumps and vowed to come back another day.
That is what members opposite with integrity do, and most of them have integrity. Unfortunately, perhaps the passions of the debate have carried everybody too far, but let us not get down into the lower swampland and cast personal aspersions on people who are are trying to do the nation's business. No wonder this institution is in such a state of ill repute when this type of thing goes on, together with the sham and the hypocrisy. What about all those members opposite who have been here 18 years? The Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) cannot say on a stack of Bibles that it has not happened X number of times that a Speaker quite properly, when there were a lot of members talking and standing, recognized the Minister of the day.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Lapierre:: Mr. Speaker, like my colleagues I was able to witness an incident which is regrettable indeed and which will certainly be noted in the records of this Parliament. Any impartial observer, a Member on either side of the House- perhaps we had a purpose, but I am convinced that people in the press gallery or visitors in the galleries did realize that something happened in this House when the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) was recognized, that it was certainly not as fair and as obvious as some Government Members would have us believe.
Mr. Speaker, it is a fact that it did look as though the Chair-if it did not act in connivance-was so much aware of the intentions of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs that it gave him a practically privileged opportunity. I think that Members of the Opposition who are witnessing the tyranny of the majority are saying to themselves: If Mr. Speaker has a problem with his left ear he cannot hear points of order or questions of privilege, and he is already prepared to justify his action. Mr. Speaker, I think the whole institution stands to suffer from it.
And when a clown like the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs who made us . . . I can hardly wait for the public to pass judgment on him, Mr. Speaker.


Suzanne Fortin-Duplessis: Look at yourself before calling others clowns.


Jean-C. Lapierre: I am anxious to see how the public will judge the attitude of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. As far as 1 am concerned, Mr. Speaker, I feel this is not to the benefit of this institution and certainly not to the benefit of this Government, because there is a principle that all
Members in this House are equal. And normally, whether a Member is a Minister of the Crown or not, he has no privileged access to the Chair.
And my personal impression, Mr. Speaker, which I hope in your final remarks you can correct, my impression is that you were aware of the intentions of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, and that if you did not favour him, at the very least you meant him no harm. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that any member who witnessed that unfortunate exercise, and more still the attitude of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs himself, will ensure that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, in view of his attitude, certainly will have tremendous problems having his legislation passed. Because if he thinks he will use majority tyranny along with, whatever the term may be, some kind of perceived complicity, I believe that the minister, who should know all the rules of fair play, should remember that it is not with that kind of little tricks that he will push his legislation forward.
There are other means which the Opposition may use to bring the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to his senses and to make sure that he does not benefit from his petty attitude. When I hear my hon. friend opposite mention democracy, I feel that democracy itself should make it possible for us to be heard just as much as a Minister of the Crown. Yet, Mr. Speaker, the impression we had, perhaps wrongly, is that there were hearing problems on the left side and that the Minister of the Crown was quite prepared to make his little show, move his motion and that he was more lucky than the rest of us.
For the relevancy of the institution and especially for the recognition of the justice and fairness principles generally, Mr. Speaker, I suggest this is a dark day indeed. Personally, as a member of this House ... I am sure that from now on several of my colleagues will seriously question the objectivity of the Chair's rulings. This situation is deplorable, because ever since your appointment to this noble position, Mr. Speaker, you had shown a high level of objectivity and fairness, and everybody had praised your efforts so far. I find this deplorable, especially in the context of a Government with a 211 member majority. If the Opposition starts feeling persecuted and unfairly treated, the atmosphere in the House will automatically deteriorate. I feel the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs should be the person most directly concerned about this, because in my opinion he has abused your kindness, Mr. Speaker. I dare hope that following the debate on this point of order, you will show your fairness about the Minister of Consumer and Corporte Affairs' attitude toward the quite legitimate point raised by my colleague the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier who could not be heard at the proper time. And I think, Mr. Speaker, that if we want to have some order in this House, that kind of puny tricks cannot be allowed and surely the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) will deeply regret his attitude today, because I am convinced that he is involved in that scheme. The whole House surely feels
April 15, 1987

