1987-01-23

Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) has made an unprecedented attack on a Toronto environmental lawyer who criticized his environmental protection draft Bill. In a letter sent to some environment groups, and some members of the news media, the Minister accused Toby Vigod of the Canadian Environmental Law Association of being "factually wrong" when she criticized his draft law.
In an interview, Ms. Vigod and other environmentalists said that they could not recall a federal Environment Minister launching such a public attack on an environmental figure for criticisms of the Minister's work. "He seems very defensive of a Bill which is only a draft Bill," Ms. Vigod said. "We are willing to sit down with him and suggest changes." A spokesman for the Minister said the Minister had offered to meet with Ms. Vigod and that he wanted "to smooth things out".
This temper tantrum by the Minister is pathetic, considering his Government's promises of openness, consensus-building, and consultation.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, farmers who grew speciality crops like mustard, peas, lentils, tomatoes, et cetera, received no assistance from the billion dollar aid package this year. Hon. Members should be aware that 900,000 acres were seeded to these crops in Saskatchewan alone last year.
The Government has indicated that speciality crop prices do not follow wheat, corn, and soya bean pricing and therefore were unaffected by the U.S. Farm Bill. However, how does it
explain the price declines of more than 30 per cent in virtually all these so-called contract crops? Yellow mustard has fallen from $15 per hundredweight to $9.50 per hundredweight; canary seed from $12 per hundredweight to $8 per hundredweight; and lentils from $22 to $16, all since the decline in grain prices precipitated by the U.S. Farm Bill.
I call upon the Government to include specialty crops in any remaining aid yet to come, the $700 million, to be fair in its allocations from now on, and to include all crops affected by the U.S. Farm Bill.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Fernand Jourdenais (La Prairie):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder why the New Democrats and the Liberals have set their sights on a single target these past few days. Why are they so intent on conducting a negative opposition campaign against on the RCMP investigation into the Oerlikon affair?
Hopefully, Mr. Speaker, they are not putting up a smoke screen so that Canadians might be blind to the fact that the deficit has been declining steadily since the Conservative Party took office. Our Government has taken the necessary steps and the deficit has already been reduced by $10 billion.

The Opposition does not want Canadians to know that the Bank of Canada rate has fallen to its lowest level in 10 years or that five-year mortgage rates are down 3.5 percentage points to 10.75 per cent, a savings of $116 per month or almost $7,000 over five years on a $50,000 loan.
Employment is up, unemployment is down. The number of Canadians living below the Statistics Canada poverty line declined by over a quarter of a million people, the first such decline since 1981.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, this Government's avowed objective is to manage the country on a sound economic basis, a fact to which a number of financial institutions have been attesting all along. We have been doing very well until now, so the Opposition Parties may indeed scream and talk rubbish about any issue which strikes their fancy.

January 23, 1987
Mr. Speaker, you may rest assured that Canadians are fully aware of the significant issues on which they will cast their ballots at the next election, and we will be re-elected.


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member but his allotted time has expired.


DAY CARE
Mr. Ross Belsher (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, last week opposition Members were calling for the resignation of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) for a statement which he was supposed to have made in an interview. It is the height of irresponsibility for those opposition Members to mislead the public on this matter.
The Minister, in replying to a question on whether he felt day care was the best stimulation for children, actually said: "nothing is exclusive" and "for some children, day care is the best stimulation, but one should not dismiss that for some other children the best stimulation is the parental home".
Both opposition Parties, with the support of unions, day care advocates, and feminists, are claiming that a universal day care system is needed. Yet, all across the country in our hearings many other people have come forward and said that universal day care was not the answer but that there was a need for day care and that the Government should help those who need help.
Let us not fall into the trap set by the socialists on the other side of the House who see universal day care as the cure-all for all problems. I, for one, am hopeful that the parliamentary committee, which will report at the end of March, can give the Government the necessary direction on how to treat this very crucial issue.


HOLLAND COLLEGE MARINE CENTRE
Mr. George Henderson (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, the future of the Holland College Marine Centre in Summerside, Prince Edward Island, is in jeopardy because of the Government's plan to remove deck officers from the list of CEIC designated occupations for 1987-88.
This Marine Centre was built with CEIC funding some 17 years ago. Over the years it has acquired an excellent reputation with its highly qualified instructors and its up to date equipment. In 1985, 90 per cent of the students who took navigation courses obtained employment.
If accepted, the proposal would force the Marine Centre to close. This is completely unacceptable to the citizens of Prince Edward Island.
I call upon, in fact I demand the Minister to reject this misguided plan and reinstate navigation courses on the list of designated occupations for training at the institution.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, interest rates are falling again. The prime lending rate of chartered banks is now down to 9.25 per cent as compared with a high of 22 per cent under the former Liberal Government. That is good news because it means more people can afford to buy homes, more people can afford to buy cars, more businesses can afford to invest, and more jobs will be created.
However, for some Canadians, especially senior citizens living on their savings, falling interest rates are a worry. For them it means lower incomes at a time when taxes are increasing and the cost of living, albeit more modestly than before, is still increasing.
Seniors are worried as well by rumours that their incomes will be reduced even further by the elimination of the $1,000 investment income tax deduction. I hope the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) will bear their concerns in mind as he prepares his 1987 Budget.

