Agreed.

No.

Mr. Speaker:

There is not unanimity. The motion cannot be put.

Mr. Ron Atkey (St. Paul's) moved

for leave to introduce Bill C-283, to amend the Prisons and Reformatories Act.

Explain.

Mr. Atkey:

Mr. Speaker, the Prisons and Reformatories Act provides for the imposition of sentences of definite and indeterminate terms on young offenders in British Columbia and in Ontario for offences under the Criminal Code which in the aggregate can exceed the maximum term fixed by the Code for these offenders.

The purpose of the Prisons and Reformatories Act is to reform and train young offenders and not to impose harsher punishment upon young offenders in British Columbia and Ontario. However, this appears to be the effect of this legislation at the present time as it has been interpreted by the Supreme Court of Canada in the recent Burnshine decision, and just as justice should appear to be done-

Mr. Speaker:

Order, please. I have to interrupt the hon. member to remind him that under the terms of Standing Order 68 he can only give a brief explanation and indication to the House of what the subject of the bill is. He should not make a speech on first reading. Perhaps the hon. member will limit his remarks to that aspect of the matter.

Mr. Atkey:

In one sentence, Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to clarify what appears to be an anomaly by putting before parliament an amendment to the Prisons and Reformatories Act so that parliament may make the decision, in the context of that act, as to what constitutes equality before the law as contained in the Canadian Bill of Rights.

Mr. Peter Reilly (Ottawa West):

Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 26 I ask permission to make a motion to adjourn the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the persistence of the government of Canada in continuing to publish and to cause one of its agencies to disseminate and keep for sale a pamphlet, some of whose statements contain grave errors in fact and are in direct contradiction of articles of the British North America Act and the National Capital Act, and which statements are being promulgated to citizens of Canada as government policy despite the fact that a minister of the Crown has described the contents of the pamphlet as unfortunate and not representative of the policy of the government.

Mr. Speaker:

The hon. member for Ottawa West has sent the notice required under the provisions of Standing Order 26, which has given the Chair an opportunity to consider the interesting suggestion to be raised by the hon. member. I wish to thank him for his courtesy in providing the Chair with extensive background notes which have been of value in considering whether the ordinary business of the House should be set aside by virtue of the provisions of Standing Order 26.

As hon. members know, the criteria to be taken into consideration by the Chair in making a decision under the terms of Standing Order 26 are basically to be found in the Standing Order itself. In addition, decisions have been made from time to time which may give some indication as to some of the factors to be taken into consideration in reaching this kind of decision.

One of the main problems facing the Chair is to be found in the wording of Section 16(a) of the Standing Order which states clearly that "the matter proposed for discussion must relate to a genuine emergency, calling for immediate and urgent consideration". In my opinion, the test of a genuine emergency calling for immediate and urgent consideration is one which can only be overcome in relatively extreme circumstances. Is the question submitted by the hon. member a genuine emergency? I would find it difficult to hold that it is, particularly as the matter was first brought to the attention of the House last Wednesday, almost a week ago. I might say that there appears on the notice paper a question, No. 872, in the name of the hon. member for Leeds bearing on the same subject.

Another factor that must be considered by the Chair in arriving at a conclusion on the acceptability of a motion under Standing Order 26 has to do with other opportunities for debate. As the hon. member knows, section 5 of Standing Order 26 sets up a number of considerations to be borne in mind, and one of them is that the Speaker shall have regard to the probability of the matter being brought before the House within a reasonable time by other means.

April 30, 1974

An announcement has already been made by the government that the House is to enter into debate on the budget of the Minister of Finance, with the presentation of that budget to be made on Monday next. In view of the fact that six and one half days will be allocated in the ordinary course of events to the budget debate, coupled with an additional 13 days which will be made available for supply proceedings, it follows that every second sitting day between now and June 26 will be a non-legislative day providing opportunities to debate important and urgent issues at the initiative of hon. members of the House. The Chair must conclude that one and perhaps two of the basic requirements of Standing Order 26 are not met in the present circumstances.

In view of what I have said and taking into account all the circumstances, including both the provision of the Standing Order and the practice, I do not think the Chair is at liberty to propose a motion for the adjournment of the House this day to discuss the matter raised by the hon. member for Ottawa West.

Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):

Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance relating to the Economic Review tabled by the minister yesterday which shows that the share of labour income fell to 70 per cent of the net national income for 1973 from the exceptionally high shares of 1971 and 1972. Is it the position of the minister that the working people got a more proper share of the net national income last year than previously? If so, does last year's proportion which was received by the working people of Canada represent the basis for economic policy for 1974?

Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):

Not necessarily, Mr. Speaker. That statement is merely a statement of fact in the Economic Review.

Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):

Mr. Speaker, the report explains why the minister does not use the consumer price index to calculate real personal disposable income. The report states as follows:

... the CPI does not allow for shifts by consumers toward less expensive goods and services as price structures change.

Is it the view of the minister that real incomes actually rise as Canadians shift to less expensive goods as more and more of the goods they used to buy are priced beyond their reach?

Oral Questions

Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):

Mr. Speaker, I would put it a little more simply. Probably the widest indicator of the movement of prices in this country is the GNE deflator against which the calculation of personal disposable income is made. The CPI does have certain limitations in economic terms, such as were set forth in the Economic Review.