frustrated and finds disrespectful the petty scheming of the Deputy Prime Minister. You may be assured, Mr. Speaker, that this will have a serious effect on our attitude towards the Government and the Chair, because we will make sure in the future that we will not give up an inch because as it is often said: once bitten twice shy. However, Mr. Speaker, the Members of.this House will have the opportunity to reflect on the matter during the Easter holiday and even if Easter is supposed to induce generosity, I can tell you that we will not forget it and things will not be easier on our return. The one who will surely most suffer about it is the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs because his contrivance is not consistent with the principles of equity, fair play and give-and-take which should be enforced in the parliamentary process. Mr. Speaker, if we ignore these principles, there is always a price to be paid. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has already paid the price in full view of the people of Canada, and we are certainly not going to make things easy for him, because if that is how he operates, Mr. Speaker, we can play that game too, and if he wants to break the rules, Mr. Speaker, two can play at that game.
I would therefore ask the Chair to reflect on these matters and help us restore a semblance of equity to this House, because I must admit that the effect of today's proceedings has certainly not been to make us feel that the principles of consideration and fairness are alive and well in this House.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I do not plan to add much to this debate today, only to preface some of my remarks by saying that the rules of any institution, or any set of rules, are only as good as the players. If people choose not to follow the rules but to use other reasons for their conduct, then we will not be able to proceed as we ought to in any situation.
I would like to refer to Citation 81 in Beauchesne's Fifth Edition under the heading Raising a Question of Privilege. Just before four o'clock today, on behalf of a very serious matter we discussed in caucus earlier, I rose on a question of privilege. Citation 81 reads as follows:
By its nature, a question of privilege is of such importance that it may be
raised at any time, and S.O. 17 makes provision for the precedence of a
question of privilege over all other business of the House.
I am fortunate enough to sit in the front benches and I have a loud voice. When I rose today, I felt that I was completely ignored. It is clear to me what a question of privilege is and when it should be recognized. I find it very difficult to understand why the decisions made today were in fact made. I respect them, but it seems to me that raising a question of privilege, according to Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, is clearly something that ought to be recognized at all times.


Mr. Speaker:: Just by way of comment, I have listened very carefully to the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis), who I think is very well respected in this Chamber. Without making a ruling now, I would just comment that the
Time Allocation
general rule in most cases is that unless a question of privilege arises out of the proceedings that are taking place right at the moment, there is, in the usual course of events, notice. However, I will try to deal with all of these things when I respond to the points that are being made.
I wonder if Hon. Members would let me note that there were some points that have not yet been made with respect to some Hon. Members and their votes or lack of votes during the division. Perhaps someone could alert those Hon. Members to the fact that I would be pleased to hear from them on those points. In the meantime, we will carry on with the point of order and I will hear Hon. Members.


Mr. Della  Noce@: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I do not want to get into debate, but I would like to make a point about the remark made by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall), who said: "What do you expect from a used car dealer?" I have been a used car dealer for the last 20 years, Mr. Speaker, and it is one of the most honest things I could do to serve my community. I can tell my hon. friend that I was so honest that I still have all my hair, and I never had a complaint and I brought my family up. I am proud to see that there are some car dealers present in the House, and I think it is an honest job. Everyone has a car. There are more than 22,000 used car dealers in Canada who will be offended by that remark. In my riding, there are many car dealers who will be offended. I personally am offended and I am sure my hon. colleague, the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski), is as well.

Mr. Speaker, my health does not permit me to argue with the Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall) who I must say has given a most despicable performance in the House today by giving a-


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. Members have been rising on a point of order after an incident in which very strong feelings were expressed. I notice that at the wish of the Chair, Hon. Members have been addressing themselves more and more explicitly to the actual point that I must consider. I would ask the Hon. Member for Duvernay (Mr. Della Noce) to leave his remarks where they are. He has expressed, with I think some sincerity and certainly some knowledge, his feeling that people who deal in the motor vehicle trade are respectable Canadians. I think perhaps that is where we can leave it.
I just might say that for centuries there have been opinions about lawyers and none of them have been very complimentary. Lawyers are quite used to being assailed by writers, comics, sometimes politicians, clients and the public. Shakespeare was very aware of this when he said in one of his plays: "The first thing we do, let's hang all the lawyers".
Perhaps I cannot rise in defence of lawyers but I can rise in defence of people in the retail motor vehicle trade. I notice that

April 15, 1987
Time Allocation
courtesies are being extended here, and I would ask that all Hon. Members address each other with the courtesies of which we are all capable. The Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall) may want to say something that I hope would be helpful.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I say to the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) that I wish to withdraw from the record the reference I made earlier. This has not been a very easy day for Members of Parliament on this side of the House in view of what has transpired, but I withdraw that remark.


