1990-03-21

Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, for months I have been asking the Quebec government to finish work on Highway 117. When the Liberal Member for Lasalle-Emard visited Abitibi-Temiscamingue, he said on the Radio Nord station, on March 12, that Highway 117 was in terrible shape and that Quebec was prepared to speed up repairs on the highway.
I find that surprising, to say the least, because on March 7, 1990, the Minister responsible for Transport in Quebec, Mr. Yvon Vallieres, answered my letter dated January 18 in the following terms:
"Further to your letter of January 18, 1990, in which you support requests by the regional county municipalities of Vallee-de-POr and Antoine-Labelle to speed up work on Highway 117,1 am sure you will understand that considering the present budget situation, I can make no commitment to speed up repairs, and this applies not just to Highway 117 but to the entire province.
However, I intend to set aside $850,000 in 1990-91 for work on Highway 117 within the boundaries of the Abitibi-Temiscamingue region. Work on Highway 117 will continue according to the initial schedule, always allowing for the availability of funding in the years to come".


RURAL VITALIZATION DAY
Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Saskatoon-Humboldt):: Mr. Speaker, Rural Dignity of Canada has proclaimed today as the second annual Rural Vitalization Day.
It is a time to pause and pay tribute to all those Canadians living in rural Canada who supply us with our food, our forest products, our mineral wealth, a good part of our recreational spaces, as well as a lot of other goods and services.
Unfortunately, much of rural Canada is in crisis today. Farming and the fishery are presently going through a catastrophic economic period so severe that the very future of thousands of farm and fishing families is at immediate risk.
If urgent government action is not taken, these families will be forced out of business and their communities will wither and die. We must stop closing rural schools, post offices and hospitals. Instead, we must take steps to ensure economic and social stability for the rural communities of Canada.
It is time we recognize the immense benefits this country derives from our rural resources, and return to rural Canadians a fair share of those benefits.


MULTICULTURALISM
Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, racism divides communities and leads to discrimination, which can destroy the fabric of a just and compassionate society.
As Canada celebrates the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, I salute the Canadian Ethnocultural Council for its noon program on Parliament Hill, which called to the consciousness of all today's celebration.
It is fitting that this House sets the tone for a national policy on racial equality and hears once more the words of retired Supreme Court Justice McIntyre:

March 21, 1990
Discrimination may be described as a distinction, whether intentional or not, but based on grounds relating to personal characteristics of the individual or group, which has the effect of imposing burdens, obligations, or disadvantages on such individuals or group not imposed upon others, or which withholds or limits access to opportunities, benefits and advantages available to other members of society. Distinctions based on personal characteristics attributed to an individual solely on the basis of association with a group will rarely escape the charge of discrimination, while those based on an individual's merits and capabilities will rarely be so classed.
The ways to eliminate racial discrimination are known. I urge the government to master the will to grant adequate funding to achieve the goal. Together we will go further.


NORTHERN BENEFITS
Mr. Albert Cooper (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, northern benefits has been an important program for people living in northern Alberta.
This program has helped schools attract teachers, businesses to attract the skilled workers they need, and it allows citizens to better afford the goods and services they need.
I urge the Minister of Finance to accept the two zone concept of benefits as soon as possible.


MULTICULTURALISM
Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, today, March 21 is the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. It is a worldwide initiative to expose the very real threat of racism. Our nation is working toward becoming an ever more compassionate society, but the appalling reality of racist actions inhibits our ability to achieve that dream.
In order to succeed, Canadians must acknowledge that racial discrimination exists across our land.
It is critical that we mobilize all Canadians in a battle against racism. To that end, the federal government has initiated programs, legislation and policies.
I call upon all members of the House of Commons to take action against racism in their communities, to work together every day to eliminate racial discrimination and make Canada a truly fair and just home for all Canadians.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I want to call to the attention of the House that because of government cutbacks, the CBC has decided to eliminate the position of agriculture and resource reporter at its Ottawa bureau. This decision comes at a time when Canadian agriculture is in crisis, and we should be increasing the information available to the public, not reducing it. The CBC has maintained this vital position since the 1940s.
CBC reporter George Price has filled this position for over 20 years, reporting on Canadian agriculture year in and year out. He is well known in the agricultural community and has established himself as a trustworthy and impartial reporter and media personality. It is shameful that he had to learn the news of the abolition of his position by reading it in a wire story.
Today is Rural Revitalization Day in Canada. I believe it is totally unacceptable that the agri-food sector has lost an important means of communication with the public, which needs to know what is going on in agriculture and rural Canada. It is difficult enough as it is to make consumers aware of the difficulties facing Canadian farmers and rural communities without the government chopping this important means of communication.
I call on the government to reverse this budgetary cutback at the CBC, and to reinstate this important means of communication on the agriculture industry to all Canadians.


MULTICULTURALISM
Mr. Marcel R. Tremblay (Quebec-Est):: Mr. Speaker, today, on the 21st of March, I would like to take a few moments to mention measures taken by the present government to fight racism and racial discrimination. It was this government that concluded a historic redress agreement with Japanese Canadians to compensate for the unjust way they were treated during and after the Second World War. It was also this government that

March 21, 1990

appointed the Commission of Inquiry on War Criminals, the Deschesne Commission.
Hon. members will recall that our government passed the world's first legislation on multiculturalism-legislation that recognizes our rich cultural diversity as a fundamental characteristic of Canadian society.
Furthermore, the government tabled a bill establishing the Department of Multiculturalism and Citizenship, whose mission will be to promote the equality of all Canadians.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, the present government recently tabled another bill, Bill C-63, to establish the Canadian Race Relations Foundation. These measures show how far this government is determined to go to eliminate all forms of racial discrimination in Canada. I am convinced that all Canadians will join us today, on March 21, to improve the state of race relations in Canada.



Mr. David Berger (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, like other members have already done, I wish to point out that today is the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.
A recent study by B'Nai Brith revealed that last year in Canada there was a 57 per cent increase in incidents of discrimination against racial minorities.
To fight prejudice, B'Nai Brith is selling pins showing four people of various origins holding hands. The following words appear on the pin: "Proud to be Canadian", and "Diversity and Unity".
I am wearing one of these pins today, and I would invite all Canadians to take similar action.
To quote B'Nai Brith, every individual, community group and level of government has a duty to fight racism.



Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, racial discrimination continues to plague Canadian society in the widespread distribution of racist paraphernalia, increased anti-immigration sentiments, anti-Semitic incidents and the backlash against multiculturalism.
Visible minorities continue to be victimized by racial discrimination in the workplace, in schools, in the community, in the media, in the justice system and even in our own federal institutions.
Instead of expensive billboards on racism, the government must fund community projects that will tackle racism, including media monitoring, public education, TV programs and advocacy groups that speak for minorities.
Aboriginal people who experience discrimination in every facet of their lives must have Secretary of State funding restored to achieve their human rights. We must make employment equity mandatory to remove systemic discrimination, and past injustices must be redressed.
Canada is a multicultural, multiracial country, a country of colour, where all citizens must be equal in reality as well as in law.


DISTINCT SOCIETY FOR QUEBEC
Mrs. Gabrielle Bertrand (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, opponents of Meech Lake should read or reread certain pages of their country's history. I am not referring to the fanatics and bigots but to those people who say they are acting in good faith, former and present leaders of our society who seem unaware of the fact that Quebec was recognized de facto as a distinct society when the Quebec Act came into force on May 1,1775. The full title of the Act is: "An Act for making more effectual provision for the Government of the Province of Quebec in North America."
Perhaps it would be useful to recall what was said by Lord Carnarvon when he tabled our draft constitution before his peers in London in 1867. He said that Lower Canada was jealous and proud, and rightly so, of its customs and ancestral traditions, and that it was attached to its own institutions and would only enter the Union under the clear understanding that it would keep those institutions.

March 21, 1990
Oral Questions
Quebec's distinct identity was not invented at Meech Lake. It has existed for a long, long time and enshrining it in the new Constitution merely sets the record straight and corrects the injustice of the "night of the long knives".


RURAL REVITALIZATION DAY
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, today, March 21, is the first full day of spring. It also constitutes Rural Revitalization Day in Canada, a day for us to remember and to promote the quality of life for rural and small town Canadians.
Since the Tory government came to office, the quality of life in rural Canada has been in constant decline. The Tories have massacred VIA Rail, chopped the CBC budget, sent agriculture in a tail-spin, mismanaged fisheries, shut down several hundred post offices and promised to shut down all 5,221 rural post offices in Canada.
Canadians living in rural and small town areas have a right to their services. The very urban attitude of Canada Post toward our rural citizen reeks of arrogance toward so many Canadians. On behalf of my Liberal colleagues, I am pleased to stand in solidarity with Rural Dignity of Canada on this second annual Revitalization Day.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister.
Today Premier McKenna of New Brunswick tabled in his legislature what he called a companion resolution, which he said was designed to respond to concerns people had expressed about the constitutional amendment of 1987.
Will the Prime Minister tell Parliament and the Canadian people today what is his response to the resolution of Premier McKenna, as presented to the New Brunswick legislature earlier this morning?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for the question on this important matter. While I was away I received a copy of the resolution, which we are now in the process of examining.
I view the approach by Premier McKenna as constructive and helpful, designed to be of assistance to Canada in resolving an important constitutional difficulty. I am going to examine it very carefully with my colleagues in that light, and respond as quickly as I can, perhaps tomorrow evening on television.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the Prime Minister that members of Parliament will want to know whether it is the intention of the Prime Minister to speak to the Canadian people on television, in this House and through this House, or via some other means, bearing in mind his role as Prime Minister in a parliamentary system.
I also want to ask the Prime Minister whether he will not agree that the time has now arrived for a meeting to be called by him of all First Ministers, himself and the premiers of all the provinces, to discuss Premier McKenna's proposals? Does he not agree that the time has now come to take this step?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I have never ruled out a First Ministers' conference on the constitution. I thought it would be important for the elements of success to be reasonably present before bringing all the First Ministers together. After examination of the premier's proposal and responses to it from various provincial premiers, I would then have to make that determination, which I will do as quickly as I can.
With regard to the remarks on television, I do not know the format it would take. Presumably it would follow formats that other Prime Ministers before me have pursued, further to either rules that exist for the-I am trying to answer the question.
I am just responding to my hon. friend, the Leader of the Opposition, that I suppose I will follow existing customs and conventions.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, in the light of Premier McKenna's resolution, I want to ask the Prime Minister why he will not agree the time has come for him to call a meeting of provincial

Premiers and discuss Mr. McKenna's resolution as soon as possible. Why will he not agree the time has come for this kind of action?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, because it is quite obvious this kind of action would be very premature.
It was only this morning that Premier McKenna tabled a complex resolution in the New Brunswick legislature, which has now been sent to other provincial Premiers across Canada and here to the federal Parliament. First of all, all parties must have an opportunity to read the resolution and analyse it very carefully. It will then be up to me to decide whether it would be useful to call a meeting of provincial Premiers and make some progress on this issue.
At this time, such a decision would appear to be premature. Before calling a meeting, I want to make sure we have a very good chance of winning our case. I think we should try and avoid any possibility of an other than favourable outcome as a result of this meeting.
It has happened too often in the past that a major player was hurt as a result of such a meeting, and I would not want this situation to go on indefinitely.


COMMUNICATIONS
Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I believe we would all agree that television is a powerful medium in forming public opinion, expressing cultural values, and defeating the evils of racism. In fact, I would suggest there is no more influential instrument by which to celebrate Canada's diverse identity and to unify Canadians at this critical point in our nation's history.
The Prime Minister has said to his First Ministers that our communication system is the cornerstone for strengthening the unity and the sovereignty of this country.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Why has he allowed his government, in its broadcasting bill, to remove the CBC's mandate to contribute to national
Oral Questions
unity? Does the Prime Minister not believe in national unify any more?


Mr. Jim Edwards (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, the government is firmly committed to the concept of national unity. However, I would remind the hon. member that she signed the report of the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture that recommended that the phrase "national unity" be removed from the objectives of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Further to that, Mr. Speaker, I would impress upon her the reality that consciousness and a sense of identity must be there before unity can be achieved. That was the whole idea behind the change in the bill.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, as the parliamentary secretary so capably pointed out many times during the course of our deliberations, we did an excellent job but we were far from perfect three years ago. We have made many changes and this country has changed significantly since then. I would remind him that we are in a critical situation and there is a need for national unity at this time.

My supplementary is directed to the Minister of Communications. If our broadcasting system is a public service that is essential to maintaining and enhancing our national identity and sovereignty and if through its programming, the system is to contribute to our sharing a national conscience and identity, isn't the ultimate goal national unity? Why did the minister and his parliamentary secretary remove the national unify clause from the bill. Was it to please the nationalists?