[DOT] (mo)


CROWN CORPORATIONS
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, our Party believes that Canadian taxpayers received far too little for the sell-out of Canadair to Bombardier. Now suspicion over the sale must be increased by one of the senior officials dealing with the sale, the Associate Deputy Minister of DRIE, moving to a senior position with Bombardier. I call on the Minister responsible for DRIE to give the House a full report as urgently as possible of all dealings this official had with the Canadair sale through all its stages. I also call on the Government to stop such direct moves of senior officials to private firms that have benefited from the Government, as in the Oerlikon case and now with Bombardier.
January 23, 1987


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: As a result of our sound administration, Mr. Speaker, the Bank of Canada prime rate is now down to 7.75 per cent.
Interest rates soared as high as 22.75 per cent under the Liberal administration. Through endless borrowings the Liberals created such a strong monetary demand that they pushed interest rates to unprecedented levels.
It is not as if the funds they siphoned off to the detriment of Canadian developers, businessmen and others anxious to build houses had been directed towards economic expansion. No, Sir, they used the money to bribe the electors and create such as hoc employment programs as "Canada Works".
The socialists are just as guilty. In their quest for power- like the Liberals-they did not hesitate to shift our national debt of more than $250 billion onto the shoulders of our children and grandchildren.
Mr. Speaker, we are putting Canada's economy back on an even keel. Interest rates are acceptable, mortgage payments are manageable, and developers are launching new businesses which create jobs: 600,000 of them.
Mr. Speaker, we have every intention of steering this course despite the efforts of the Opposition to belittle such concrete results.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, the Government's recent decision to close the Canadian embassy in Helsinki, Finland, is a terrible blow to Finnish Canadians and a backward step for our country. It is especially unacceptable when it is being done to save money at a time when the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) spends millions of dollars for foreign junkets with huge entourages of his friends and cronies.
Sault Ste Marie has a large population of over 4,000 Finnish Canadians who have made a tremendous contribution to the city and to Canada. The Finnish Rest Home Association, for example, has built two excellent senior citizen housing facilities for 170 people. These Canadians are concerned about how consular services will be maintained for them with their families in Finland. Cultural ties between our two countries will be damaged by this move. Tourism will be hindered by this ill-conceived plan of the Government. Who will look after families who visit Finland in the future?
I call on the Government to rescind this order to close our Canadian embassy in Helsinki, Finland, which order is an insult to every Finnish Canadian.


AEROSPACE INDUSTRY
Mr. Felix Holtmann (Selkirk-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, Wednesday was a great day for Manitoba. It was announced in Winnipeg that Bristol Aerospace was awarded a $300 million contract to service a CF-5 fighter aircraft.
Speaking about the CF-5 contract, the company president of Bristol said:
It creates more business, it creates more jobs in the long haul.
More jobs and more business are important to every area of Canada. As the president of Bristol has stated, Manitoba will receive more jobs and more business as a result of the CF-5 contract. The president is confident that Bristol can win additional foreign contracts on CF-5 aircraft with the capabilities developed by his company under this contract. It is looking more and more that this contract could have a far greater benefit to Manitoba than the CF-18 contract which went to Canadair. Why all the fuss?


INDUSTRY
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, the workers and residents of the Hazelton area share my outrage about the enormous job loss proposed by Wes tar in closing the existing mill and opening a new mill at Carnaby this fall. According to federal government figures, the project will reduce direct mill jobs from 197 to 85. While the new mill will produce 200 million board feet to be sold to customers in Japan and the United Kingdom, thus avoiding the murderous 15 per cent Tory export tax, the hard-pressed Hazelton area will lose 112 vitally important mill jobs.
[DOT] (ms)
Since the federal Government is heavily involved in this project through a $4.5 million interest-free loan, I call on the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and all cabinet Ministers to take the necessary steps along with Westar to put together a plan to keep those 112 mill workers working after the closure of the old mill and opening of the new Carnaby mill.
These families, 75 per cent of whom are native, have built their economic lives around the forest industry and have paid mightily to the federal treasury and the profits of Westar. Let

January 23, 1987
Oral Questions
there be no misunderstanding. Westar and the Government had best take prompt action now because Hazelton and this Member will not take these kinds of job losses lying down.


CANADIAN SPACE AGENCY
Mr. David Daubney (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Standing Committee on Research, Science and Technology, I applaud the Government's announcement in the Speech from the Throne of the creation of a Canadian space agency. The space agency will essentially be a consolidation of personnel and facilities now existing in several government Departments and agencies all of which are located in the National Capital region. Accordingly, I urge the Government to establish the space agency in the Ottawa-Hull area.
It would be costly and counterproductive to move the approximately 200 people now working here in this field to another part of the country. Hon. Members should also be aware that the Canadian space industry is located in virtually all regions of the country. A neutral management centre here in the nation's capital, free of regional favouritism, is essential to the future development and growth of a cost-effective space industry. Much of Canada's space program activity also involves participation with other countries. In my view the nation's capital is clearly the natural and most cost-effective area in which to locate the head office of the new Canadian space agency.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians are being punished by the Government. Canadians are paying a 15 per cent tax on Canadian wood products because Washington wants it, and what Washington wants from this Government, it gets.
Canadians are being punished because of the inefficiency of the American sawmilling and processing industry. In terms of productivity, a Canadian worker in a sawmill in Canada averages 500,000 foot-board measure of lumber per year, but because of the inefficiency of the United States sawmilling industry an American sawmill worker averages only 300,000 foot-board measure per year.
Canadians are being punished because they are being more productive. They are being charged a 15 per cent tax not only on stumpage but on labour costs, sawmilling costs and processing costs, because of the inefficiency of the American
industry. This Government should be ashamed of itself for the way it is treating one of the main, staple resources of Canada.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. It appears from all media accounts that the Prime Minister's Office is selectively leaking information about the resignation of the former Minister of State for Transport and, indeed, about his wife. Why is this being done? What is its purpose? Does the Prime Minister not feel that that is manipulating justice and interfering with the judicial process and the police inquiry?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, of course I will not comment on any specific news report containing allegations, alleged information, or even straight-forward information. I would only say to my right hon. friend that the police who are conducting this full inquiry will, no doubt, if they feel that any action, alleged or otherwise, by anyone anywhere is inhibiting their investigation, pursue their investigation in that area.


PUBLIC INQUIRY-REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER TABLE LEGAL OPINION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister insisted that he wanted nothing to interfere with the police investigation. Yet it appears that members of his staff are, for political purposes, interfering with that process by selectively leaking information to the media. Because the Prime Minister read from some document yesterday and referred to a legal opinion from the law officers of the Crown, would he be willing to table that opinion from the law offices to the effect that a public inquiry would interfere with the police investigation? Would he also table the Order in Council, or whatever document was obtained, authorizing the RCMP to delve into this whole matter?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the notes yesterday, when Mr. Tellier visited with me to convey the opinion of law officers of the Crown I made notes of the advice he was conveying to me so I could impart it faithfully to the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition and other Members of the House. Those were my notes of the advice given us. The information was conveyed to me by the Clerk of the Privy Council and his chief legal adviser verbally and that was the information I conveyed to the
January 23, 1987

House. I hope that answers the question of my right hon. friend. If there is anything else, I would be happy to answer.