Mr. Speaker:: I would hope that Hon. Members would give the appropriate appreciation.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Carlo Rossi: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that my honourable colleague for Cape Breton has seen fit to make a clarification with apologies, and I hope the Hon. Member for Duvernay (Mr. Della Noce) can do the same when he refers to gentlemen without hair, because I have no hair and boast of no less honesty than the Hon. Member for Duvernay opposite.
All this to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that even though I do not have the experience of the Hon. Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan), who has been here for 21 years, I have been here for eight years. Rather than repeating everything that has been said concerning the rules and so forth, I would simply like to say one thing, and this is that 1 am very much disappointed with what transpired today, because since you have been in office, Mr. Speaker, I have seen with what competence, skill and impartiality you have led the proceedings here. For that you deserve commendation, Mr. Speaker.
When I say I was disappointed, Mr. Speaker, it is because I have witnessed today something that is most improper, for which reason I allowed myself to shout at my good friend, and 1 do say my good friend the Deputy Minister, and 1 say very good friend, because I never saw the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) act in that way, and 1 myself got carried away.
All this to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the farce has been carried so far, and correct me if I am wrong, that the Parliamentary Secretary, the Hon. Member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis) went so far as to stand up for the opposition Member, claiming he came into the House on time and he was on time. I have been here for eight years, Mr. Speaker, and never did I see a government Member see an Opposition Member come into the House and suggest everything was alright, he was entitled to vote. As far as I can remember, 1 have never seen that.
So there was something to defend. This seemed to be pure and simple scheming, and never did I see, since I have been here, anything so fine-tuned, anything so well prepared-in
some aspects of the Criminal Code, there is reference to complicity before and after the fact.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I hope that this kind of incident will never happen again. About the question of privilege, I feel personally that the New Democratic Party House Leader was on its feet long before the Minister, and so was the Whip of my Party. Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you quite frankly that until today, you had managed to fascinate me by the way you had conducted the proceedings, your command of the French language and everything you have done. Today, however, I must quite honestly, objectively and sincerely admit that I am disappointed with the way the House Leader and Deputy Prime Minister has behaved-without accusing you of anything, Mr. Speaker, and you can believe me when I say that I admire enormously the way you operate-I am disappointed with what happened in the House.
I hope that in the future the Government will not use again these underhanded tricks, because that's what they are. They are the underhanded tricks of the Deputy Prime Minister, of the Minister and of most everybody; if the House had listened to the NDP House Leader and the Whip, I dont think that this incident would have happened and I am sorry it did, Mr. Speaker. I sincerely hope that it will never happen again.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I want to add a few comments on this point of order. In the day-to-day deliberations in this place there is no question, as the Speaker is well aware, that the various Parties have their own agendas. The Government has an agenda, which is to move legislation through this place as expeditiously and responsibly as possible. We hope that included in that agenda is the belief that legislation ought to be given a fair and proper hearing both in committee and in this House. The Opposition has an agenda, which is to ensure that its views, and that of the people it represents, with respect to legislation are heard and, if possible, amendments made where necessary. That applies to both opposition Parties. Whatever the agenda of the Government and whatever the agenda of the Opposition at any given time, and notwithstanding our respective priorities, there is a much larger principle which concerns the proper operation of Parliament. Notwithstanding different points of view or different agendas, different aims and different objectives, Parliament can work and enjoy the goodwill of its members, and by extension the goodwill of the people of Canada, only when it operates according to a set of predictable and dependable rules. Those rules should, notwithstanding the nature of a given question or crisis which may confront Parliament, stand the test of time. No matter how important my agenda is, no matter how important the agenda of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) is, both of us must be subservient to the rules of this place. There was a feeling today in this House, and not only on one side, that the rules to which all of us must be subservient were expeditiously put aside in some manner.
April 15, 1987