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I would remind the hon. member that not only did the standing committee make that recommendation but the Caplan-Sauva-geau task force on broadcasting also made that recommendation. It was made in light of a survey of many such mandates for broadcasting organizations around the world. I would point out to the hon. member that such mandates exist in totalitarian regimes such as

March 21, 1990
Oral Questions
the Republic of South Africa and are not appropriate to a democracy such as Canada.


FINANCE COMMITTEE
Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Late last night the chairman of the finance committee shut down the debate on the goods and services tax simply saying-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Nystrom:: Shame, shame!


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the government side claps for anti-democratic measures and the Canadian public will see that.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: In addition to that, the day before a Catholic priest and an ordinary citizen were arrested outside the House for legitimate and peaceful dissent.
Thirteen times since the 1988 election this government has imposed closure, ending debate on matters in the House. We in the New Democratic Party find this assault on democracy intolerable. I ask the Prime Minister if it is his intention to shut down democracy in the country and to close the debate in the country? If not, what is he prepared to do about his government's actions?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, as several of your predecessors and perhaps even yourself have commented many times, the business of the committee is the business of the committee.
My understanding is that what happened last night was an exact parallel of a situation in June, 1984.


Mr. Harvey (Edmonton East):: Wrong.


Harvie Andre: After some 31 hours of filibuster, where witnesses were prevented from appearing before the committee, and in keeping with admonitions in Beau-chesne's that committees must in fact finish their business at some point in time, the chairman of the committee, as we all do in this place, used the precedences that were there.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. Canadians are asking to be heard on the goods and services tax. They have a right to be heard on the goods and services tax.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: I have a file of letters received in just the last day imploring the government to hear their views on the goods and services tax. I have letters from the National Union of Provincial Government Employees, from the United Fishermen and Workers' Union, letters from the Movement Action Chomage du Quebec, Soli-darite Populaire du Quebec, the Homemakers, the United Steelworkers of America and the Chamber of Commerce.
When will the Prime Minister listen to the requests of Canadians and ensure that we can hear their views on the goods and services tax?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, the fact is that groups were kept waiting as a result of the tactics of the New Democratic Party in filibustering and going into long, irrelevant and irreverent exchanges of all sorts. We saw the theatrics on television. They were entertaining, but certainly not illuminating.
If, in fact, there are any accusations to be made about not permitting witnesses to appear before the committee, those accusations should be directed to the leader of the New Democratic Party. It was her party's antics that prevented the procedures to be held in a sensible fashion.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the Prime Minister. What has happened this week is alarming. This file is full of letters. People write us to say what they think of this government's anti-democratic measures. I will quote one from Henri Sader in Montreal:
It is unacceptable that the Finance Committee should refuse to
continue hearings on the GST.
March 21, 1990

Mr. Speaker, my question for the Prime Minister is quite simple and it is one that everyone would like to ask him: When will the government realize that the public wants to say what it thinks of the GST?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I would assume the leader of the New Democratic Party would not be suggesting that having bellowing, screaming, and yelling for hours on end and not permitting questions to be dealt with in a sensible, rational fashion is somehow an expression of democracy. It is more an expression of tyranny, of anarchy.
I would like to quote to the hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party from the text Procedures for Meetings and Organizations edited by Messrs. Kerr and King with a forward by Dr. Koester, former distinguished Clerk of this House, which states: "The presiding officer is responsible for safeguarding debate by allowing complete and adequate expression of views and putting the question to a vote when those have been aired sufficiently."
After three years the views have been aired sufficiently-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRESENCE IN GALLERY
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw to members' attention the presence in the gallery of members of the Indonesian House of Representatives led by the vice-chairman, Mr. Soekardi.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE
Mr. Douglas Young (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister may not be aware, in view of the answer given by the House Leader for the government, that the time allocation measure that was proposed to the Standing Committee on Finance was moved while witnesses were still being heard. The roaring and yelling that was referred to was not taking place at all. In fact, the 30 hour long
Oral Questions
discussion that took place was as a result of the introduction of the time allocation motion by the Conservatives.
Does the Prime Minister agree that the government should impose closure on second reading in the House on the goods and services tax, the most important measure since the income tax legislation of the 1920s? Now we have time allocation in the Standing Committee on Finance, and members of Parliament on his side are stating that closure will be imposed as well on third reading, stifling debate not only in the country but also in the House of Commons on this very important tax measure. Does he agree with that?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, every attempt was made, as we usually do in this place, to get some agreement from the opposition as what would be an appropriate time period for ending discussion. The opposition absolutely refused to give any commitment. Therefore, at some point in time it behooves the chairman to bring things to a vote and indicate when that will be.
In this regard the chairman took a position exactly parallel to that taken when the Liberal government was in office in June, 1984. The chairman did nothing but what the member's party had established as a precedent some six years ago.


M. Douglas Young: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Prime Minister. Since we know that a number of Conservatives, both here in the House and across the country, are opposed to the proposed goods and services tax and that the Premier of Alberta and Mr. Kindy and many others object as well, is the Prime Minister prepared to allow a free vote on the goods and services tax bill? A free vote would be one way to do it.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, we have had several votes on the GST, including a vote in November, 1988, since the GST was introduced before then. The people of Canada, if they had the view the hon. member suggested, had an opportunity to say so at that time. This government clearly has a mandate. This government was duly and properly elected.

March 21, 1990
Oral Questions
Last night a very generous allotment of time was provided to conclude all questions so the matter could be brought back to the House for consideration. Last night a precedent established by the hon. member's party was followed. It takes a pretty vivid imagination to call that a tromping upon of democracy.


MULTICULTURALISM
Mrs. Shirley Maheu (Saint-Laurent-Cartierville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State (Multiculturalism and Citizenship).
Last year, the minister cut funding to cultural groups. This year, he eliminated the language education program and cut funding to native people. He subsequently ordered a study to create a new race relations network. I wish the minister would explain why he cut funding to cultural agencies established by their own communities, and then creates a new partisan agency.


Hon. Gerry Weiner (Secretary of State of Canada and Minister of State (Multiculturalism and Citizenship)):: Mr. Speaker, if I were the hon. member, I would be ashamed to ask such questions about multiculturalism. You did nothing during the whole time you were in power! You spent $45 million during your last term. We more than doubled this, to $94 million, during our first term. Today, we are spending more than $138 million, and the Canadian Race Relation Foundation we are going to establish, with a centre in Toronto, will be a project for all Canadians, to help us gain a better understanding of one another.


Shirley Maheu: For the minister's edification, we never replaced elected leaders by nominations from a political party.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member.


Shirley Maheu: Mr. Speaker, the minister has cut funding to cultural groups. Recently, he set up an advisory committee on multiculturalism, and he tabled a bill to establish the Canadian Race Relations Foundation. Why
does the minister keep injecting partisan politics into cultural issues, creating a lot of ill-feeling in the process?


An Hon. Member:: Shame!


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, as usual the member is wrong again. There were constraints and reductions in this budget which have been approached in a very consistent and fair manner. The funding for multiculturalism will be the same this year as it was last year in addition to the other $24 million.
But let me tell you what we have been doing. We have been bringing forward an expression of long-term commitment with a statutory basis-a Canadian Multicultur-ism Act, a new Departmewnt of Multiculturism and Citizenship, a Canadian Heritage Languages Institute, and a Canadian Race Relations Foundation. All of these are commitments which cannot be changed by future governments on a whim. It is our commitment to create a society and a community of equal opportunity and equal access for all Canadians.


STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Government House Leader. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that you, like the rest of us, heard the House Leader say that what happened last night in the finance committee was the exact parallel of what happened in the justice committee on June 6, 1984.
I have the minutes of that committee meeting from 1984 and I quote one paragraph: "It goes without saying that if the committee does not uphold this ruling, then the chairman has no other recourse except to resign. Even if this ruling is upheld, at the conclusion of this process I will offer my resignation to the committee to avoid the future work of this committee being tainted by the process undertaken in relation to Bill C-9."


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: If this is the exact parallel of what happened in the justice committee in 1984, the logical conclusion and the honourable thing to do at this time is

March 21, 1990

to call for the resignation of the member for Mississauga South as the chairman of the finance committee, isn't it?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should have kept reading his history because the chairman was reappointed immediately thereafter.
Surely the hon. member, being a senior parliamentarian and having been around here for some 22 years now, recognizes that precedents are what guide our operation. He must recognize that there must be some mechanism ultimately to put questions to a vote. This mechanism was available by way of precedent.
It was not done on the first day of discussion; it did not cut off further debate. There will be several days of debate and discussion before it is reported back to the House. One has to really stretch one's definition of "closure" to consider this anything but a very reasonable decision by a very reasonable chairman.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, the minister says one would have to stretch the definition. The minister said that the government followed the exact parallel of what happened in the justice committee in 1984. In 1984, the chairman of that committee said: "I will offer my resignation to the committee to avoid the future work of this committee being tainted by the process undertaken in relation to Bill C-9". The chairman of that committee did resign in 1984.
Why does this government not do the honourable thing and demand right here and now the resignation of the chairman of the finance committee? Demand that he resign.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I suspect the New Democrats and other members of this House would in fact raise a point of privilege of some ferocity, given the reforms of Parliament if in fact I were to ask for the resignation of any chairman or interfere with any chairman. He is elected by the committee.
Oral Questions
I ask the hon. member to take advantage of his experience, to think back about what precedents mean, to think back about the reality that at some point in time every legislative body has a right to make a decision. This committee was a legislative body last night deploying a parallel from 1984 to put in place an order that provides ample time for discussion of each and every clause of the GST bill.
After three years of discussion in principle I think that is about as democratic as you can get.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. David Bjornson (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question on the environment and hopefully, in the absence of the minister, somebody from the government will be able to respond. I bring this question forward because there seems to be a lack of information provided by the government and also by the media.
Is there going to be a centre for sustainable development? Can somebody answer that question for me?


Mr. Lee Clark (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, as I think most hon. members of this House know, the Prime Minister, when speaking to the United Nations in September 1988, announced that an international centre for sustainable development would be located in Winnipeg. As the announcement made at Globe 90 in Vancouver on Monday of this week jointly by the Minister of the Environment on behalf of the Government of Canada and the Premier of the Province of Manitoba indicated, that centre is in fact now established.
I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that this is an excellent example of a promise made and a promise kept.
I am also pleased to advise the hon. member that an initial number of Canadians have been appointed to the board of directors and I will name just three. Lloyd McGinnis, a well-known Manitoban with an established record in international development; Dr. Clay Gilson, an agricultural expert; and Jim MacNeill, the Secretary General of the Brundtland commission are three who will serve as members of the board.

Oral Questions


PARLIAMENT HILL
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.
Yesterday, the minister tried to implicate the opposition in its unacceptable ruling with respect to public order on Parliament Hill. However, he admitted himself that no one had ever shown either the ruling or its contents to the opposition.
My question is as follows: Why did the government violate its own official policy of giving sixty days notice before any ruling takes effect? What justification was there in this case for not applying that policy?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, it is certainly provided in the Statutory Instruments Act that for internal matters the 60-day period does not apply. But in this particular instance I was certainly informed, and I saw on television two weeks before the implementation, that the regulations had been promulgated and that there had been discussions in the Board of Internal Economy earlier as to their nature. There was all-party agreement.
There was no reason to suspect that the hon. member was not kept informed by his House leader. How am I supposed to know that happens?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I will direct my supplementary question to the Minister of Public Works because it was that minister who made the submission to cabinet that resulted in that order coming forward.
The minister said in paragraph 10 of his submission to cabinet that this regulation will only be enforced in situations of undue noise or disturbance immediately next to the Parliament Buildings.
What undue noise and disturbance was there in a 70-year old priest, Father Van Hee, whose protest was in the form of a silent vigil?


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, my colleague should know that it is the Royal Canadian Mounted Police who, in their discretion, enforce these regulations. I know that he would not
expect me or any other minister to direct the RCMP as to how they should carry out their business.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Ms. Ethel Blondin (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear from the Canadian Ethnocultural Council study released today that the federal government has failed visible minorities including women, aboriginals and the disabled.
Through you, Mr. Speaker, I ask the Prime Minister of Canada how he can justify a rate of 2.9 per cent representation for visible minorities in the Public Service when there is an availability rate of 6.4 per cent in the labour market. This is clearly a failing grade for the government and totally unacceptable. How can he justify this?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to my hon. colleague that when we took office the rate of visible minority participation in the Public Service was 1.7 per cent. We have increased it in five short years to 3 per cent and the target for 1991 is 3.8 per cent. That is an awful lot more than that government ever did when it was in office.