OERLIKON LAND TRANSACTION-REQUEST FOR PUBLIC INQUIRY
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I suspect that after the Prime Minister's statement in the House yesterday the law officers of the Crown and the Privy Council Office are scrambling to get their written documentation in order, but we in this House would very much like to see a copy of that legal opinion to justify the Prime Minister's position yesterday.

Mr. Speaker, doesn't the Prime Minister understand that selectively leaking information in the form of rumours may prejudice and harm the chances of anyone involved in legal proceedings? In the interests of the people of Canada and of all those concerned in the Oerlikon affair, wouldn't the best way to clear up this matter be to have a comprehensive public inquiry?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, all the experts we saw this morning seem to be in complete disagreement with what the Leader of the Opposition just said.

It seems in refusing to conduct a public inquiry while the police are investigating the affair the federal Government is probably taking the wisest and fairest legal course, according to academics familiar with public inquiries. "It seems to me to be a sensible decision that takes into account the rights of an accused person," said University of Toronto law professor Martin Friedland. That appears to be a widely held view in legal circles which is not inconsistent with the view expressed by the law officers of the Crown.
I regret the derogatory insinuations in regard to the public servants made by my right hon. friend. They conveyed straightforward legal advice which I conveyed to Members of the House. I know we saw the position of the Liberal Party set out yesterday by the Hon. Member for Sudbury. You do not want the facts, you want a circus. We are here to tell you that the RCMP will conduct a full inquiry and justice will be done.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


OERLIKON AFFAIR-ROLE OF MR. JEAN BAZIN
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Prime Minister and concerns the "land flip" at Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu. Could the Prime Minister explain to the House why, in his statement on January 18, his friend Jean Bazin failed to indicate that he had been doing work for Oerlikon since last February and had been on the management board since April,
Oral Questions
and only said that he had been involved with Gestion Farillon since last August?
Why did Mr. Bazin make his statement the way he did?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, as far as I know in this particular instance, all information requested from Mr. Bazin was made public.


EXTENT OF INFORMATION POSSESSED BY CABINET MINISTERS
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary. Considering that the law firm of Byers, Casgrain started investigating the "land flip" at Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu last February, almost a year ago, and in view of the articles on the subject that have been appearing in the papers since last spring, does the Prime Minister still maintain that not a single Minister or Minister's office, including his own, had heard about the "land flip" at Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu until January 13? Does he still maintain that today?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, yesterday and on several occasions I said that the RCMP had received a full mandate to investigate all the facts, and the Commissioner of the RCMP has said that the force will do so vigorously. And if, in the course of a police investigation of criminal charges, the RCMP finds claims that may be of interest to the Solicitor General, these are immediately reported to the Solicitor General.
I can therefore inform my hon. friend that all complaints and concerns and all the issues raised will probably be investigated by the RCMP.


APPARENT INFORMATION LEAKS-PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. For five days the Prime Minister has refused to answer questions about the possibility of a conflict of interest on the part of one of his former Ministers, the Minister's wife and a number of Conservative friends, while during that same period, people in the Prime Minister's Office have been leaking incriminating information. Why the double standard?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member says that for five days I have been refusing to answer any questions whatsoever about the Minister. That is false. I have given direct answers to all questions put to me.
As for the Hon. Member's specific question, I have said that as the Prime Minister I could not segregate information. I immediately made a value judgment on the information that was brought to my attention. I decided that the facts justified the Minister's dismissal and an immediate policy inquiry. I acted quickly and, I believe, firmly in this matter and I have answered my hon. friend's questions.

January 23, 1987
Oral Questions
[DOT]	0125)


CONFLICT OF INTEREST GUIDELINES
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister knows very well that he has refused to answer directly questions about a conflict of interest. They are the questions he has refused to answer.
The Prime Minister has indicated for the first time that perhaps he is willing to answer such questions. I would, therefore, like to read to him what he said when he announced his conflict of interest guidelines. He said:
We have taken great pains to ensure that the new Code leaves no doubt that the ultimate responsibility for the ethical standards of the federal government rests with the Cabinet and, more particularly, with me.
I have a very direct question for the Prime Minister. When he had the conversations which he did have on Sunday morning about the former Minister he knew of the conflict of interest guidelines. Will he now accept his responsibility and tell the House whether he concluded at that time that the Minister was in a conflict of interest?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the information which was imparted to me was of sufficient importance for me to exercise immediately my right and duty in the circumstances to relieve the Minister of his responsibility, and to call in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and ask them to conduct a complete inquiry, irrespective of where it led. To me that is a Prime Minister fulfilling his responsibilities.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister knows that that is not the case. He knows that the RCMP deal with legal matters. Does he think it is proper for him, as the Prime Minister, to systematically refuse to accept his responsibility for conflict of interest while, at the same time, having officials in his office systematically leak to the media slanderous information about citizens of Canada on a selective basis? Why this double hypocritical standard by the Prime Minister?
[DOT]	(1130)


Mr. Speaker:: I hesitate to interrupt a lead question, but I would ask even Leaders to be very careful in the use of language in this very difficult situation. The very fact that the Leader of the New Democratic Party prefaced his question with concern about slanderous actions alleged by some people indicates that even the question is concerned about this. 1 would ask Hon. Members to be very careful.
I must say that during this week, in a very difficult and sensitive area of great importance to the country, Hon. Members have been extremely careful. As I said yesterday, the
Chair is very grateful for that, but I would ask that Hon. Members be careful. The Right Hon. Prime Minister.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I will not comment on the obvious unfairness of the statement made by my hon. friend. He has asked me literally dozens of questions this week and I have responded completely to all of them in this regard. As the Speaker points out, it is an extremely sensitive and delicate matter where the rights of individuals are involved. However, the premise of his last question was based on the assumption that he stated that the RCMP only deals with legal or criminal matters. The implication is that because the RCMP only deals with those matters some other kind of inquiry is required. The statement, the premise is false.
The Commissioner of the RCMP says that:
-should we come across activity that might be considered unpropitious to good government, even though short of provable criminal conduct, on the part of senior officials, elected or otherwise, it is our responsibility to make our concerns known to-the Solicitor General.
The RCMP do not go in wearing blinkers; they go in to look after the possible prosecution of offences. If they find other violations en route they act upon those as well. That is why we have acted with the RCMP to ensure that justice is done.