I want to tell you that I do not vent my frustration at the Chair. It needs to be said, at a time of anger, emotion and crisis, that Members on this side of the House, in fact I am sure on all sides, have come to have a great deal of respect for the Chair. I regret that the Government, because of its shortterm agenda for getting this Bill through the House, has used and abused the rules of this Chamber. I regret that the Government has put the Speaker of the House of Commons in this position today. It is no easy task to come to a position in an adversarial forum where members of all Parties, whatever their views, have a high degree of respect for the Chair. The greatest asset to the proper working of any Parliament is a high degree of respect for the Chair.
You have had that respect and I hope you continue to have that respect. However, I believe what the Government has done today, the way in which this matter has been resolved today, has seriously strained, soiled, poisoned, and dissipated much of the fundamental goodwill and confidence in the rules which govern this place and which we have seen exercised under your wise guidance.
I regret that the Government-I can almost hear the sound of jackboots in the background this afternoon-has abused the rules of Parliament. I regret that the Government has put the Speaker in an untenable position. I regret that the Government prevailed upon the goodwill that members opposite have had for the Speaker, and in some measure-and I hope I am wrong-called into question the properly earned and richly deserved confidence that Members on this side of the House have had in the Speaker of this Chamber.
I say to the Government that this kind of trickery, this kind of expedience in handling this Bill may have met its short-term objective, but in the long term it has taken a serious and substantial step towards poisoning the atmosphere of this place. The Government has put the Speaker, who has exemplified the very best over the last number of months, in a position he does not deserve to be in.
Having said that, I leave this Chamber because I can no longer participate in this debate.


Some Hon. Members:: Have a nice weekend.


Mr. Speaker:: In view of the fact that some Hon. Members may have wanted to make statements as to how they voted or why they did not vote, I am wondering if anyone wishes to rise on that matter because, as I said, I will hear these points. With respect to at least one of the members I think I can identify, I will deal with the matter at the next sitting of the House.
Are there no further members rising on the point of order? The Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson).


Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak on the time allocation motion and Bill C-22.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair has listened with care and perhaps some anguish to what has been said here this afternoon, but that is my responsibility. I want all members to know that I,
Time Allocation
too, have been in this place a long time. I understand that at times feelings can run very high. I have said things at times when, while I wanted to make the point, I wish perhaps I had said it in another way. I know Hon. Members have been doing everything they could in the last little while to be more courteous, with each other and therefore more respectful, I suppose, of the dignity of this place.
I will consider very carefully the points that have been made. I will come back to the Chamber and deal with them as they have been made. I have never suggested nor, do I think, would anyone else, that it is not possible to make a mistake here. I may have or I may not have. I will consider it very carefully, and if I have been in error, I will indicate that to the Chamber. After having listened to what Hon. Members have said, I think it might be helpful that the Chair return at an appropriate time to deal with some of the points which were made and to lay out as clearly as possible the proper procedural rules to apply in such a situation.
I will only say at this time that there is ample precedent for recognizing the Minister under the circumstances in which the Minister was recognized. That has been done by Speakers in the past, and I moved upon that basis. There are some Hon. Members who are not happy with the way in which I did that. I will consider that very carefully because when all is said and done I have to remain the servant of all members. The Hon. Minister has the floor for debate.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I thought I was recognized first because you were going in alphabetical order.
This motion ought not to be necessary. I completely concur with those sentiments. Unfortunately, there was no alternative left to the Government. Not once, not twice, but on three different occasions at this stage alone the Government House Leader and Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Lewis) approached opposition spokesmen and asked how many days would be required to dispose of this stage, whether they would require 5 days, 10 days, 15 days, or how many days.
On three different occasions the Opposition House Leaders would not discuss the matter. They did not make a counter offer. There were no negotiations. They refused to discuss the possibility of terminating debate at some time. Therefore, the Government had no choice. We cannot continue in perpetuity. Much was said this afternoon about this place working through negotiations and discussions. It ought to, but if the Opposition refuses to discuss the possibility of terminating a debate, the Government has no choice.
Let me deal with the question of how much time has been spent debating this legislation. As everyone knows, the draft legislation for Bill C-22 was made public at the end of June of last year, nine months ago. In the fall the Government attempted to bring the Bill forward. A precedent was set at that time and we will rue that day. It has been a longstanding,