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the minister is going to go straight to heaven for his accomplishments if he dies today.


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Prime Minister. Why do the Prime Minister or the minister not simply admit that the representation of these groups in the Public Service is dismal, particularly in the management category?
Will the Prime Minister commit today to include all federal departments and institutions in a strengthened Employment Equity Act so that the visible minorities can take their rightful place in the Public Service, instead of being so absolutely ridiculous in his comments?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, to reach the goals that we have set for ourselves in this respect we have appointed an advisory committee. We have put in place a visible minority employment program in the Public Service. This is a program to actively recruit and promote visible minorities. We have allocated this program $15 million and we have provided this program 400 person years to

facilitate the entrance of visible minorities in the Public Service. We are starting to see the results and they are very positive.


FINANCE COMMITTEE
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the House leader as well. He has suggested that there would be ample debate within the finance committee. In fact, the motion which was put before the committee last night says there will be five minutes of debate on each amendment. Do this minister and his government feel that five minutes of debate on each amendment is ample opportunity?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, after three years of committee study and touring the country and so on, to talk of five minutes is a bit ridiculous. But even five minutes is more than the NDP were allowing with their filibuster.
This committee order, as I read it, provides for several more days, many hours each day, of study of the bill and allows that there be at least five minutes on each amendment so that there is not an automatic push-through.
If New Democratic Party members had been willing or, indeed, are willing now to reach some reasonable accommodation as to when they would be prepared to see all motions put, then something could be done. As long as they remain unreasonable, somebody has to reach a decision.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, in fact it was a maximum of five minutes of which one minute would have to go to the Finance Department. So we, the members of Parliament, get just four minutes.
Does the Prime Minister feel that this kind of dictatorship in committee is satisfactory in this country when he himself stands up for democracy in South Africa?
Oral Questions


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, for weeks and weeks, months and months indeed, we have been asking the New Democrats to tell us when they were prepared to see democracy work and a decision to be voted on by the committee. They refused absolutely to ever make a commitment that they would ever allow a vote to come to the committee.
Their filibuster took up the equivalent of 20 sitting days of that committee. Surely after that amount of time the hon. member has to concede in his heart of hearts that it is time to put the question.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Larry Schneider (Regina-Wascana):: Mr. Speaker, I know you would be interested in a phenomenon that occurred 51 years ago today where the perfect alignment of the stars signalled the birth of our Prime Minister.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: That may be, but what possibly could be the question?


Larry Schneider: Does he know that it is my birthday in two days?
On a much more serious matter, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. He will recall that two executives of the Saskatchewan Transportation Company were charged with a criminal offence. They are apparently free on bail in the state of Texas but are not permitted to leave the state. It is my understanding that their trial will not be held until September.
Can the federal government intercede somehow to allow these individuals to come back to Canada to at least spend that time prior to the trial with then-families?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the question relates to two Canadians, Don Castle and Darrell Lowry. The arrangements and laws that are in place do not allow those two individuals, in the current circumstances, to get back to Canada. They are facing criminal charges in Texas. Since that matter is before the courts I cannot comment further on it.

March 21, 1990
Oral Questions IMMIGRATION


Mr. David Walker (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address my question to the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
The 1991 expenditure plans confirm that the government is planning to not continue its citizen instruction and English language textbook training agreements effective April 1. That is less than two weeks away.
Why is the Canadian government insisting on undercutting those new Canadians trying to learn English, trying to establish a community life, trying to get better jobs, by taking away opportunities to learn our official languages? Will the minister immediately reinstate this low cost and effective program?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out how much of an increase there has been in the instruction and capability of language training for immigration since this government took office.
We spend $130 million a year on language training in our various programs. That is considerably higher than it was in 1984. I would point out particularly that the Settlement Language Training Program marks the first time that a government has provided a program designed for people not destined for the labour force. It is for women at home.
We have made a lot of progress in this area and I am quite hopeful that we will be able to make more.



David Walker: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I want to raise a very serious matter with him today because of the presence of a delegation from Indonesia.
As the minister knows, six Indonesians are facing a death sentence. Has the minister had an opportunity to raise that with this delegation? Perhaps more important, will he take measures to arrange for parliamentarians to meet with them so that we may raise our concerns with them at this time?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I have not had the opportunity to raise the matter with the delegation, but I have had the opportunity to have the matter raised with Mr. Alatas, the Foreign Minister of Indonesia. He has given me an understanding that leads me to believe that those executions will not proceed.


PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Public Works. Yesterday the minister informed the House that he would find out whether negotiation has taken place with any of the four bidders for the goods and services tax centre prior to the formal tender call.
Can the minister inform the House today whether or not such negotiations did in fact take place?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I do not know of any particular negotiations that have taken place. Of course, as my colleague knows, once the tendering process has occurred and is complete, there can be no further negotiations except for clarification or it would be looked upon as bid repair.
As far as I am aware, there were no negotiations about any particular buildings.


Mac Harb: Mr. Speaker, the minister also told the House yesterday that the bidding process was completely transparent.
Can the minister explain how the system can be transparent and fair when Justice Strayer said with regard to the case last Monday that one of the bidders, namely the lowest tenderer, had not been informed of the changes in the rules?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I did read Mr. Justice Strayer's decision, as I indicated I would. I took his words very seriously, as I know the member would, when he talked about a certain lack of apparent administrative fairness.
Again I point out that as far as transparency is concerned, once the process has been engaged and any of the parties are concerned about how it works, the data is there for them to scrutinize afterward.
March 21, 1990


CRIMINAL CODE
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Justice my question is for whoever is speaking for her today.
Polls tell us that intolerance in society is dangerously high and this has been inflamed by racist pins, T-shirts and calendars, and by comments such as those made recently by the Deputy Prime Minister which denigrated our Charter of Rights.
When will the Minister of Justice-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sure the hon. member would not want to pursue that without a lot more evidence, especially on such a delicate question. Would she please complete her question.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to provide a quote if the Deputy Prime Minister would like it.
When will the Minister of Justice discuss needed amendments to the Criminal Code to reduce the dangerous expansion of racist and inciteful materials?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think I could probably speak for all members of the House when I say to my hon. friend that the reputation of the Deputy Prime Minister with respect to the protection of individual and human rights is an absolutely outstanding one. I know my hon. friend will want to withdraw any suggestion to the contrary.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Read the article.


Martin Brian Mulroney: My hon. friend says: "Read the article." I have read the article. All I can do is tell you, having read it, that it underlines again exactly what I have said about the Deputy Prime Minister. He is an outstanding parliamentarian who has already defended individual and human rights throughout his career.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, where my hon. friend is right is that there are troubling instances of racism and bigotry in Canadian society. There is a tendency in some quarters to display an obvious lack of understanding and charity toward minorities of various kinds. This is most unacceptable in our society. Canada, with its imperfec-
Parliament of Canada
tions, has always prided itself on some degree of excellence in this area of our national life.
I welcome the point made by my hon. friend. I give her the assurance that the government will be most vigilant, in respect of ridding society of these problems that she raises, by co-operating with all members of the House to make sure that instances of racism are stamped out as quickly as they can be in Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PARLIAMENT OF CANADA
Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I rose earlier today to make a statement which I think is of particular interest to this House and did not have the opportunity to do so.
I wanted to bring to the attention of the House that it is the one hundredth anniversary of the first woman member of Parliament, Agnes MacPhail, and that later today we will be unveiling a plaque to Agnes MacPhail who worked for farmers and justice in this country.
I would like to say that I am sure this House joins us in commemorating the anniversary of the first member of Parliament in Ottawa, the first MPP in Ontario, and the first woman to the League of Nations.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, first I want to congratulate the Leader of the New Democratic Party for this very valuable initiative and to commend her again on behalf of all parliamentarians for her own election as leader of her party. That in itself is an important part of Canadian history. I congratulate her for that magnificent achievement.


An Hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: My admiration does not extend beyond the issuance of the writs for the next election. Her achievement is already very considerable.
I take advantage of the very important point raised by my hon. friend to point out to the House that I had the honour recently of inviting the Governor General to invite to membership in the Privy Council the Hon. David Croll who turned 90 last week. He was a distinguished member of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, a member of the Senate since the mid-1950s and has served Canada with great distinction. The Governor

March 21, 1990
Privilege
General will be swearing him into the Privy Council this afternoon.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my party I want to join in the celebration of the anniversary of the first woman member of Parliament.
The individual in question was an outstanding member by any stretch of the term. She made a signal contribution to the work of this House and this country. She obviously was the precursor of growing numbers of women who are playing a substantial role in this House and in government generally.
It is not too often that I can find something good to say about any of the decisions of the Prime Minister. I do want to say that I have nothing but praise for his recommendation to the Governor General that the Hon. Senator David Croll be summoned to the Privy Council.
David Croll has had one of the most remarkable careers in Canadian public life, coming to this country as a boy with his family as an immigrant from eastern Europe. Between 1930 and 1940 he served as Mayor of Windsor, provincial member for Windsor-Walkerville, and member of the provincial cabinet under the premiership of Mitchell Hepburn in three cabinet portfolios. When he did not agree with his government when it came to organization of workers and unions, he left the cabinet with the words that I think should be an indication of an example for all of us when he said: "I would rather walk with the workers than ride with General Motors".
When the war came in 1939 he joined the Essex Scottish Regiment as a private. He ended the war as a colonel having served overseas. He was then elected to the federal Parliament as Liberal member for Toronto- Spadina, going on to be summoned to the Senate in 1955.
As a member of the Senate he was responsible for outstanding reports, precursors of important initiatives and social policy in the areas of pensions, in the areas of work for the aged and consumer protection.
I am very glad that the Prime Minister has chosen this occasion not only to honour the first woman member of Parliament, Agnes MacPhail, but someone who continues at the age of 90 to be a very distinguished and active parliamentarian, the Hon. Senator David A. Croll.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I have some questions of privilege. The hon. Leader of the Opposition.


PRIVILEGE
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of privilege arising out of what was said by the government House leader in Question Period.
In one of his answers to the member for York Centre I thought I heard him say that I as House Leader had received a copy of the regulations in question dealing with limitation of demonstrators 50 metres from the House of Commons before they were proclaimed, and that I knew about them at the time they were proclaimed. I want to tell the government House Leader that he is completely wrong in this regard.
The Commissioners of Internal Economy, at the request of a Conservative member of Parliament at the beginning of December of last year, as is on the record of this House, had a discussion about the matter of limitation of demonstrators within 50 metres of the House of Commons. As the record of this House shows, the Speaker wrote to the Minister of Public Works asking that the possibility of regulations be considered. The letter of the Speaker is on the record of this House.
I want to say to this House that I certainly did not see these regulations before they were proclaimed. I was not aware of them at the time they were proclaimed. If I had been, I certainly would have had a lot to say at the time prior to their proclamation.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, the records of the Board of Internal Economy, of which I was not a member but of which the hon. Leader of the Liberal Party was at the time, show that on November 22 the committee asked the Speaker to write
March 21, 1990

to the Minister of Public Works requesting that regulations be put in place providing unfettered, unharassed access to this building and providing a specific space for demonstrations.
I was told at the time that part of the motivation for that was the point of privilege of the Leader of the Liberal Party who said that he was unable to get to the Hill because of taxis demonstrating on the Hill. That matter I gather is still before one of the committees of this House, since it was found to be a prima facie case of privilege.
The request was made by the Commissioners of Internal Economy to the Speaker on their behalf to provide these regulations.
The regulations were done according to statutory instruments law. They were posted. There was at least one story in The Ottawa Citizen. Anna Marie Tremonti had it on The National on March 3, I think. There were discussions among people in various ways.
The fact that the Leader of the Liberal Party now says that he was in the dark about all this is a source of regret. Perhaps we would not be having what is a pretty silly discussion now if he were not in the dark on it.
There was no attempt by anybody to hide anything. What happened was that the government responded to a unanimous request from, among others, the hon. member himself.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I want to say that the government House leader would have more respect from the members of this House and from the public generally if he would learn to recognize that sometimes he is wrong, that he can be wrong and is willing to admit it.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: The record of the House into which the Speaker's letter was read said simply that members of the Board of Internal Economy asked that the possibility of regulations-possibility-be looked into.
Privilege
Second, the statutory instruments requirements were not followed in this case. There was not the 60 days' notice required.
I think that the government House leader, I repeat, would be in a better position to do his job if he were willing to accept the fact that contrary to what he suggested during Question Period I was not shown these specific regulations in draft or final form before they were proclaimed.
I also want to say that the issue I raised in the House as a question of privilege involved something quite different from the circumstances behind the regulations we are talking about. I raised a question of privilege because I was in a taxi near the flame, with a number of other taxis that wanted to ride up on the Hill to protest the government's goods and services tax. We were prevented from doing so by the Mounted Police.
I raised a question of privilege because there are precedents dating back hundreds of years in the Parliament of the United Kingdom which show that members of Parliament cannot be impeded, even by the police, when they want to get to Parliament. That is quite a different matter.
I never suggested in that question of privilege that I was impeded by any demonstrators. It was a matter of the RCMP doing it.
I raised the question of privilege which was referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections which, through no fault of the committee, has not dealt with it yet. I was not the source of the issue being raised by the Commissioners. It was a Conservative member.
I ask the minister to get his facts straight. I repeat, if he wants to have any respect in the House as House Leader, it would help if once in a while he would admit that he can be wrong as he was wrong in what he said during the last Question Period.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I have no trouble admitting that occasionally I am wrong.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Harvie Andre: The hon. member said that I should admit that I am in error. He said that this issue was raised by a Conservative member in December. The minutes of the

March 21, 1990
Privilege
committee meeting were for November 22. This Board of Internal Economy which he is on was anticipatory. It read the minds of this mysterious member who sometime later was going to complain. That is absurd.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I just want to say that I am happy to correct the record.