REQUEST THAT RCMP QUESTION ALL MINISTERS
Hon. Douglas C. Frith (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. As part of the RCMP investigation will the Prime Minister instruct the Commissioner of the RCMP to ask every Minister of the Crown and their staff when they first learned of any irregularities concerning the Oerlikon affair and what the Ministers of the Crown and their staff knew about those irregularities concerning the Oerlikon affair?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, when a matter is turned over to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Commissioner and his colleagues, who command the respect of the country, investigate and set the parameters of their own inquiry. They react to events and they investigate fully. When they are satisfied that they have exhaustively analysed a matter in the interests of Canadian justice, I suppose they either report to a Crown prosecutor and lay charges or report back to the Solicitor General. It is not for me or any member of the Government to interfere in any way with the conduct of that inquiry. I allow, quite properly, the Commissioner of the RCMP to exercise his judgment, as he should. He does not need any advice from any Member of the House of Commons as to how to conduct a police inquiry.


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER ADVISE MINISTERS TO BE AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONING
Douglas Cockburn Frith: Mr. Speaker, will the Prime Minister then advise every Minister of the Crown in his Government, and their staff, to be available to the RCMP to answer questions as to when they first learned of the
January 23, 1987

irregularities concerning the Oerlikon affair and what they knew of those irregularities?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, that goes without saying. That is exactly consistent with the clarity and celerity with which I and the Government approached this matter. I submit that is the position of the Government.
It is interesting to note that yesterday the Member for Sudbury stated the position of the Liberal opposition. He said, as reported at page 2569 of Hansard-.
Mr. Speaker, our opinion is that the judicial inquiry should precede the criminal investigation.
Our position is that if there is any possibility of a crime having been committed, we must proceed immediately with an inquiry by the police in Canada.


CONFLICT OF INTEREST GUIDELINES-PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. I am holding a copy of the statement on conflict of interest made by the Prime Minister in October, 1985. Since these are the Prime Minister's guidelines on conflict of interest, does he believe, regardless of any RCMP investigation or other inquiry, that it is within his responsibility to tell us whether the former Minister was in conflict of interest?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, it is my responsibility when apprised of the facts that possibly affect the public interest to decide immediately the best manner in which it ought to be dealt with. It was my judgment, when presented with certain information, that the public interest of Canada could best be served by my immediately turning that information over to the RCMP and asking for a full investigation.


PUBLIC'S RIGHT TO KNOW
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question will be slightly different. Does the Prime Minister not agree that since these are the Prime Minister's guidelines and the Government of Canada's guidelines, the public has the right to know whether the Prime Minister feels that one of his Ministers has broken his guidelines? Does the public not have the right to know that from the leader of the country and their Prime Minister, apart from an RCMP investigation?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing at all in what I have done or what we have stated in the House that would inhibit the police or anyone else from making a determination in regard to whether guidelines have been infringed. The more important question right now is whether there have been any violations of law. That is where we differ from others in the House. I believe it is
Oral Questions
my responsibility and that of other Members of the House to act consistent with the laws of Canada in this matter.


INFORMATION ALLEGEDLY EMANATING FROM PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Both the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the New Democratic Party have been unable to receive direct answers from the Prime Minister with respect to leaks that have been coming from his office. Members of the Opposition are concerned that the Prime Minister's Office may be attempting by way of selective leaks from his office to prevent the possibility of potential criminal charges ever going to court because of an inability to conduct a fair trial. Is the Prime Minister concerned about the selective leaks that are coming from his office?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend has just contradicted completely the arguments made all week by his Leader in favour of the other side, and the position stated exactly by the Member for Sudbury who said you people want a commission with everything floating around rather than prosecutions. I am telling my hon. friend that there is a profound inconsistency between what the Liberals have been saying all week and what the Member is saying today.


Ms. Copps:: No way. Nobody is buying it, Brian.


Martin Brian Mulroney: The Royal Canadian Mounted Police, empowered with this inquiry, shall make their own determination and, as the days go by and events unfold, they shall take whatever action they deem appropriate.


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER INVESTIGATE SOURCE OF LEAKED INFORMATION
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I want is to assure the Prime Minister that the Opposition does not want the Prime Minister's or his staffs directly edited version of the story. We do not want selective leaks that we believe may be designed to prevent this matter from ever being brought to court. Is the Prime Minister not concerned about these selective leaks and will he take action now to investigate the source of those leaks in his own office?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, any act that the police judge to be untoward, unacceptable, or unhelpful, will be investigated fully and completely. It is their responsibility.


Mr. Berger:: That is not the job of the police.


An Hon. Member:: Who is running the country?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Any action or any statement by anyone, that is inconsistent with the pursuit by the police of a full investigation, should be dealt with by the police. I know that the police

January 23, 1987
Oral Questions
will act promptly, no matter from where the accusation comes, to make sure that there has been no inhibition of their inquiry.

[Translation)


THE ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Right Hon. Prime Minister about the firing in January of Mr. Frank Majeau, Assistant to the Minister of State (Mr. La Salle).
We have just heard that the RCMP informer in Montreal, Mr. Jean-Pierre Galipeau, informed the authorities of Mr. Majeau's criminal connections last May and that he passed the information on to the Solicitor General last October.
Could the Prime Minister explain why the Government did nothing about Mr. Majeau in May or October and why it did not take any action until Maclean's started to investigate?