April 15, 1987
Time Allocation
ancient tradition of this institution and our predecessor institutions that no matter how opposed an individual may be to a motion or a Bill everyone has the right to introduce such motion or Bill.
So much is that a part of the tradition that even though the Speaker utters the words: "Shall the member have leave to introduce the Bill", since time immemorial there has been an automatic "yes" from Members of the House of Commons. When those words were spoken with respect to Bill C-22, the Opposition said "no" and demanded a standing vote. It is a time-honoured tradition that no matter how you feel about a Bill you recognize that everyone, including the Government, has the right to introduce it. It is fundamentally anti-democratic to vote against introduction and first reading, yet the Opposition did that as a dilatory tactic.
The Opposition did it again at first reading. The next thing the Speaker asks is whether the House will permit first reading of the Bill. That is never voted on in keeping with the principle that first reading and printing of a Bill is a time-honoured right of every Member of the House. The Opposition voted against that.
After those dilatory tactics we had 28 hours of debate at second reading, hardly a miniscule amount of time. We then discussed with the Opposition how many hours would be necessary to complete second reading and whether they would be content with four days, five days, or six days. They refused to negotiate. It was necessary for the Government to introduce time allocation because there was no willingness to discuss the orderly conduct of the House. We have no choice but to introduce time allocation when the Opposition refuses to negotiate.
There were 82 hours of study in the committee, hardly a quick passing glimpse. Sixty-five hours were spent hearing witnesses. The idea of the new rules with respect to legislative committees was that since the House had decided on the question of principle we need not discuss the principle any longer but, rather, should go to a legislative committee to discuss the details. The Opposition did not want that. They wanted to hear whether witnesses were opposed or in favour of the general principle of the Bill. Government Members on the committee agreed to that.


Carlo Rossi: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a Point of Order.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Bourassa (Mr. Rossi) rises on a Point of Order.


Carlo Rossi: Let us see if we have a quorum, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Hudon:: Will you count, please?


Carlo Rossi: Mind your own business!


Jean-Guy Hudon: I behave the way you do.


Carlo Rossi: There is no opposition.


Mr. Speaker:: I have heard the Hon. Member and I have observed the House. I declare there is a quorum in the House.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, 46 different groups were witnesses before the committee, a total of 98 different individuals. The purpose of a legislative committee is to discuss in detail the legislation and study and discuss amendments to clauses. The Opposition proposed 11 amendments in committee, three of which were proposed by the New Democratic Party. One of the three was adopted by the Government. The other two amendments were technical and the Hon. Member representing the New Democratic Party was satisfied that the Act took care of those concerns.
At report stage, 47 amendments were moved. If Hon. Members of the Opposition were keeping with the traditions of respect for this institution about which they talk, those 47 amendments would have been moved at committee. That is the purpose of legislative committees and the new rules, which we ought now to re-examine in view of the behaviour of the Opposition.
The Bill then came back before the House at report stage and there were more dilatory tactics. Five days were wasted on the dilatory tactics of the Opposition. There were petitions brought forward last week and the week before which were signed in August. Members presenting them sanctimoniously stated that they were following the time-honoured tradition of representing their constituents by bringing forward their concerns. How can anyone make a statement like that with a straight face?
Since the 1984 election there has never been a piece of legislation which has had more discussion in Parliament, outside of Parliament, and in various domains across the country than this piece of legislation. If there is anyone in this House who can suggest that they have not had an opportunity to examine this legislation, that they have not heard about it from the people concerned and received their reactions, they must have been living in some sort of cocoon. According to the Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young) and the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) 300,000 letters were sent out in opposition to Bill C-22. The CLCs, the auto workers and the generic manufacturers sent out brochures. Tens of thousands of brochures were sent out. The Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall) toured the country appearing on talk shows trying to get people agitated and upset. The Opposition spared no effort to criticize and condemn this legislation in hopes of upsetting the people of Canada so that they would be willing to demand that the Government stop this legislation.
How successful was the Opposition? A recent opinion poll by Decima asked the question: "I would support the Bill if the Government put in place a way of making sure that the drug price increases would not be higher than the rate of inflation".
April 15, 1987

Eighty-two per cent agreed, and that is exactly what the Bill does. So for all of the efforts of the Opposition, the public of Canada understands that this legislation is to their benefit.
While I regret that we have had to bring in this motion of time allocation-and I sincerely regret that-we really had no choice. The Opposition refused to negotiate any reasonable allocation of time. Regrettably, I had to put the motion. I look forward to the vote, and I look forward to our getting away for a few days' holiday to recuperate from some of the emotional activity which has taken place here. Hopefully, we will come back in a better mood and ready to proceed with other business for which the people of Canada have elected us.


