Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):

Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Right Hon. Prime Minister. A few days ago, he met with all the leadership candidates to ensure that there would be no breach in Cabinet solidarity and also, I believe, to set some guidelines for the conduct and liberty of action of those ministers who are candidates for the leadership. Yesterday, the Minister of Labour ferociously criticized the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and former President of the Treasury Board, when he said that he was largely to blame for the problems the Minister of Agriculture had with milk quotas in 1976.

Can the Right Hon. Prime Minister tell the House today whether he feels that the Minister of Labour is to be censured for taking such a stand? I think that all Canadian farmers and dairy producers would be very glad to know was actually responsible for the problems they had in 1976.

Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):

Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member had the courtesy, as opposed to his colleague from Ontario, to send me something in writing about the matter which worried him. I would like to thank him for this. He sent me a clipping from the Canadian Press which has one sentence between quotation marks. I do not know whether the quote is accurate. I could check on it, but, for the moment, I shall simply read it:

Mr. Chretien was at the origin of Mr. Whelan's problems in 1976.

Concerning the problems with the milk quotas, this looks to me like a product of the reporter's imagination since he says that this may be what the Minister was talking about. I see

April 18, 1984

nothing here which would justify the Hon. Member in saying that this is what the Minister of Labour meant. He referred to a problem in 1976. What problems did the Minister of Agriculture have in 1976? If he is like everyone else, he must have had many! Are they problems which come under his ministerial responsibility? I really cannot say. However, on the basis of this article, I do not see why anyone should be concerned, least of all the Hon. Member for La Salle, or rather Joliette.

Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):

The Right Hon. Prime Minister is well aware that the constituency of Joliette is La Salle's constituency.

Mr. Speaker, I can well understand that the Prime Minister does not want to look at this article seriously. In fact, I sent him the press clipping because I did not want to hear him say that he knew nothing about this statement. Obviously, the Minister of Labour ferociously criticized his colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and former President of the Treasury Board, right in front of the press.

The Prime Minister recalls quite well the problems that come up in 1976 because of a reduction in dairy production. In view of the circumstances and because of the importance of the leadership race in which the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is a candidate, does the Prime Minister find it appropriate for the Minister of Labour to blame, in a manner I would call disgraceful, his colleague for the problems which came up in 1976 and for which the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is supposed to have been mainly responsible as President of the Treasury Board? What do the guidelines on Cabinet solidarity specifically prescribe? Will the Prime Minister feel like giving his Minister of Labour a good dressing-down or does he find it normal and helpful for the sake of Government management that his Ministers should tear each other's eyes out in public?

Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):

Mr. Speaker, 1 am greatly touched by the concern expressed by the Hon. Member for Joliette. He worries about solidarity on this side of the House. I am very thankful for this and consider it another indication that he is quietly withdrawing from his party to sit as an independent. In fact, this does not surprise me since we all recall that, a few years ago, he decided to cross the floor of the House to sit as an independent Member because of the hypocrisy displayed by his party concerning the language issue.

This having been said, Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member used words like "disgraceful" and "ferociously criticized". He added nothing to the problems I raised. Mr. Chretien, or rather Mr. Ouellet was quoted as making the statement to which I have referred. Concerning the milk problem and other issues, there is nothing to show that this is what Mr. Ouellet was referring to. He said exactly this:

Oral Questions

Mr. Chretien was at the origin of Mr. Whelan's problems in 1976. [Translation]

What problem? Mr. Whelan had many problems in those days; so did I and so did the Hon. Member. I shall therefore have to see what it is all about, I mean, whether this is the newspaper's or the Hon. Member's interpretation, or whether Mr. Ouellet actually made these accusations, in which case, I shall have the opportunity to study them.

Mr. Speaker:

One last supplementary.

Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):

First, Mr. Speaker, let me say that the Prime Minister is no longer as clear-sighted as he used to be, for I have no intention of leaving my Party.

The question is this: it seems that the Prime Minister does not give much credence to that statement. Could the Prime Minister make a small effort-and I know he can do that and remember-he remembers very well the unrelenting fight of dairy producers against the Minister of Agriculture over the 1976 milk quota cutbacks. Could the Prime Minister tell us quite simply today whether his Minister of Labour's statement is true? Farmers and dairy producers would like to know if the then President of the Treasury Board was indeed responsible for those policies.

Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):

Mr. Speaker, according to the newspaper clipping which the Hon. Member himself sent me, Mr. Ouellet said a sentence which 1 will repeat for the third time:

Mr. Chretien was at the origin of Mr. Whelan's problems in 1976.

What problem? Which problem? Which of Mr. Whelan's many problems?

Oh, oh!

Hear, hear!

Mr. Dick:

Leader problems.

Mr. Trudeau:

The Member of Parliament is specifying a problem. He assumes that is the one Mr. Ouellet talked about. I repeat to him: do we know what Mr. Ouellet talked about? I went on to say that we all have problems. The Hon. Member has had problems with his own Party, for gosh sakes. Now he says he still wants to sit there. I said, Mr. Speaker, I will try and find out what Mr. Ouellet said. Nothing can be more fair than that. I think it is less than fair, when the Hon. Member assumes that, when he was talking of problems, he was talking of specific problems, and that is what the press is doing too.

April 18, 1984

Oral Questions CRIMINAL CODE

Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice. The Toronto police have reported that snuff video films that show an actual murder for entertainment are being rented out to children as young as 12 years of age. Is the Minister aware of this explosion of video films that peddle obscene violence? If the Minister is aware, and if he respects the opinion of police who say that we have lost control over pornography in the video boom, is the Minister taking time out of his leadership campaign for urgent action to help stop or curtail this culture of commercialized murder for fun?

Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Minister of Justice):

Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell the Hon. Member that we are way ahead of him. The amendments which I have introduced to the Criminal Code will deal very explicitly with pornography, violence, and cruelty. I would suggest to all Hon. Members on the other side that if they co-operated in getting Bill C-19 through, we would have an earlier end to this problem.

Mr. Heap:

It is not as simple as that. I am sorry that the Minister does not consider either the urgency of this Bill or the fact that he could have taken action much sooner.

It reminds me of how, six years ago, it took the murder of a 12-year old boy in Toronto to sting senior government Members into some kind of action on a similar problem.

Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):

Mr. Speaker, nearly a year ago the Minister introduced a draft Bill on this very subject. If he had introduced it as a Bill, as legislation last fall, instead of it only being a draft, it would have been passed with widespread support and could now be used by the police.

Instead of introducing it when he could have done so, why did the Minister choose to bury it along with 306 pages of detail in the Criminal Code amendments? We do not know when he and his committee will be able to get it passed. Why did he not proceed with that one specific amendment which would have had immense support across the country?

Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Minister of Justice):

Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman well knows that because of Opposition obstruction last year to our legislation, we were not introducing new legislation. We were awaiting the end of the session and the new Speech from the Throne. This legislation has now been before the House for over two months, and we have yet to have any enouragement from his Party in getting it through.