Mr. Murray Cardiff (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, under House rules it is impossible to comment on an individual case, and it is in accordance with established practice. It should be understood that, for investigative reasons, the existence of a confidential source could neither be confirmed nor denied. I would also like to refer the Hon. Member back to the statement made, or point of order, by the Solicitor General on January 20 indicating the timing of all events taking place in that particular case.


WITHDRAWAL OF POLICE PROTECTION FROM INFORMANT
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my supplementary question to the Prime Minister, in view of his statement just made that the police will act promptly if any allegations are made. Can he explain why it took almost a year before action was taken in Mr. Majeu's case, and only when it came to the attention of the press? Is the Prime Minister aware of Mr. Galipeau's statement that he has had his police protection as an informant withdrawn because his statements to the press embarrassed the Government? What kind of message is that to people who may have information about the Oerlikon affair that if they bring that information to the police they may too find their rights infringed upon because they embarrassed the Government?


Murray Cardiff: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member refers to the press. It is very clear when the Solicitor General received
that first information. The Hon. Member also mentioned that an individual had his protection withdrawn. It has to be understood that if the RCMP has a confidential source, and if there is a legitimate threat, protection has to be given-if there is a legitimate threat made against any individual.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA MINISTER OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw to the attention of Hon. Members the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Bruce Strachan, Minister of Intergovernmental Relations for the Province of British Columbia.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


MEDICAL CARE
Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. There are 400 centres in the United States which specialize in the rehabilitation of victims of brain damage. There are none in Canada.
People are aware of the progress of policeman Robin Easey who suffered brain damage in a shooting here in Ottawa, but that help came from the neurological centre in Cortland, New York. Some provincial government health insurance plans, including Ontario's, do not recognize these treatment facilities as bona fide hospitals. For that reason, Sergeant Dan Duggan of the Ottawa Police Department must pay his own way for his brain damage condition. Will the Minister encourage provincial health insurance plans to cover the cost of treatment of brain damaged victims? Will he take the lead in seeing to the establishment of at least one such centre in Canada, rather than relying on the 400 centres in the United States?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for bringing that matter to the attention of the House. I will investigate. I think all of us have been following the case of Constable Duggan with interest. I cannot confirm to the Hon. Member some of the points he makes as to the manner in which the provinces which have responsibility for the delivery of health care, have dealt with this issue, but I would be very pleased to discuss this with the provinces and find out what the exact action is.
I should point out to the Hon. Member that in issues of health care where the service is not available but is covered under the insurance services, the provinces do pay not only out
January 23, 1987

of province rates but also pay for the service out of country. That would have to be investigated as well.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, I have given notice of my question to the Deputy Prime Minister. It concerns Jean Pierre Galipeau of Montreal who is the individual who made public the fact that there was a security breach involving Mr. Frank Majeau. According to Mr. Galipeau, he is or was an RCMP informer and he now fears for his life.
Would the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that in fact he was an RCMP informer and that his protection code was withdrawn on January 5, 1987? And can he explain why the RCMP found it necessary to withdraw his protection code and thereby put his life in danger?


Murray Cardiff: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated earlier, it is impossible to identify any source regardless of whether they be an informant or not. As far as the withdrawing of protection is concerned, if there is a legitimate threat against any individual-a legitimate threat-protection should and would be there.


REQUEST THAT POLICE PROTECTION BE OFFERED
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Galipeau is going public because he fears for his life. He is admitting to being an informer and the Government refuses to offer him that protection. Will the Deputy Prime Minister admit that the real reason why Mr. Galipeau's protection code was withdrawn was because he embarrassed the Government? And will he immediately instruct the RCMP to offer Mr. Galipeau police protection?


Murray Cardiff: Mr. Speaker, I do not think direction has to be given to the RCMP, or to anyone, because if there was an informant, no matter who it would be who was being threatened, I do not believe that would be the case.


Mr. de Corneille:: What would be the case?


THE ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour. The Minister of Labour is one of many Ministers who is now living in interesting times.
Oral Questions
Could he explain to the House, and more importantly to the public, considering his former Chief of Staff had access to all sorts of confidential information, what discrepancy forced the Minister of Labour to fire his Chief of Staff?


Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated already, on January 19, 1987, I was informed of a discrepancy between the information submitted to the RCMP by Mr. Hennessey and the information obtained by the RCMP through a preliminary security check. After advising him it would take some time for the RCMP to complete its full investigation, Mr. Hennessey resigned.


REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. When does the public have the right to know when something is going wrong in a cabinet Minister's office? Can the Prime Minister tell us, and the public, when we are going to find out information such as in the case of the Chief of Staff of the Minister of Labour? Why is the public not being told the truth?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I dealt with this matter completely yesterday. I indicated to my hon. friend, and all Hon. Members of the House, exactly what the Government planned to do about it. I share the Hon. Member's concern which is why we have acted as quickly as we have.


Rodney Edward Murphy: What is the discrepancy?


An Hon. Member:: Read Hansard.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. All week the Prime Minister has been telling the House that justice must be done in this most sensitive matter and nothing should be done to prejudice the rights of any individuals unduly. Is the Prime Minister now telling the House today that he will not undertake to investigate those selective leaks from his office which could have the potential to affect unduly those individuals whom he says he wishes to have protection?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member is asking me, as he says, will I not undertake to investigate such and such, the answer is no. I will not undertake to investigate-


John Edward Broadbent: Why?

January 23, 1987
Oral Questions


Martin Brian Mulroney: -because the police are going to investigate it fully-


John Edward Broadbent: How about leaks in your office?


An Hon. Member:: Did you initiate the leaks?


Martin Brian Mulroney: -if this is their determination. Any allegations of any kind, if they are deemed to be serious, will be dealt with by the police in their assessment of the requirements for them to secure justice.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the Prime Minister is abandoning his responsibilties.


An Hon. Member:: Question.


David Charles Dingwall: As the First Minister of this country he ought to undertake-


Mr. Crosbie:: Question.