Mr. Speaker:: If the Leader of the Opposition wants to correct the record, I would like to hear him.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I am just happy to say that the meeting in question in which the issue was raised by a Conservative member preceded the date of the Speaker's letter. I will readily concede that.


Harvie Andre: Will you concede one more thing? I have one more thing that I would like you to concede. You said that the letter from Mr. Speaker was merely a request to look into it.
Will you concede also that on the strength of the request from the Commissioners of Internal Economy, a lawyer was hired to draft the potential regulations? Will you concede that that letter also contained the draft regulations in the letter?


An Hon. Member:: Address the Chair.


Harvie Andre: Will he concede that that is something more than what he has implied now as merely an expression of "Gee, is it possible for you to consider this?"


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I was not aware of which lawyer drafted the regulation.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Harvie Andre: I am tired of hearing your accusations. You were there; I was not. You were there and you asked for it.


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask the hon. minister and the hon. Leader of the Official Opposition to let the Speaker intervene. I have listened to the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition and I have listened to the reply.
First, it is not a question of privilege.
Second, this is developing into debate. I think that in the interests of other hon. members who have business to bring before the House we should conclude the remarks.
There is a series of points of privilege. I will deal with them as they were delivered to me. They may well involve the same issue.
The first hon. member whom I will hear will be the hon. member for Burin-St. George's. I will give him sufficient time to explain the circumstances and to explain his claim for privilege.
If a number of other applications are on exactly the same point, I want to make it clear to the House at the moment that while I will hear individual members I do not intend to hear the same facts and the same argument repeated endlessly. If hon. members want to look for any examples, this is the practice that we have followed for a long time. A number of members may have the same grievance but if the same points and the same facts have earlier been argued then there is no need to repeat them endlessly. I would ask hon. members to keep that in mind.
In any event we have a number of applications. It is not for me to indicate to the House from whom they are, but I will be watching for members. I notice the hon. member for Burin-St. George's has already been on his feet and I recognize the hon. member.


Mr. Riis:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Kamloops on a point of order.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I will take only take a moment or two of my hon. colleague's time. I did send notification to the Secretary of State for External Affairs indicating that I plan to rise on a point of privilege as a result of a near physical assault in the House of Commons yesterday.
The fact that he is here and the fact that if we are going to raise a point of privilege regarding an individual member, perhaps he would see fit to stay in the House so that we have a chance to raise that point of privilege at the appropriate time.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Kamloops has communicated with the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs in perhaps an ingenious way, but perhaps not altogether within the rules. I am going to leave the message where it has been sent.
In any event, I have to take the points of privilege in order and start with the hon. member for Burin-St.
George's.


FINANCE COMMITTEE
Hon. Roger C. Simmons (Burin-St. George's):: Mr. Speaker, as required, I gave notice of my intention to raise a question of privilege arising from the abridge-
March 21, 1990

ment of rights of members in the Standing Committee on Finance last evening.
Last night in the committee around 10.30 p.m. the chairman, the member for Mississauga South, interrupted the proceedings and said in part: "It is my order as chairman that the resolution produced by Mr. Soetens is deemed withdrawn and that the committee proceed to the following order", et cetera. The chairman then proceeded to read the draft order that he had in his hand.
Further in the transcript you will find that a minute or so later the chairman said: "I am told by the clerk that there are no points of order, no debate on it any further."
I submit that those two actions, two utterances by the chairman of the finance committee last evening, first, have never happened before in that particular context. Reference has been made today to the June 1984 justice committee meeting. The House will be aware that that clearly cannot be a precedent and that the chairman of the day not only apologized for his action but offered, on two occasions at least, to resign in consequence of his actions.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that while it is often said-and rightly so-that a committee is the master of its rules, that should never be taken as a licence for the committee to become a law unto itself. It is a creature of Parliament and as such has no mandate to abrogate or trample on rights of members which are taken as being axiomatic in this place, in the House of Commons. Were that to become the case, a manipulative government would very quickly learn that the way to circumvent a fair-minded Speaker would be simply to send everything down to committee.
There are three points, Mr. Speaker. First, I submit that the chairman last evening had no authority for doing what he did in deeming the resolution by the member for Ontario to be withdrawn. I refer Your Honour to Standing Order 64 which explicitly points out that once you have a motion the following applies:
A member who has made a motion may withdraw the same only
by the unanimous consent of the House.
Nowhere in the authorities is there a provision for the chairman without the unanimous consent of the committee, and certainly without the initiative of the member
Privilege
who moved the resolution in the first place, to exercise the kind of initiative that the chairman did last night in deeming the motion withdrawn.
Beauchesne's fifth edition, on page 156, citation 443 reinforces this point. It states:
(1)	The Member who has proposed a motion may withdraw it only with the unanimous consent of the House.
(2)	An amendment may be withdrawn with the unanimous consent of the House, but neither a motion nor an amendment can be withdrawn in the absence of the Member who moved it.
I have submitted that the chairman had no authority within the rules or the precedents to do what he did in deeming the motion withdrawn last night.
I come now to the second quotation that I read into the record a moment ago wherein the chairman said, and I quote one more time: "I am told by the clerk there are no points of order, no debate on it any further", et cetera.
If you examine the rest of the transcript, Sir, you will find that the chairman provided for his ruling to be sustained and then proceeded immediately to adjourn the committee without allowing any points of order or any opportunity for debate.
My second submission is that the chairman had no authority to disallow points of order. The record of the committee will clearly show that a number of members made a number of attempts to raise points of order and never got beyond shouting: "Point of order, Mr. Chairman". At no time was anything said that would allow the chairman to find that there was no point of order. He heard nothing beyond the term: "Point of order, Mr. Chairman" and proceeded, as I have submitted, to inform the committee that there would be no points of order.
I submit he had no authority for doing so. My authority is in Beauchesne's fifth edition at page 78. Citation 235 states in part:
Any Member is entitled, even bound, to bring to the Speaker's immediate notice any instance of what he considers a breach of order. He may interrupt and lay the point in question concisely before the Speaker. He should do so as soon as he perceives an irregularity in the proceedings which are engaging the attention of the House.
In that citation alone is ample evidence that the gentleman from Mississauga South, the chairman of the Standing Committee on Finance, was acting without any

March 21, 1990
Privilege
basis of parliamentary authority or precedent to do what he did in disallowing points of order.
First, I have submitted that the chairman last evening had no authority to deem withdrawal of the resolution that was before the committee.
Second, I have submitted that the chairman last evening had no authority whatsoever to disallow points of order.
I come now, quickly, to my third submission, namely, that the chairman of the Standing Committee on Finance last evening had no authority whatsoever to disallow debate on what was clearly a debatable motion.
In the interest of time, I shall not read the entire motion, but I shall just give you the gist of what it says, Mr. Speaker. The draft order given to the committee as a substitute for the one that he had deemed to have withdrawn provided for the business of the committee, what it would do on each of several successive days, when the questions would be put, and when the report to the House would be made.
That has all the elements of a debatable motion, whether you characterize it as a time allocation motion or a routine motion to deal with the future business of the committee. That is another argument altogether as to what was the real substance of the motion. The fact is that however you characterize it, whether as a time allocation motion, as a motion to deal with routine future business of the committee, or as a motion to make certain determinations about the substance of the legislation which had been referred to that committee, in any of those categories into which the motion clearly has to fall, I submit that it is clear by every rule of Parliament- and the citations are so many that there is hardly need to make reference-that it is a debatable motion.
I will give you, Sir, one citation, which is citation 67 of the fifth edition of Beauchesne's which provides that the chairman has no authority to disallow debate on what is clearly a debatable motion.
It would be easy to get carried away on this particular issue, but that is not my point at this particular time. I just happen to believe it is time to flag what is going on in that particular committee.
I have given you, Sir, three clear instances where the chairman was clearly outside his authority. I submit that those instances are such serious breaches of my privileges as a member of this House and the privileges of other members of this House they cannot go unnoticed by the Speaker.
I accept the normal convention that a committee is the master of its rules, but I repeat in conclusion that mastery must never include the licence for a committee to do what in conscience the Parliament itself would never do. That clearly is what happened in at least three separate instances last evening.
Mr. Speaker, if you find I have established a prima facie case, I would be prepared to move the appropriate motion.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the hon. member. On the same point of order?


Mr. Gauthier:: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: Again, I have always followed a policy of not indicating until a member stands whether I have or have not a point of order. The reason for that is clear.
First, what comes to me is between myself and the member bringing it to my attention. Second, a member always has the right to withdraw and may, for whatever reason, not wish it to be known that he has put an application and then withdrawn it.
I wonder if hon. members would help the Chair by standing to indicate if they wish me to proceed with their questions of privilege. I will come back to the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier in just a moment.


Ross Harvey: Mr. Speaker, there seems to be some confusion as to what it is you are asking at this point.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have just heard a succinct argument put forward by the hon. member for Burin- St. George's on a question of privilege arising out of proceedings in committee.
I have a number of questions of privilege here. In order to maintain the confidence with which each of you bring these matters to my attention, and of course I am not indicting whom I have received them from, but as a consequence I am asking those who wish me to pursue their questions of privilege to stand.


Ross Harvey: On this question, or on all questions of privilege?
March 21, 1990


Mr. Speaker:: No, on this question of privilege. The reason is to try to put some order into the presentation of argument. I hope that helps hon. members.
The hon. member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan on a point of order.


Mr. Angus:: Mr. Speaker, in order to assist the Chair, I am advised that some of my colleagues who have filed notices with you are not in the Chamber at the moment. They are outside the area. I wanted to indicate that your list may not be totally complete.