William Lesick: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to speak on the time allocation motion with respect to Bill C-22. My constituents in Edmonton East who are watching us must be wondering what is happening in this good House. Over 200 members of the Government were elected. They were asked to put in legislation which they believed was in the interests of the citizens of Canada. We were asked to do that because our constituents believed that we as a Progressive Conservative Party, we as the Government, would be a good governing Party. They believed that we could do good things for this country and in the past two and a half years we have.
We have brought forward Bill C-22 which is to the benefit of all Canadians. We have spent much time in Parliament and in committee discussing the legislation, yet we still have this difficulty with the Opposition. Bill C-22 is for the benefit of Canadians. We need a better health system. With this Bill we can do a better job for the citizens of Canada by providing better medications. As the Minister has just mentioned, we have devoted 82 hours in committee to this legislation. Day after day, for three hours, four hours, with all its expense, we have discussed this Bill which is for the benefit of Canadians. We have devoted the time to hearing 46 groups and 98 individuals, we have spent all this time on debate, and it seems most awkward that we should not be able to come to this House and make a decision.
The majority of Canadians have asked this Government to do a job, which it is doing. We have respected the Opposition. We have bent over backwards in order to do everything possible to respect the minority Opposition. It is time the Opposition began to respect the governing body. There are over 210 Members of Parliament who represent every segment and every region of this country. We obviously have the ear of the public. We have the understanding and confidence of Canadians to pass a Bill of such importance and of such great value for Canadians. For the Opposition to put up these delaying tactics over and over again is almost despicable.
In the latest poll more than 82 per cent of the people said they want the Government to pass this Bill. They want to reap the benefits of health that this Bill will provide for us in the future. We have assured the public, our senior citizens, those who are handicapped and those who are in need, that this Bill will not raise the price of drugs. We have given this assurance
Time Allocation
to the provinces, and they agree that this is an excellent Bill. Universities are waiting for this Bill to be passed so they can reap the benefits, so that graduate students can start working to improve the health of this nation through their investigative work. Why should this not be done in Canada? Why should we have to depend on other countries for the medications which we import? They do the work, we do the manufacturing and present the drugs to the public. When are we going to have the pride within ourselves to do this type of work, and in so doing provide jobs for our university graduates and our researchers?
It is long past the time when we should pass this Bill. I commend not only our Government but the Minister for standing up in his place and deciding it is time we had time allocation. We offered the Opposition virtually all the time in the world to discuss this Bill thoroughly. The amount of $800 million is waiting in the wings for research. But what are we doing? We are arguing in this House whether we should pass the Bill today, tomorrow, or next month. If I read the Opposition rightly, it wants this Bill passed next year. Our Government is the best Government Canada has had in a decade. Why should the people of Canada not reap the benefits of good Government? Why should they not reap the benefits of Bill C-22? Why should they not reap the benefits of what the Government believes is the best we have to offer for greater and better health care for Canadians?
My constituents have asked me what this Bill is all about. I said that it was for better health care, and the sooner it is dealt with the better. They said to me: "What is the problem?" I was in my riding last week, and I said that the matter is still being discussed. They said: "But you have a majority. Why can you not do anything? We are disappointed in you". I had to tell them that the disappointment has to be not with the Government but with members of the Opposition. There is time for opposition. We have listened to members of the Opposition. We have respected them and it is now time for us to act.
I suggest that when this Bill is passed it will be not only for the benefit of all Canadians but members of the Opposition will see that the Bill they have been arguing against is a good Bill. But it will take them some time because the Opposition is that way. Members of the Opposition take time to learn. Hopefully, they will see the light when they see the advantages of this Bill in two years or in five years' time.
We know that members of the Opposition were up to their old tricks when they placed before the House at report stage some 47 amendments. The country realizes that they are up to their old stunts. In 1984 the people of Canada said: "We want a new government". They want a good government. They wanted the Progressive Conservatives to govern. We are here to govern to the best of our abilities. I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that even members of the Opposition, as hard as they will try, must bend and realize that we are right. We have not always been perfect, but we have always listened to what they

April 15, 1987
Time Allocation
had to say. We have acted because we have consulted with our constituents. We believe that Bill C-22 will be the best law for Canada.


Mr. Fennell:: Mr. Speaker, I believe that you will find there is unanimous consent to ring the bells now and take the vote in 15 minutes. I have that agreement from members of the other Parties.


Mr. Speaker:: The Elon. Member for Ontario has indicated to the Chair that there is an agreement in the House to commence the ringing of the bells. Is it agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on the motion of Mr. Andre. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the Members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
It being after six o'clock p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 4 this House stands adjourned until Monday, April 27, 1987, at eleven o'clock a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.08 p.m.
[Stage Direction]


5205
[Stage Direction]
Monday, April 27, 1987
[Stage Direction]
Prayers