David Charles Dingwall: -an immediate investigation and then to convey those investigations-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member is forcefully putting his point but it was getting very argumentative. I would ask the Hon. Member to put his question.


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER CONDUCT INVESTIGATION
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Why does he refuse to exercise his responsibilities, investigate these selective leaks which are prejudicing individuals unduly, and then give that information to the RCMP? Or is there a cover-up, a sleezy operation, by the Prime Minister?


Martin Brian Mulroney: What a pathetic-


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair would prefer, as the Chair has indicated, that some care is used with words. The word "sleazy" was originally used to describe garments or clothing of a low quality. Perhaps it is not completely unparliamentary, but I would ask that all Hon. Members be very careful in the use of words describing less than high quality clothes in a context which might be taken as offensive.


Martin Brian Mulroney: All Members understand the need for the little theatrics of the Hon. Member to make the clip tonight on the news.
The Liberal Party is already in up to here with regard to their statement of principle by the defence critic that they are not interested in the police prosecuting this matter, they are interested in a circus from which they can profit politically. This is not a partisan issue.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Oshawa is rising.


ATTRIBUTION OF LEAKS TO PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has referred to the need for justice for everyone. Earlier this week the Prime Minister described the former Minister as a good Canadian, and subsequent to that he quite correctly said that there should not be prejudging of the individual. In the last 48 hours there have been leaks, directly attributed to his office, on the radio, television, and in the newspapers, that can only be described as slanderous in their content about the Minister, his wife, and former associates. Will the Prime Minister now commit himself to undertaking an investigation of this terrible, damaging information in pursuit of the very justice for which he is calling?


Martin Brian Mulroney: My hon. friend has said there have been leaks in the last 48 hours that are slanderous, damaging, and unfair. Think of the statements made by members of the Opposition in their prefatory remarks that have been slanderous, damaging, and unfair to a number of people in regard to the serenity and the fairness of this particular inquiry.


John Edward Broadbent: Which ones?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Right Hon. Prime Minister will answer the question and, as I have asked other Hon. Members, try to refrain from getting into a debate. I must point out that some questions are more provocative than others, and it is only natural that the response will end up in much the same vein.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I wish to say to my hon. friend that if he is seeking the truth via a fair and impartial way when confronted with serious allegations, I hope he will agree that the most important and proper way to do this is through an unfettered police inquiry, which in no way prohibits or inhibits the possibility of any further action at an appropriate time. Nothing should be done that would in any way inhibit the fairness of that. I agree with my hon. friend in that regard. That is why any suggestion to the contrary should and no doubt will be investigated immediately by the police. It is important that they maintain that authority over the inquiry.


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER SPEAK TO STAFF MEMBERS
John Edward Broadbent: The Prime Minister has said publicly that he wants a fair and impartial assessment to take place of the Minister, and all those associated with him, and not have a slanderous approach. Will the Prime Minister undertake to speak with the people in his office and find out who is leaking these stories that can only have a slanderous and negative effect on the personalities in question? In other words, would the Prime Minister make sure that there is no self-serving activity by the people in his office, and instead
January 23, 1987

assure justice for those who are subject to very serious accusations?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Given the police inquiry, what my hon. friend is suggesting has some serious implications. It will not astound anybody in the press gallery to learn that from time to time they have had leaks from the NDP and the Liberal research offices.


Mr. Gauthier:: On a criminal matter? Come on!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Precisely. There the point is made. In this matter there is an allegation of sufficient importance for us to have called in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The police are presently investigating this matter. If the police believe, in reading the newspapers in the morning or watching television at night, or given any allegation made by a member of the press inadvertently or otherwise, that the matter ought to be pursued, or an individual ought to be pursued, then no matter where that individual is, either on my staff or the staff of the Leader of the NDP, the police will exercise their usual vigilance and good judgment and pursue it to the end.


INVESTMENT CANADA
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister on an equally serious but different subject.
On December 24 Investment Canada made a decision to approve the sale of West Kootenay Power & Light Co. Limited to an American utility; for the first time in the history of this country we are approving the sale of a public utility to a foreign owner, without reference to any of the transcripts or material that was gathered by the B.C. Utilities Commission. Considering the dangerous precedent that this sets in terms of the control of our natural resources, and the impact it has on our international treaties, and the erosion of our sovereignty, will the Prime Minister take action to overturn this Investment Canada decision?


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Investment Canada has reviewed this matter and is satisfied as to its propriety. The Public Utilities Board of the Province of British Columbia is now examining it very closely with a view to ensuring protection of the customers. That review should be concluded shortly.


REQUEST THAT DECISION BE SET ASIDE
Lloyd Axworthy: The
Investment Canada decision was taken without any reference to the evidence that had been gathered by the B.C. Utilities Commission. It did not even bother to obtain the transcripts of
Oral Questions
the hearings held. The B.C. Utilities Commission was holding hearings after the Investment Canada decision had been made. Under these circumstances with the incredible consequences it has for our natural resources and for the impact upon our sovereignty, will the Prime Minister, as Leader of the Government, not take the decision to set aside that Investment Canada decision until all these important questions can be answered, and the interests of the country can be protected?


J. Michael Forrestall: Very briefly, I think that is what I have just indicated. The Government of Canada is awaiting the outcome of the further review by the Public Utilities Board of British Columbia. Investment Canada is satisfied that it meets the criteria. I need not remind the Hon. Member that this government agency or board is charged with the responsibility of ensuring the protection of sovereignty with respect to the manner in which he raises it.


CHILD CARE
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: My question is directed to the Prime Minister on another important question. The Prime Minister knows that the crisis in child care is urgent, and that children are at risk in many care arrangements. This has been substantiated by researchers, many witnesses and experts.
Will the Prime Minister seriously consider allocating up to $320 million as a budgeted amount in the upcoming Budget to help stabilize and extend quality child care? As I indicated to him last December in a copy of a letter to the Minister of Finance, will the Prime Minister intervene in this matter?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I am glad to report to the House that the federal-provincial meeting has concluded and quality child care was the first item on the agenda. Agreement has been reached on a fast-track work plan between the federal Government and the provinces to put forward the solution and a proposal on a national basis for child care, as the Prime Minister when he was in Vancouver had indicated he would be instructing us to do. I am pleased to report to the House that the work is proceeding very quickly, and all provinces agree that a good plan has been put into place.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Vancouver East on a short supplementary, please.