Mr. Speaker:: I know hon. members would want to assist the Chair in dealing with this in the most expeditious way. I understand the hon. member for Ottawa- Vanier wants to rise and to argue disposition. I am going to proceed seriatim with the applications which I have in front of me on the issue in which argument has commenced. As a consequence, I turn next, and this is in chronological order, to the hon. member for Yorkton- Melville.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I wish to add a few words to what has already been said by the spokesperson for the Liberal Party.
If you go through the Standing Orders of the House of Commons, or if you go through Beauchesne's, you will not find the appropriate precedents for what happened in the finance committee last night. We know that the chairman of the finance committee deemed that something occur. He deemed that a certain motion proposed by the member for Ontario be withdrawn and then made a ruling saying that another motion take the place of the motion that was withdrawn.
If you look at what happened, Mr. Speaker, you will find that this is very inappropriate in terms of the way this House has worked over the years. You, as the custodian of propriety and order in the House of Commons, should look at the precedents and at the proceedings of the House of Commons and at the work of a committee of the House of Commons. I do not think you will find that this is an appropriate way for a chairman to act.
At about 11.35 or 11.36 p.m. last night, the chairman did not put a new motion to the finance committee. Instead of putting a new motion, he made a ruling. What he said was that there could be no debate and no discussion of his ruling, and that there could be no point
Privilege
of order or point of privilege raised concerning his ruling.
In other words, the ruling could not be questioned at all. He said the only thing that could be done at this particular stage was to challenge the Chair. I have the minutes of that particular portion of the meeting here with me. At that time, the Chair was challenged. The chairman, the member for Mississauga South stated: "I am told by the clerk that there are no points of order, that there is no debate any further. This is the ruling of the Chair. If you would like to challenge the Chair, you may challenge the Chair". Then Mr. Harvey said: "I am not out of order and you know it". I take it he was trying to get the floor at that time. The chairman said: "It is the ruling of the Chair". Mr. Harvey said: "The Chair cannot rule that the moon is made out of green cheese and make it so". The chairman said: "Does somebody want to challenge the ruling of the Chair?" Mr. Young is quoted as saying: "Mr. Chairman, we challenge the ruling of the Chair and reserve the right to challenge it in front of the Speaker". The chairman said: "It has been moved by Mr. Young that the ruling of the chair is now being challenged. Is that challenge sustained? Are all those in favour of sustaining the Chair?" At that point the majority of people on that committee agreed to sustain the Chair.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to briefly look at the practices and the precedents in the House of Commons and you will find that what happened last night is very rare indeed.
The bizarre incident that occurred was further compounded today in the House of Commons by the government House Leader. During Question Period I asked him to confirm that the precedent that they used from last night was the ruling of the then chairman of the justice committee, Claude-Andre Lachance back in June, 1984 when that committee was discussing the CSIS bill.
At that time, the then chairman of the justice committee, Claude-Andre Lachance used a similar method, but not the same method. If you check the minutes of that justice committee, Mr. Speaker, you will find that those meetings went on for a considerable period of time. The chairman did say in his remarks that the spokespeople for the opposition parties were consulted about the proper way in which to proceed. The opposition was consulted about the ruling the chairman was about to make at that particular time. If my memory is correct, and I did not have a chance to look this up in the last few minutes, you will also find that the steering committee of

Privilege
the justice committee at that time was consulted about the propriety of the ruling that was to be made by Mr. Claude-Andre Lachance.
You should be aware that none of this happened in the finance committee, Mr. Speaker. We were never consulted either formally or informally about the ruling which the chairman was going to make.
The chairman cannot argue that this was a spontaneous ruling. He walked back into the finance committee at around 4.20 or 4.30 yesterday afternoon and said to us, in a pretty direct way, that a number of years ago Speaker Jeanne Sauve had made a ruling pertaining to the ending of the bell ringing crisis here in the House of Commons and that he figured he had the power as the chairman of the finance committee to make a similar ruling. However, he did not elaborate as to what that would be. I questioned him, as did other members, as to what he was talking about. He obviously had some papers in his pocket. He would not share his information with the opposition.
I remind you, Mr. Speaker, that in 1984 Mr. Lachance did share the information with the opposition. He consulted the spokespeople in the opposition parties, they had a discussion about it and because there was no agreement as to the procedure, Mr. Lachance decided to go ahead anyway and deem that the committee be adjourned.
None of this happened last night, and I can assure you that none of it happened officially and formally. That is a known fact. I can also assure you that there were no informal discussions that I am aware of between the chairman of the finance committee and any member of the New Democratic Party. I do not know what happened between the chairman and the Liberal Party, they can speak for themselves.
This was compounded in the House of Commons today when the House Leader for the government said: "We followed the exact parallel of what happened on June 6, 1984". Those are his words. That is wrong on at least two counts. In 1984, there was some consultation between the then chairman of the justice committee and members of opposition parties. That did not occur in 1990 in the finance committee in terms of the procedure
that the chairman used last night as the members across the way know. They will not say that publicly, but we were not consulted, we were not informed and we were not asked about this particular procedure, so the exact parallel was not followed on that count.
In conclusion, in 1984 when the then chairman made his ruling, he offered to resign as the chairman of the justice committee because he thought it would taint the work of the committee on Bill C-9. That was on June 6. For your information, Mr. Speaker, two days later on June 8, Claude-Andre Lachance did resign.
In Question Period the minister across the way said he was reappointed. He was reappointed on June 26, but only after the unanimous consent of all the members on that justice committee, representing all three political parties.
I maintain that the precedent was not followed. I maintain that the precedent was wrong in 1984, and still wrong in 1990. Even if it was right in 1984, there was a major difference between what happened on June 6, 1984 and what happened yesterday in the finance committee.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to rule in favour of these questions of privilege. It affects my privileges as a member of Parliament. We were subject last night to something that was extremely anti-democratic. There was no consultation, and that infringes upon the privileges of all members of Parliament.
We are elected to represent our constituents. We are elected to make their points of view known. We are elected to facilitate debate. We are elected to bring those points of view to Ottawa, to bring witnesses to Ottawa, to represent them in terms of amendments, suggestions, improving or rejecting legislation, which is what we want to do with the GST.
I argue very strongly that the jackboot tactics of the government across the way are wrong in a free and democratic society. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that later this day you will rule that the government and the chairman of the finance committee were wrong in what they did to us, and to Canada in terms of closing off the freedom of speech.
March 21, 1990


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the question of privilege raised by a number of hon. members regarding the chairman of ihe finance committee and the highly unusual ruling that he made last night, and the fact that the committee sustained him in that rather unique and very unusual ruling.
Mr. Speaker, I do not have to remind you or any members of the House that the traditions of this House would be breached in many ways if a motion was deemed to be withdrawn without any consent, that a resolution was deemed adopted when debate was adjourned without a motion to that effect and so on.
It is perfectly clear that anyone who has an inkling of understanding of parliamentary procedures and practices would know what the chairman of the finance committee did last night was completely unacceptable. The point is that we want- to demonstrate clearly that fact.
Mr. Speaker, I want to draw to your attention and to the House's attention the fact that authority for a committee is derived from a number of sources. The House delegates some authority to each standing and legislative committee, and some of the parameters of that authority are embraced by standing orders. I refer, of course to Standing Order 108(1) and 108(2), which enumerate the powers of standing committees, and additional powers and mandates of certain standing committees.
In summary, these powers include the ability to examine and inquire into all matters referred to them by the House, to report to the House, to sit when they wish and to delegate all or any of their powers, except the power to report directly to the House.
Also, Standing Order 116 states:
In a standing, special or legislative committee, the Standing Orders shall apply so far as may be applicable, except the Standing Orders as to the election of a Speaker, seconding of motions, limiting the number of times of speaking and the length of speeches.
I think we would all agree that that does not give much guidance in terms of what is and what is not allowable to occur in a committee. But it does not give carte blanche for the committee or the chairman of the committee to do anything he or she wishes.
Privilege
It is appropriate that we consider the very first standing order which states:
1. In all cases not provided for hereinafter, or by other Order of the House, procedural questions shall be decided by the Speaker or Chairman, whose decisions shall be based on the usages, forms, customs and precedents of the House of Commons of Canada and on parliamentary tradition in Canada and other jurisdictions, so far as they may be applicable to the House.
It is perfectly clear that, while all of the rules of procedure regarding committees have not been articulated clearly, they are to reflect the practices and the traditions of this House. The assumption that it is not in a Standing Order does not then allow the chairman of the finance committee to do anything he wishes.
For example, in terms of the traditions of this House regarding parliamentary behaviour of a Chair, the Chair acts always in a neutral way. Mr. Speaker, you would have to be awfully creative in your description of the chairman of the finance committee's work and behaviour to suggest that he ever acts in a neutral way, or I should say that he often acts in a neutral way.
The Chair does not move motions and votes only in the case of a tie. That is an obvious practice of this place. Also, the Chair of a committee examining legislation does not speak to the bill or vote on it. From my judgment, the chairman of the finance committee breaks all these rules, and has broken them regularly.
Let us go to the source, the guide that members of Parliament have regarding chairmen of legislative committees. It is very precise. The House publication entitled Procedural Guide for Chairmen of Legislative Committees, and of course what we are dealing with in a sense is a legislative committee because we had sent this bill to the committee, states: "The rules for time allocation, motions are given thus. Committees nevertheless may at any time by motion adopt restrictions and limits on the number of times of speaking or questioning permitted to a committee member. They may also appoint by motion a day or time at which all questions necessary to dispose of a matter before them shall be put forthwith without further debate or amendment".
The guide that directs the chairman of the finance committee clearly states that time allocation in committee is by motion, not by a chairperson's ruling.

March 21, 1990
Privilege
I have to ask then, if we do not expect the Chairs of our standing committees to follow some guidelines, some parliamentary procedure, practice, and tradition, are we saying then that anything goes? Will the Speaker ever intervene? Would the Chair intervene if the chairman of the finance committee had ruled and had been sustained on a disciplinary action against a member?
You will recall, Mr. Speaker, some weeks ago my colleagues, the member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca and the member for Nickel Belt, maintain that they were threatened in committee. The Chair gave some indication that if they did not change the nature of their interventions he would have them forcibly removed from the room. Thank goodness that threat was never carried out and the Chair graciously apologized in this House a few days later, in other words recognizing that that type of decision, that type of action was completely inappropriate.
What if he had ruled that the two members be evicted from the committee? Would we not then feel compelled to intervene? Of course, we would.
Mr. Speaker, you must consider that there is a Standing Order which governs time allocation motions before this House, that had the government been committed to allocating time in that committee, there was a legitimate avenue through which they could have proceeded. There is a Standing Order which governs time allocation motions, and by that standing order the government could have approached the opposition parties on Monday of this week, given notice of time allocation later in that day, debated on Tuesday morning the exact motion which was given as a ruling later on Tuesday night. The point is that there clearly is an accepted procedure for the government to use if it wanted to actually curtail debate in the committee.
It chose not to. They chose to use some aberration of the rules, something that my hon. friend for Yorkton- Melville has quite frankly and quite rightly described as rather a dictatorial and jackboot tactic. I think we all agree that we cannot tolerate that kind of behaviour. The committees are an extension and a reflection of the work done in this House. We assume then that they should, as Standing Order 1 indicates, and as the rules
that provide guidelines for chairs of legislative committees indicate, that we expect follow the rules, procedures, practices and traditions of this House.


Ross Harvey: Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon, mindful of the difference between a point of order and a point of privilege, and of the proper reticence you would show at any time dealing with matters arising in a committee.
I must at the outset insist that there comes a point when the flagrant and consistent abuse of order in a committee is raised, thereby from being simply a string of questions of order into a larger question of privilege, which is why I submit this matter is properly before you this afternoon.
In addressing the merits of the matter, I would like to start with the very first Standing Order of all our Standing Orders. It is the Standing Order which supplies you, Mr. Speaker, and the Chairs of the various committees with their authority, and it states:
1. In all cases not provided for hereinafter, or by other Order of the House, procedural questions shall be decided by the Speaker or Chairman-
It is clear that both you, Mr. Speaker, and any chairman of a committee, enjoy your procedural authority in those cases not provided for. I would submit that in the actions undertaken by the hon. member for Mississauga South, the Chair of the finance committee, last night he, to a remarkable degree, engaged in actions abundantly provided for elsewhere in the standing orders.
We must start on the clear basis of Standing Order 116 which states:
116. In a standing, special or legislative committee, the Standing Orders shall apply so far as may be applicable -
That is the basis for most of the rules of order in committee.
To examine first the question of the deemed withdrawal of the motion by the hon. member for Ontario: as was already pointed out this afternoon, it is a matter that is provided for in the Standing Orders. It is provided for in Standing Order 64 which states:
64. A Member who has made a motion may withdraw the same only by the unanimous consent of the House.
March 21, 1990