REQUEST FOR FUNDS IN FORTHCOMING BUDGET
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Will he or will he

January 23, 1987
Privilege-Mr. Caccia
not allocate money in the upcoming Budget for child care? Ele found emergency funds for the banks. Will he find them for children?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada found money for pensioners whose pension funds were in jeopardy in the banks; that is what it found money for. The Government of Canada found money for grain farmers, principally in western Canada. In respect to the individual point which the Hon. Member makes, some provinces put forward a request. By the way, her numbers change. A few weeks ago it was $150 million; this week it is over $300 million. I wonder what it will be next week. That is how consistent she is. I would suggest to her that she start getting her-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys on just one question.
containing safety and the other beneficial provisions contained in the former Bill C-75, without the inclusion of the offensive cost recovery clause?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased the Hon. Member asked that question because the provisions of Bill C-75 are extremely important in connection with the safety of shipping and other matters dealt with in the Bill. I have decided-and it has been concurred in by my colleagues in Cabinet-that we should reintroduce the legislation without Clause 4. We will go forward with consultation with all interested parties in the shipping industry to see how the cost recovery provisions can best be formulated. After this period of consultation we will introduce new legislation. This is as a result of the representations made to me by Conservative Members of the House of Commons Transport Committee.


* *
*


INVESTMENT CANADA
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. On November 6 the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources stated in a speech in Toronto that it was not the policy of the Government to approve acquisitions by non-Canadians of Canadian companies valued in excess of $5 million and in a healthy state. The Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion now says that that applies only to oil and gas companies and does not apply to West Kootenay Power and Light Company. Why is the Government abandoning its own policies in its rush to give away to foreigners our natural resources and our public utilities?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to respond to the Hon. Member. It is a very important question. Given the specifics of it, I would ask the Hon. Member if he might be so patient as to wait until the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion returns to the House on Monday.


Mr. Speaker:: This will be the last question. The Hon. Member for St. Catharines.


CANADA SHIPPING ACT
Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. He will know that Bill C-75, respecting the former revised Canada Shipping Act, was generally well received by all except for Clause 4, the cost recovery clause. Will the Minister introduce new legislation


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Davenport on a question of privilege. I see the Hon. Member for Yorkton- Melville seeking the floor. I will recognize him in a moment.


PRIVILEGE
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Your Honour, this is my first opportunity to make this point relating to an exchange in Question Period two days ago.


Mr. Speaker:: I should advise the Hon. Member that I find his application completely in order. I am not concerned about notice.


Mr. Caccia:: I was saddened and upset yesterday to discover in the evidence a serious and fundamental discrepancy between the oral reply, as registered in the electronic record, given by the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan), when we exchanged questions and answers on acid rain, and the printed record in Hansard.
There is a word of fundamental importance, I submit to you, which the Minister chose to omit after having identified a document, the Envoy's Report on Acid Rain, and after having identified a specific page. Having done so, the Minister quoted from the document and decided, in my submission, deliberately, to omit the word "research", which was fundamental in that particular exchange, thus distorting the dynamics of that question and answer.
Having done so, Mr. Speaker, I have to raise this point because I find that behaviour unacceptable and affecting the privilege of Members, because that is not the way of quoting, in a selective manner. By omitting a specific key word, namely, "research", which is the essence of that particular Envoy's

January 23, 1987

Report and the policy inherent in that particular document, it gave, therefore, an impression to the House that is not consistent with what, a few hours later, was printed in Hansard correctly, as it should also have been in the oral quotation recorded electronically.


Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the Chair has allowed the submission. In the interest of fairness on all sides, surely we should not be dealing two days later with something which is alleged to have happened both electronically and in Hansard. Had this matter been raised when it should have properly been raised yesterday, the Hon. Minister would have been here to defend himself.
I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that that is the reason for the rule, that one should bring it to the attention of the House as quickly as possible. Now we have a day when the Minister is not here and this point has been made.
Second, I submit that the operative words of my colleague which make this a matter of debate and not privilege are the words "decided, in my submission". That is debate. He is alleging that the Minister decided something.
When somebody brings forward what he calls "a serious and fundamental discrepancy" between Hansard and the electronic record, if we are to deal with it as a House, if we are to bring the issue to the floor, surely it ought to be something where the Minister is given a chance to defend himself and where we can examine the record and take a good look at it.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair is very appreciative of the comments of both the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) and the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary, but I want to comment upon the remarks of the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary.
The point the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary makes is that this is a couple of days late. I want to advise the House that the notice was dated yesterday, and it may well have gone awry in the Speaker's office. That is why I indicated immediately to the Hon. Member for Davenport that I had accepted the notice as legitimate, and I am not concerned about the time.
On the second question, if the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary would prefer that this matter be deferred until a day when the Minister is here, I think that would be acceptable to the House.
I should indicate to the Hon. Member for Davenport that it would seem to the Chair that this is a point of order and not a question of privilege. In any event, there is a complaint here. Unless both Hon. Members want to defer this matter to another day, I think it probably could be settled now by the Chair saying that I will consider the matter. The complaint is on record. If a correction can be made, discussions can be undertaken or had to do that. I think maybe we can leave the matter there. Does the Hon. Member for Davenport want to rise again? The Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville.
Privilege-Mr. Frith POINT OF ORDER