That is the only provision anywhere in the Standing Orders for the withdrawal of a motion once it has been moved. However, as it is there, as it is provided for, it is the procedure that must be followed.
Second, the Chair having deemed this withdrawal last evening went on to say, and I am quoting now from the "blues" of the committee hearing, so there may be some adjustment hereafter: "It is therefore my order as chairman that the resolution produced by the House by Mr. Soetens is deemed withdrawn and that the House proceed and the committee proceed to the following order".
The chairman then went on to make his lengthy and completely detailed time allocation order.
However, there is provision in the Standing Orders for the moving and passing of time allocation orders. It is to be found in Standing Order 67 which states:
(1) The following motions are debatable:
Every motion:
(p) such other motion - as may be required for the observance of the proprieties of the House-the management of its business, the arrangement of its proceedings, the correctness of its records, the fixing of its sitting days or the times of its meeting or adjournment.
Such motions must be made in order to create a time allocation situation and once made are debatable. That is clear. It is provided for in the Standing Orders. I agree that at least in part this is unclear at this point, but if the Chair last night moved a motion of time allocation himself, he would be out of order right off the top because as I note in Beauchesne's fifth edition:
411.(1) Every matter is determined-on a proposition submitted by a Member-
-not by the Chair, not by the Speaker, but by a member, Mr. Speaker. So if in fact what he was doing was proposing a time allocation motion it was out of order on the grounds that he was not capable of proposing it as the Chair of the committee.
If, however, he was making a ruling, he was out of order on that count because according to the Standing Orders he exceeded his authority in attempting by a ruling to construct a time allocation situation. Either way, that was beyond the scope of the Chair's authority.
Privilege
As well, I note in Standing Order 10 it states: "In deciding a point of order or practice, the Speaker" in this instance the Chair "shall state the Standing Order or other authority applicable to the case".
No such authority was cited in the committee last night-none-despite repeated attempts by some of us to elicit a statement of authority for the extraordinary actions undertaken.
I learned after the committee was adjourned that the entire procedure was being founded upon the instance of June 6, 1984 in the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. As has already been pointed out by the member for Yorkton-Melville, there are clear and serious discrepancies between what occurred last night and what occurred on June 6, 1984.
Even setting that aside, I wish to draw to your attention that a bad decision is not a precedent and that one decision is not by itself a determinant of convention or procedure thereafter. I would submit that what we have in the instance of June 6, 1984 is a bad decision, in fact a decision that the Chair of the committee himself recognized as a bad decision, which he feared would taint the further work of that committee, to use his own word, and for which he felt responsibility sufficient to compel him to tender his resignation having made that ruling.
It would be extremely unfortunate if the House, in its consideration of the goods and services tax here or in committee, felt itself in any degree bound by such bad rulings or in any way accorded to those bad ruling any sort of precedential status.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I will end my remarks and wish you the very best of luck in reaching your judgment.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the hon. member and I thank hon. members for being succinct. I might indicate to hon. members, so that it may be of assistance to them, I was very much involved in the committee of 1984, as I was at that time a spokesperson on Solicitor General matters for the Official Opposition. I have a vivid memory of events and of course the record is clear. I do not think that members need to concern themselves as to whether or not I have a clear recollection of exactly what did happen.
In listening to the hon. members who have risen, I have a pretty good idea of the essence of the case. I would like the next member to rise to deal directly with

March 21, 1990
Privilege
the question of in what way any member's privileges have been affected, as opposed to the fact that they may have been inconvenienced or they may have been angered or irritated because there is a distinction and I know hon. members realize that.
The hon. member for Yorkton-Melville raised the issue that was in front of the Speaker a little while ago with respect to an incident in committee and the hon. chairman rose in the House to apologize and that was the end of it. I have never said that there would not be, or could not be, an occasion in which something that happened in committee might not very well be a question of privilege. I have always indicated that it has to be pretty severe indeed, and I would ask hon. members to keep that in mind in their remarks. I am getting a very clear picture of the circumstances and the arguments that are being used and, again, I thank hon. members for being precise.
I will hear next the hon. member for Nickel Belt. Again, I am going chronologically.


Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I will keep in mind the injunction you made.
My question of privilege arises from what took place last evening when the Conservative majority stomped on the rights of the minority in the finance committee and put an end to the discussions on the GST. My question of privilege has nothing to do with my being irritated; I was not inconvenienced at all. My question of privilege arises from something that is set out very, very clearly in Beauchesne's, fifth edition, citation 1. He cites, on the principles of parliamentary law, and I quote:
The principles that lie at the basis of English parliamentary law,
have always been kept steadily in view by the Canadian Parliament;
these are: To protect a minority and restrain the improvidence or
tyranny of a majority; -
In that committee, I am in a minority. There are two members of the New Democratic Party on that committee, four members from the Liberal Party and eight members from the governing party. The governing party then has a majority.
We have rules of the House. We have the Standing Orders of the House which apply to committees and apply to the House. We have Beauchesne's which sets out in its citations a set of precedents of prior law.
As a minority, I am bound by those laws. We are all bound by those laws, and anything that we were doing in that committee in opposing the GST was within that law. The government members, the majority, may not have liked the fact that we were waging a filibuster. They may not have liked that. But, the fact was that we were not doing anything that was outside the parameters of the law. The law of the Standing Orders of the committee provided for that. We did not violate a law. We were simply conducting ourselves within the law. Standing Order 1 states, and I quote:
In all cases not provided for hereinafter, or by other Order of the House, procedural questions shall be decided by the Speaker or Chairman, whose decisions shall be based on the usages, forms, customs and precedents of the House of Commons of Canada and on parliamentary tradition in Canada and other jurisdictions, so far as they may be applicable to the House.
I am not concerned about what in fact took place in 1984, because it does not fall within what I would consider precedents. Last night, the majority adopted the position that might was right. I think they ought to take a line from Camelot that it ought not to be might is right, but might for right. In fact, the majority in that committee ought to be standing up for respect of the rules, because they indeed protected the minority.
It was not as if the government members on the committee were bereft of a solution to their problem. They had a solution to the problem of a filibuster in the committee. They had not exhausted every opportunity to bring that filibuster to an end. They could very well have come to the House for an order, which is provided for in the rules. They had a responsibility to respect the rules. They have a responsibility to obey the rules, just as the minority have a responsibility to obey the rules. Every time the rule is violated for minorities, down the line the rule is going to be violated for them as well.
We have a legitimate right to have our rights protected because we have always been entrusted with the highest form of legitimacy: the confidence of the citizens of this country. Our democracy is based on the rule of law. If that rule of law is removed in the committees, then what we will have is the rule of the jungle. That invites the minority to resort to doing things outside the law, outside the Standing Orders. We would never do that, so I wonder why it is that the majority of the Conservative members sought to resort to the jungle, to the rule of might, to squash the minority that were filibustering

March 21, 1990

against the GST when there were legitimate alternatives at their disposal.
Another point is that within that same meeting yesterday the member for Longueuil, during the course of the proceedings in the finance committee, said that the police should be called in to end the interventions by opposition members. This is a clear indication-


Mr. Speaker:: He may have said it. I do not know that that helps me very much. There may have been many things said in the committee. There is no suggestion in what I have heard so far that if that were said it amounted to a threat that the police should be called in. If that is the point of the hon. member's reference to it, that might or might not be a serious matter. I do not want it pursued if it is just a comment in argument or even in jest.


John R. Rodriguez: It is a comment en passant. It was made to indicate the mentality which led to the frustration of the majority within the committee. That frustration led them to seek ways and means to bring discussions in the committee to an end, in my view in an unparliamentary fashion.
In conclusion, I want to say there are fundamental principles that are paramount to maintain the integrity and legitimacy of this place. These are that the tyranny of the majority cannot silence the voice of elected representatives of the citizens of this country. Members must be guaranteed that their privileges will be protected and not be violated arbitrarily so they can carry out the duties for which they were duly elected.
I want to emphasize that in fact it was not as if government members on the committee were bereft of a solution to their problem. They had a legal solution to the problem. I think that is key and crucial. It was not as if this band of six opposition members had taken away from them all other options with which they could legally bring the filibuster to an end. They chose not to end it. That is a question that bothers me. It does not frustrate me, as you said, if I am irritated. It did not irritate me. It did not inconvenience me. However it saddens me that what we have had in my view is the trampling of democracy.
The Standing Orders do not provide for the chairman of a committee to adjourn a meeting arbitrarily. An adjournment motion must be put properly before the
Privilege
committee. A committee chairman cannot take up his gavel and say: "I adjourn the meeting." That is not provided under the rules. These were all exhibited over the last two or three weeks within that committee.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, should you find that there is a prima facie case of privilege, I would ask that the matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Elections and Privileges.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Burnaby-Kings-way seeks the floor, and I will certainly recognize him. He too was a member of the 1984 committee. I know that he will not mind me reminding him that both of us were there and both of us remember the events very clearly. Perhaps neither of us need to be reminded of them in too much detail this afternoon.
I would ask the member who is an experienced member and an able lawyer to deal with any points that have not yet been made or to illustrate very briefly what points he indicates to me are perhaps the most pertinent in the argument that we have had.
There is no need to go through all the facts again. I think I have those. I assure hon. members I will look very carefully at the proceedings.


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly attempt to be brief and not to cover ground that has already been covered.
I do believe that we are dealing here with a very important and very fundamental question about the rights and privileges of all members of this House. I appreciate your injunction that it is only in exceptional circumstances that the Chair will intervene with respect to proceedings that have taken place in committee. I appreciate the statement of the Chair that in those rare and exceptional or, to use the words of the Chair, severe circumstances there must be some recourse for members of this House.
I would submit, with respect, that this is one of those rare circumstances in which we as members of this House must appeal to the Chair to review with care what has taken place and to find that there has been a prima facie breach or privilege in order that the ramifications of the chairman's dictatorial actions in the committee last night be considered by the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.

March 21, 1990
Privilege
I want to make two or three points on this matter. Your Honour has noted that we were both present in the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs on June 6, 1984. At that time the chairman brought the proceedings to a halt by making a ruling. That ruling was upheld by the committee on a divided vote with the vigorous opposition of the Conservative Party as well as the New Democratic Party. Following that the chairman resigned.
I want to emphasize the point made at the conclusion of the remarks of the hon. member for Nickel Belt. If the hon. member for Mississauga South is allowed to get away with this kind of dictatorial ruling, in effect it subverts, it utterly subverts, not only the Standing Orders of this House but the long-standing traditions and precedents of this House. There are two particular arguments on that I wish to make.
If, in the course of proceedings in committee, members on the government side believe that there is an abuse of the committee taking place, if members on the government side believe that there is a filibuster under way which has to be stopped-and we in this party readily concede that we were attempting to do what we could to lead the opposition to the goods services tax in the finance committee and to use every legal means of doing so; that is what we were doing in accordance with the laws and precedents of this House-surely it cannot be acceptable for the chairman of that committee to state arbitrarily as he did, and I quote: "I terminated it. I just went ahead and did it. The majority has the right to run the country".
If in fact the chairman of that standing committee or of any standing committee in this House is given those sweeping powers to terminate debate, legal debate, after 31 hours today, what will it be tomorrow if this precedent is allowed to stand? Will it be 20 hours in the committee on communications? Will it be 10 hours in the justice committee? Will it be 2 hours in a legislative committee? There is no limit.
If Your Honour allows this very, very dangerous ruling to stand, what is to limit a future committee chairperson from arbitrarily shutting off debate, not at 31 hours but at any earlier period of time, subject to no debate, because as was very clear last night the chairman said: "There is no debate". He was right on that ruling.
"There is no debate. You can appeal my ruling to the committee and that appeal is also subject to no debate".
If Your Honour does not intervene in these circumstances to protect the privileges of all members of this House, a profoundly dangerous and destructive precedent will have been established that surely runs counter not only to the Standing Orders but to the long-standing traditions of this House.
As my colleagues have indicated, there was another mechanism. I want to quote from a very distinguished member of this House who said in the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs on June 8 1984: "Members will understand and appreciate that there were certain provisions and there are certain provisions under the rules whereby if the government deemed it appropriate to establish some kind of allocation or regime of allocation or limitation of the debate it was open to the minister to go to the House to obtain some authority in that regard which would, if it were obtained, of course, be binding on the procedures in this committee".
The very distinguished member of the committee who spoke those words was the hon. member for Vancouver South. Indeed that was the appropriate procedure to adopt. Standing Order 78(3) of this House states that a minister of the Crown who has made an attempt to negotiate with representatives of the other parties but has been unsuccessful in doing so can in fact propose a motion.
It is very important that when that motion is tabled in the House-and it can apply to committees under 78(3); it states under consideration that either in the House or in any committee-there is then a debate, a two-hour debate on the wisdom of shutting off debate, and at the end of that process there is a vote.
Both those fundamental elements should be in place before this Draconian mechanism of closure is invoked arbitrarily by the chairman or denied. If this precedent is allowed to stand, there is no debate; not two hours, not one hour, not five minutes. There is no debate and effectively there is no vote of the House on this very important question.
The final point I would make is that it has always been the case that the chair has recognized that we must not allow to be done indirectly what cannot be done directly. That is precisely what the ruling of the hon. member for Mississauga South would do.
March 21, 1990

Privilege
Closure cannot be invoked in committee by a simple hammer by the chairman of the committee. Closure can be invoked only by using the time allocation proceedings as established in the Standing Orders.
Under citation 457 of Beauchesne's I would note that a motion for the previous question is not admitted in a Committee or the Whole or in any committee of the House. Closure cannot be invoked. A motion for the previous question cannot be invoked. What the chairman of this committee has done, subject to an appeal to the majority, is trampled not just on the rights of members of this House in the minority but also denies to those Canadians who want to voice their anger and outrage at the GST a means of having that done through opposition members of the House.
I appeal to the Chair to recognize the profoundly dangerous nature of what has occurred in this committee. I appeal to the Chair to recognize that indeed a prima facie case has been established. There may have been a very dangerous precedent which resulted in the resignation of the chairman of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, but the time has come in this House for the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections to look with care and in depth at the implications of this trampling of democracy.
I would certainly be prepared, should Your Honour find there to be a prima facie case, to move the necessary motion for referral to that very important committee.


Mr. Speaker:: I will hear briefly the hon. member for Essex-Windsor. I want to apologize to the hon. member because I got him out of chronology. It was an error on my part. It was not intentional. I will hear the hon. member briefly.
I want to advise hon. members that I have the point. I will listen to the other side in a moment so I do want it to be brief.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I speak as a member of the finance committee and as someone who feels as a member of Parliament and a member of that finance committee that my privileges have been deeply threatened by what has taken place within the finance committee over the past two or three days.
I wish to deal with several additional points beside those which have been brought to your attention. I think the case has been made clearly by some of my colleagues as to how the privileges which they enjoy as members of Parliament, and in the case of my colleague from Yorkton-Melville as a member of the finance committee, have been affected by this set of decisions and actions within the committee itself. I want to deal with several other related but not directly similar points within the committee.
First, there has been brief reference made to this point by my colleague from Nickel Belt. He indicated that certain threats were in fact put before the committee by a member of the committee during yesterday's debate. Since these threats were put while I was making certain of my comments, I can certainly attest to the Speaker that I took them as threats directed toward myself.


Mr. Speaker:: With a succinct and well argued case, the hon. member is now saying that apart from anything else that happened in the committee he felt that he was threatened. If he were threatened by a single comment of some irritated member, I am not too sympathetic. If, on the other hand, members were seriously considering calling in the police, that is another matter at all. I ask the hon. member to remember that I have asked him to be brief and to stick to points that help me to decide the essential point in front of me. If we are going to get off on to another point, I may have to put that point aside completely and hear it in another argument.


Steven W. Langdon: I am very much in the Speaker's hands whether this is a point which should be raised in the context of this discussion of what happened in the committee.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member knows that I would not in any way limit his right to bring a matter to the Chair, but I have heard a number of members already this afternoon and that has not been the point that has been put before me.
First I would say to the hon. member that if he wants to raise it at another time, I will accept that I have notice of it. Unless there is a very strong indication of the part of all hon. members that this now becomes one of the major points I have to consider, I think it should be dealt with separately.

March 21, 1990
Privilege
I am sure the hon. member might want to discuss the matter with other members, but I have a serious enough matter to deal with without going off on what somebody might or might not have meant because they made an irritable comment. I am in the hon. member's hands. If he wants to bring this matter back in a separate application, of course I will hear him. I would prefer that it not get mixed up with this one.


Steven W. Langdon: I thank the Speaker for that sense of direction. That was certainly my sense as well. Because there was a reference to it earlier and because I was the person who was the subject of the particular issue, I felt that if the Speaker wished to hear detail on it I was prepared to provide it. I in fact would prefer to raise it separately.
However, with respect to the point which is more directly of concern in front of us this afternoon, I want to refer particularly to the nature of the declaration which was put in front of the committee by the Chair of that committee. I will quote from it. This was an order from the chairman of the committee with reference as to how we were to deal with the goods and services tax. Within that order is the following:
-in putting any amendment to a clause on every clause for which such amendments are proposed, the mover will have two minutes to explain his amendment, and (b) there will be one minute allowed to each of the other parties represented in the committee to reply or debate the amendment, and (c) the Finance Department representative will have one minute to respond. This will permit five minutes of debate on each amendment.
Perhaps I could explain, Mr. Speaker, why this seems to me to be an important point of privilege in the context of-


Mr. Speaker:: If the member would let me intervene, first I know about that and, second, I will be looking at all the material. But in fairness to other members who wish to address the Chair, I must start to insist that the points be very brief. I have listened very carefully and gone on much longer than usual in an application from a committee.
I do not think the hon. member is assisting me very much in reading out the order. The order may or may not be a good order or a bad order. What I am looking at here very precisely, because I have been asked to do it by those who have led the argument, is a process and if that process amounts to a breach of privilege. That is the question I have to decide.
Unless the hon. member can give me very much more, I would ask that he defer and allow me perhaps to hear one or more members very briefly. I think I am bound to turn now to the other side of the Chamber.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, if I could at least have the chance to connect my point to the issue of privilege, I quote from citation 16 of Beauchesne's of which I am sure the Speaker is aware:
The privileges of Parliament are rights which are "absolutely
necessary for the due execution of its powers". They are enjoyed by
individual Members, because the House cannot perform its functions
without unimpeded use of the services of its members;
My point with respect to the form of this particular order is that it prevents people, including myself as a member of Parliament, from operating on that committee as a member. Instead, I am required to accept an order which forces each party to have just one minute's chance to speak or react to a particular amendment. It seems to me that that is a gross violation of my privileges as an individual member of Parliament.


Mr. Speaker:: I want to thank the hon. member for co-operating and being brief. The hon. member for Prince Albert-Churchill may have something to add. I will recognize the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Thank you, I-


Mr. Speaker:: I am very sorry. I have overlooked an hon. member and I will come to that. The hon. member for Okanagan-Shuswap, and again I do ask him to be very brief.


Mr. Lyle Dean MacWilliam (Okanagan-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, I also would like to rise on this point of privilege dealing with the inexcusable actions of the chairman of the House finance committee as a result of last evening's events. We have already heard very eloquent arguments in the House regarding the fact that a motion before the House or committee can in fact not be withdrawn without unanimous consent.
As well, the Standing Orders essentially do not provide for the kind of arbitrary and indiscriminate unilateral actions that the chairman of the committee had presented last evening.
I would like to present argument and construct argument as to why the actions of the chair of the finance committee in fact frustrated my abilities as the member

of Parliament for Okanagan-Shuswap to adequately represent the views of my constituents.


Mr. Speaker:: May I ask the hon. member if it is going to add anything to what has already been put. The hon. member has some knowledge of procedure and knows that there comes a point when sitting in a judicial capacity there is no need to repeat matters. I know the hon. member would want me to ask him to make the usual remarks about putting the usual motion, to be in order, but I think that at this point the hon. member could say he associates himself with the very able arguments that have been given, and not take up further time.
There is a question of fair play in these matters and I must turn to some other members.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Mr. Speaker, I fully understand the need for brevity. I did want to present some evidence that is pertinent to the case, demonstrating the fact that my ability to represent my particular constituents in this matter was in fact short circuited, if you like.
I want to present to you evidence of a letter that I had written the Chair of the finance committee sometime back in February, requesting that as a result of submissions that were made to me as representative of the constituency of Okanagan-Shuswap, I appear as a witness before the finance committee on behalf of a number of organizations that had submitted to me written briefs outlining their concerns about the goods and services tax. I therefore wrote the chairman of the finance committee to appeal his consideration that I appear before the committee to provide such evidence.
In that regard I had a letter of return from the Chair of the finance committee thanking me for my letter and essentially going on record as saying that if I as the member of Parliament for Okanagan-Shuswap would provide the committee with a written summary of concerns, he as Chair of the committee would do what he could to ensure that the submittees of the concerns that were submitted to me would hopefully be allowed an opportunity to appear as witnesses.
I in fact carried out those requirements by providing the committee with a summary of those submissions. Although I have essentially honoured the request of the chairman of the finance committee, his actions as of last
Privilege
night essentially denied the final opportunity to allow presenters from my constituency to appear as witnesses.


Mr. Speaker:: I must advise the hon. member that this aspect of his complaint has been dealt with many times in this House and I have to say that that is not something on which the Chair can intervene.
There may have been other constituents that, as a consequence of this order or as a consequence of some order in the distant future, it is decided by the committee that they do not appear. But that is not a matter in which the Chair can intervene.
The hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier. I would ask him to wrap up his remarks very quickly. I know he will co-operate.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I have not even started yet, but I am going to wrap them up quickly. You can be sure of that.
I do hope we do not create a precedent here that just because one gets a letter in to the Speaker one can speak on the question of privilege before the House, which was the original question put by the member for Burin-St. George's. Just because one sends a letter to the Speaker does not mean that he gets into the debate on that question ahead of other people who may have a valid point of privilege or discussion point to make in support of his point. I hope there is no precedent because if there are, Mr. Speaker, I think we should come back and have a debate on how we are going to proceed.


Mr. Speaker:: I must make a comment. Until I have heard the member who applies on privilege, I cannot decide that. However, I am much heartened by the hon. member's comment that it ought not be a precedent.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I come back, Mr. Speaker, to the original question we started debating about an hour and some minutes ago put by the member for Burin-St. George's, at which time he made three very good arguments. I thought the wisdom of his arguments very convincing. He made the point that no authority was given to the chairperson to deem the motion before the committee withdrawn.
Second, he said that there was no authority in the chairman's role to disallow points of order at that time. Third, he said that the chairperson had no authority to disallow debate on those points.

Privilege
Now I will address three points. The first point is the chairperson's role. In my view he exceeded his authority, therefore impeding the privilege of the members.
The second point is procedure in committee where in my view, and in the view of many of us, the committee rules were not followed since they are mutatis mutandis applied by House of Commons rules in committee except for what are the exceptions in our Standing Orders and as Beauchesne's suggests in citation 569 regarding rules of the House.
Finally, I want to argue about the use of closure and time allocation. If the rules of the House apply in committee, surely only a minister or his representative, the parliamentary secretary, could use that procedure to close off debate. A minister standing in his place in the House must be the only person in the House who can move such a motion. If that applies in committee then we have to make sure that we understand the procedure.
I will speak first to the point that in our view the chairperson exceeded his authority last night. The rules of the House apply, as I said. In general we all agree that the chairperson, be it the Speaker or the chairperson of a committee, is mute. That is, he or she does not participate in debate, and if he or she cannot speak in debate in the House or in committee I ask how a member chairing a committee could introduce a time allocation motion, or a closure motion, or any motion for that matter.
As a matter of fact until I read the transcript of last night I was somewhat taken aback by that procedure. I read the comments made in committee following a comment by the member for Sudbury. She said: "I am under the impression that the reason you bring in closure is because you want to stifle debate." The chairman of the committee said: "No, it is time allocation."
So the chairperson himself validates my point by saying he is bringing in a time allocation motion. I suspect that in doing so he was trying to act for other interests, not the interests of the committee. He was trying to stifle debate by introducing something which in our view he had no business and no authority to introduce.
If one compares the motion put earlier that day by a member of the committee, it possibly indicated to the
committee that there was a disposition of the government to put in a time allocation motion. The motion put by the member for Ontario was indeed copied quite closely by the chairman at that time and put to the committee, with a small exception that no witnesses be heard.
Mr. Speaker, I put it to you sincerely that chairpersons have no authority to put a time allocation or closure motion. Having said that I will pass on to my second point.
It is our point of view that the time allocation motion put by the chairperson, the member for Mississauga South, was out of order. Not only did he not entertain points of order, and rule them out of order, but he also in our opinion had no authority to put that motion.
The procedure utilized yesterday for the chairperson to entertain motions was argued intelligently and convincingly by previous members. I thought that the arguments put to you were convincing.
I refer you to Standing Order 117 and I will read it:
The Chairman of a standing, special or legislative committee shall maintain order in the committee, deciding all questions of order subject to an appeal to the committee; but disorder in a committee can only be censured by the House, on receiving a report thereof.
It is our opinion that the chairperson extended his authority last night, and went beyond what is normally the authority of the chair. If the principle is that any means justifies any end, then of course we are into difficult problems. And if anybody understands what happened in that committee, it is those who were there for the 30-odd-hours, debating points of order and trying to get reasonable arguments before the committee.
I will not prolong my points on the procedures before the committee, because without having to quote you, Mr. Speaker, which I know you would not appreciate, I think you made the point in 1984 that only the government can propose to a committee a time allocation or a closure motion. Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to consider the arguments which have been made this afternoon, in a serious manner as usual, and report as soon as possible.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the hon. member. The hon. member for Edmonton Northwest.


Mr. Murray W. Dorin (Edmonton Northwest):: Mr. Speaker, having been a participant in the committee during the period in question and even longer, I would submit that in fact there is no question of privilege involved here.
There may be a point of order about procedure because, as has been mentioned by others earlier, there is no doubt that from time to time the procedure in that particular committee, and I would argue in all committees, does not exactly follow all of the established procedures. However, as has been stated before, the fact is that committees are masters of their own destiny and whether or not anything occurred in that committee to be of such a serious nature that someone's privilege has been violated.


An Hon. Member:: He already ruled on that. He said he could.


Murray Dorin: I realize that. This is the issue. I listened while you made your point.
What occurred last night in the finance committee, as has been noted by others, was based on a somewhat similar situation which occurred in the justice committee, which you, Mr. Speaker, have acknowledged you are familiar with, having been a member of the committee at that time.
The chairman of the finance committee may not be quite so eloquent as the chairman of the justice committee, Mr. Lachance, was at that time. The current finance committee chairman, the hon. member for Mississauga South, is not noted for eloquence, but he did in fact invoke a very similar procedure.


Mr. Milliken:: And he had the honour to resign.


Murray Dorin: I will deal with that shortly.
I would just like to point out that in events leading up to this particular measure, we had a number of occasions where procedures of the committee were held up for a variety of reasons. For example, the proceeding of the committee governing the holding and conduct of meetings, as adopted by the committee on April 19, 1989, simply states that the chairman be authorized to hold meetings to receive and authorize the printing of evidence, when a quorum is not present. It is the chairman
Privilege
alone, which I acknowledge is somewhat different from many other committees of this House.
That procedure was followed in fact prior to the bill being referred to the committee when on Wednesday, January 31, finance committee MPs agreed in an in camera meeting that should the bill be referred, the chairman would be authorized to call meetings for February 12 and February 13.
When that bill was referred to the committee on Wednesday, February 7, those meetings were called. Following that, the first public meeting was called on Wednesday, February 19, at which time two members, who are not usual members of the committee, appeared and called into question the authority of the committee to conduct those meetings with the witnesses that had been organized for that day.
At that time the hon. member for Nickel Belt stated that the committee could not proceed at that time, and that the only way it could proceed was by a motion of the steering committee, laying out the procedures and the witnesses. All of these things are laid out and are passed by recorded motion. There is then a report to the full committee and the full committee determines the action. That is the proper procedure.
Following that, there was a considerable amount of debate and meetings, which I will not go through, and another filibuster which resulted in a procedural motion being adopted that provided for televised hearings of witnesses and also provided for two weeks of witnesses.


Steven W. Langdon: Not true. Two weeks was not the motion.


Murray Dorin: At the end of that time and during that final week-


Steven W. Langdon: Be accurate.


Murray Dorin: The committee members asked that any other witnesses to be heard be called and advised any members who had additional witnesses that they wanted heard to submit those names to the staff of the committee so it could be organized.
We were in the final time of completing hearing of the witnesses. We had circulated during the previous week a motion for procedure that suggested an additional 10 days to be given for consideration of the bill. We circulated the motion the previous week. We suggested

March 21, 1990
Privilege
we would like acknowledgement by noon on Monday this past week, or some form of response as to how we might proceed, having been told that we must have some motion officially on the floor. Because we had no response, that motion to provide for an additional 10 days was put forward by the member for Ontario. That involved 30 hours of debate, at which time the chairman invoked the procedure, as you well know.
The question at the time was whether members of the committee would be allowed to be involved and put amendments which they might have. As has been aptly noted, there is a provision whereby the government could invoke Standing Order 78(3), where that procedure is provided for. That procedure in effect takes authority away from the committee.


John R. Rodriguez: It is legal.


Murray Dorin: Therefore, I would argue that what is involved here is that the committee was endeavouring to retain control over its own procedure and in doing so, while there may be questions of order or procedure, there has not been any-


Mr. Speaker:: Just a minute. I would ask hon. members to my left to remember that a great deal of patience has been exercised in allowing those arguments to be put. I will hear the hon. member. I do not think he needs to go on too much longer, but I will hear him.


Murray Dorin: Mr. Speaker, I have completed my remarks.


Mr. Speaker:: I know the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands usually makes a very good contribution, but I think I have heard enough. I will take this matter away. I will consider it very carefully and report back to the House as soon as possible.
The hon. member for Kamloops has a question of privilege. He may have had a communication from his right hon. friend who has had to leave. Under the circumstances, especially given the comments of the hon. member for Kamloops, the right hon. gentleman should be present, and I would be prepared to move this over to another time when he can be here. He did stay until just a few minutes ago. I would ask the hon. member if he would co-operate in that.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, under normal circumstances, I would be more than pleased to but I have commitments in the next couple of days that
will make it difficult. I think it is appropriate that this is raised at the earliest opportunity.
Before I raise the point, there is another point of privilege that ought to take precedence over mine.


Mr. Speaker:: Once an application is made and it is in order, I think the Speaker has some discretion, especially when I have some indication of what it is about, as to when I will hear it. I would prefer that the right hon. gentleman was here in the Chamber. This is a practice that I have established for both sides of the House. Perhaps, the hon. member for Kamloops could consider his position.
There is another point of privilege and I am looking to the floor. The hon. member for Saanich-Gulf Islands.


BILL C-56
Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich-Gulf Islands):: Thank you for your patience, Mr. Speaker, in hearing all the points of privilege today. I know that this is a long and trying day for you. We all have had long and trying days this past week. I rise on this point of privilege arising from debate-


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member and others will be able to shorten this long and trying day. Will the hon. member please continue.


Lynn Hunter: This point of privilege arises from the debate in the House yesterday on Bill C-56, the amendment to the Small Business Loans Act. I bring this important question to your attention at this earliest opportunity as is required by the rules of the House.
My question of privilege concerns a ruling by the Acting Speaker which I believe infringed on my ability as a member of Parliament to do the job I was elected to do, that of representing my constituents. The bill being debated was of great concern to the small business community in my riding. The timing of the debate was crucial. As we have seen with the number of points of privilege that you had before you today, the mood in this place is of such a nature that cutting off debate was not the thing to do at the time.
I wanted to speak on this bill. However, I was denied that right as a result of an error by the Chair. At the conclusion of the remarks by the member for Saint-Leo-nard yesterday the Acting Speaker asked if the House
March 21, 1990

was ready for the question without calling for further debate. I had risen a number of times previously and although Hansard did not indicate it, the Speaker indicated by her body language that she had known that I wished to speak. As you are so capable of doing, Mr. Speaker, one knows when people want to speak.
When I rose at the time to question the ruling of the Acting Speaker, she told the House that she had indeed asked for further debate. I was not convinced that was the case at the time and a review of the televised proceedings bears that out, as does Hansard.
I refer you to page 9557 of Hansard. At the conclusion of the remarks of the member for Saint-Leonard the Acting Speaker says:
Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members say: "Question".
The Acting Speaker then says:
The question is as follows: Mr. Hockin, seconded by Mr. Clark
(Yellowhead), moved that Bill C-56, an act to amend the Small -
At that point I was on my feet and had been on my feet. I was dressed in a bright red jacket. I am not in any way, I think, unnoticeable in this House, as some of my colleagues may be, particularly the member for Mission-Coquitlam. I think I was quite visible. At that point I interjected and said: "On debate." The Acting Speaker then said:
I did ask if there was anyone for debate and nobody rose.
At that point I was quite incensed, Mr. Speaker. I said:
Point of order, Madam Speaker.
I leave you to read the transcript, Mr. Speaker. I believe that my ability as a member of Parliament has been infringed upon. I was elected to represent my constituents. The timing of this debate on the Small Businesses Loans Act was crucial for my constituents. It was concurrent with the filibuster that was occurring in the GST committee and the mood of this House indicated that more debate was needed on this matter. I am aware that you can correct many things, Mr. Speaker, but turning back the clock is not one of them.
Privilege
I am asking on this point of privilege for some acknowledgement of the fact that my rights as a member have been infringed upon.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member rising on the same point?


Mr. Whittaker:: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: Very brief.


John R. (Jack) Whittaker: Mr. Speaker, I was present at that time. I just point out that at page 9557, in addition to what the hon. member has already told you, part way down the left hand column the Acting Speaker said: "There is a minute left on questions. The hon. member."
I believe there is something left out of the transcript just prior to that. In reviewing the video Your Honour will see that at that stage she did ask: "On debate?" Sitting in this comer, I did see the hon. member rise indicating at that stage that she was on debate. I think that that may assist Your Honour, if he goes back and looks, in reaching a decision.


Mr. Speaker:: Ordinarily I would have to say that this does not seem, prima facie, a question of privilege. It is certainly a complaint, and the hon. member has referred to it as an error. There is of course now, under the rules, no appeal from a Speaker's ruling.
I must say to the hon. member that I regret very much that, if she wished to be heard in debate, something happened that made that impossible.
I will consider the matter. I do not think I can remedy the situation but I will, in view of the comments that have been made, consider the matter. I do not think there is any need for me to report back to the House. I know that all hon. members are concerned if someone wished to speak and, for whatever reason, an error or an oversight or something else, that did not happen.
I take the hon. member's complaint seriously, and I will consider it. I thank the hon. member for her brevity.
Could the member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca indicate what his point is? Then I will turn to the hon. member for Essex-Windsor.

March 21, 1990
Privilege


Mr. Barrett:: Mr. Speaker, my point is separate and distinct from any other point that has been raised this afternoon.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Essex-Windsor.


FINANCE COMMITTEE
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in my previous discussion of what took place in the committee, I wanted to raise as a question of privilege-and I gave notice this morning with respect to this-the actions of the member for Longueuil with respect to certain calls for the police during the period that the finance committee was meeting.
If I could proceed briefly-


Mr. Speaker:: As I say, I have reserved the hon. member's right to make this argument.
I wonder if the hon. member would co-operate with the Chair and let me read that transcript very carefully. There is also a tape which I can look at. As soon as I have a chance to do that, I might indicate to the hon. member for Essex-Windsor at an appropriate time, perhaps tomorrow, when that matter could be raised and argued. It may be necessary for some reply. I do not know.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to indicate that this seems quite a satisfactory procedure since it will give us time as well to find the "blues" for the committee for that particular period.
I did want to note, however, that this was not simply a gesture, an irritated shout. It was a series of comments.


Mr. Speaker:: I certainly take it from the hon. member that he believes it is a serious matter. I will hear him at an appropriate time. I will contact the hon. member.
The hon. member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca wishes to rise, but on what?


David Barrett: Mr. Speaker, I wish to rise on a question of privilege of which I gave you notification earlier. I think it is in your hands. It may have been confused with all the others on the earlier point.


Mr. Speaker:: I must say to the hon. member that I have in front of me an application on a point of privilege and I take it that is what the hon. member is referring to.


DEMONSTRATIONS ON PARLIAMENT HILL
David Barrett: My
point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, is related to a matter of privilege that I raised last Monday with regard to my conversation with a certain Mr. Kealey on the front steps. As you will know, because the matter has been brought to your attention, myself and the member for Carleton-Gloucester were in a conversation with Mr. Kealey and Mr. Kealey at that moment, while in the midst of a conversation, was taken away from our presence and escorted to jail.
He was escorted to jail in the company of Father Van Hee. Now both of these citizens are in prison which, of course, normally is a matter of the courts. But it has come to my attention that they are being housed in a 14-prisoner-capacity cell. The reason I link this to the point of privilege is that as a consequence of our actions we are morally bound with the experience of those two citizens.
It has come to my attention that there was almost an altercation in the cell this afternoon, that Father Van Hee, who is in the cell at the pleasure of some charge by the government related to my point of privilege, was under physical threat. Fortunately, no violence has taken place against Father Van Hee but when the threat to Father Van Hee was brought to the attention of the authorities in the institution, Father Van Hee was to told, and I quote, that the only option is "to play it cool or we can put him in solitary confinement for his own protection".
I am asking the Chair to consider in this case action from the Chair for habeas corpus to get these two people out of a situation that is not normal within their frame of experience, particularly the priest. Nothing has happened yet but I am concerned for the safety of the priest in the circumstances that exist and I want to bring it to the Chair's attention because of my earlier question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: While I appreciate the hon. member's point, it is not a question of privilege. The hon. member
March 21, 1990

Routine Proceedings
has used the occasion to inform the House of an event outside this House. It may well be that, having mentioned it, others may be able to intervene in some useful way. But I do not think we can pursue it any further at this time.
That concludes the questions of privilege.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table, in both official languages, a number of Order in Council appointments which were made by the government.
Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 110(1), they are deemed to be referred to the appropriate standing committees, a list of which is attached.
While I am on my feet I move:
That the House do now proceed to Orders of the Day.


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 will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will 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.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 57, I move:
That the debate on the motion for third reading of Bill C-48, an act to amend the Crop Insurance Act, and on any amendment proposed thereto shall not be further adjourned.


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 will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will 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.
March 21, 1990




[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thesday, March 20, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mazankowski that Bill C-48, an act to amend the Crop Insurance Act, be read a third time and passed, and the amendment of Mr. Funk (p. 9523).
Mr. Speaker:: Debate?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Government Orders


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment negatived.
The next question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
Bill read the third time and passed.


Mr. Speaker:: It being 6.25 p.m., the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.25 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
§
[Stage Direction]
i
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, March 22,1990