TABLING OF QUOTED DOCUMENT
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order of which I have given you notice. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) is not here but the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) is.
Earlier in Question Period today, in answer to one of the opposition Members, the Prime Minister quoted from a letter from a senior law officer of the Crown or the Commissioner of the RCMP, I am not sure which. I wonder whether, under Citations 327 (6) and (7), the Prime Minister would be willing to table that letter for the House.
In part Citation 327(6) reads:
If a Minister cites or quotes an official document in debate, he should be prepared to table it.
Citation 327(7) reads:
When a letter, even though it may have been written originally as a private letter, becomes part of a record of a department, it becomes a public document, and if quoted by a Minister in debate, must be tabled on request.
If possible, I should like to request that the Deputy Prime Minister table the letter so that we can all have a chance to peruse it.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the point which the Hon. Member makes is correct. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) did quote from a letter that was sent to the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan), the former Solicitor General, in response to a letter that he sent to the commissioner. I presume that if it is with the consent of the Hon. Member for York Centre, who is not here but he did, you will recall, Mr. Speaker, raise this issue yesterday, I would have no difficulty tabling the letter. In the interests of proper procedure, perhaps we might make doubly sure that the Hon. Member for York Centre agrees to having it tabled, then we would certainly not have any difficulty with it.


Mr. Speaker:: I want to thank the Hon. Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski).
The Hon. Member for Sudbury (Mr. Frith) on a question of privilege?


Douglas Cockburn Frith: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


PRIVILEGE
Douglas Cockburn Frith: Mr. Speaker, I want to indicate to the House that yesterday my former secretary during my tenure as chairman of the regional municipality of

January 23, 1987
Point of Order-Mr. Gray (Windsor West)
Sudbury from 1977 to 1980 received a phone call from the Deputy Prime Minister's (Mr. Mazankowski) office asking for information of a factual nature.
I do not feel personally affronted by the nature of the question asked of my former secretary, but I do believe this is a breach of my privilege as a Member of Parliament. I would suggest, Sir, that this is harassment of my duties as a Member of Parliament and I would suggest, if I can-just one last sentence, Mr. Speaker-that if the Deputy Prime Minister has time to check into the backgrounds of Members of Parliament he might want to start with Members of his own Cabinet.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Sudbury (Mr. Frith) has raised a matter which obviously has caused him some concern. It is outside the House. The comments have been made and have, no doubt, been heard.


POINT OF ORDER
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, 1 will just give you notice of a point of order pertaining to today's Government Orders. We are shortly going to be returning to the debate on second reading of Bill C-37. Clause 2 (3) of the Bill reads as follows:
In interpreting the schedule, recourse may be had to the Memorandum of Understanding concerning trade in certain softwood lumber products between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States dated December 30, 1986 and tabled in the House of Commons on January 19, 1987 and recorded as document number-
And there is clearly a blank there, Mr. Speaker. The same words appear in the other official language.
I had inquiries made of the Table. I am informed that the document referred to in Clause 2(3) was not tabled on January 19 or subsequently.
Quite apart from that, Sir, I submit that the words of this paragraph and the fact of their incomplete nature clearly infringe Standing Order 108 which reads:
No Bill may be introduced either in blank or in an imperfect shape.
Clearly this clause involves a blank. It is clearly imperfect. Therefore, the Bill purports to have been introduced contrary to this very clear rule.
You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that on Monday of this week we agreed, in order to facilitate discussion of this Bill, to abridge greatly the normal procedure for introducing legislation. We allowed first reading of the Bill and, in fact, the beginning of the debate on second reading to come the same day on which the Ways and Means motion was voted.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: To accommodate you.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: The Government House Leader has interjected from the sidelines saying to accommodate the
Opposition. For days prior to the House opening the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) was saying that he intended to call this Bill on Monday. My point, just by way of comment, is that there was very little time to study the Bill as to form. I mention this in the event it is argued that this point should have been raised earlier. Also in that regard, there is nothing in Standing Order 108 limiting the time as to when a point of order can be validly raised and sustained with respect to a breach of Standing Order 108.
I submit that Standing Order 108 has clearly been breached. The rules have been contravened and, therefore, I suggest that the debate until this point on this Bill has been a nullity and the Government must re-introduce the Bill and commence the debate all over again.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the point which my colleague has quite properly made. The Memorandum of Understanding, which is referred to in the Bill, could not have had a document number or what might be called a sessional paper number in either the Ways and Means notice of the motion or the first reading version of the Bill which the Government had preprinted before Monday's introduction of the Bill.
The House has accepted from Monday until now both documents in that format, as have the law officers of the Crown and the table officers. There has been full and frank debate on the issue at hand, the substance of the matter approaching, I understand, some 20 hours.
The date of January 19, 1987 was used in both the Ways and Means motion and the first reading version of the Bill debated last Monday because the Minister had intended to table the Memorandum of Understanding in both official languages but, by an oversight, which is admitted, in all the printing preparations for last Monday the Memorandum of Understanding did not get tabled. The Minister is ready to table that Memorandum of Understanding today. We apologize and admit that that should have been done.
We are all in the same boat. We have all debated at length the substance of the Bill. We would all have to say that we have not examined every last clause and the impact of that last clause on the substance of the Bill. We are doing that now, quite rightly, with a procedural discussion.
The Memorandum of Understanding, which was a lengthy document and not necessary to have in both official languages for the purposes of an understanding between the United States Government and the Government of Canada, but necessary for presentation in this House, has now been translated. I am sure that that document was used by Members of the House in preparing their comments. We are now looking at the tabling of the document.
It has been a very busy week for the Minister and for all officers of the House. There was a clerical error made. We are not denying that the responsibility is here. We are not denying that we all share responsibility for it.
January 23, 1987

As I suggested, Mr. Speaker, the document is going to be tabled. We suggest that it will be in order during the discussion at the committee stage to put forward an amendment which will correct the date of tabling of this Memorandum of Understanding, which is really what we are talking about. Since we share a previous occupation, I suggest, Sir, that this procedure may be viewed in terms of perfecting the record, in that it is not essential to the debate that this actually had been tabled. It is essential that it be in existence and it was in existence. I will get to that, if I may, in a minute.
At committee stage, we would suggest that an amendment be moved to correct the date. We suggest that it would have no impact on the essence of the Bill or on the essence of the debate that has taken place. We all have to ask ourselves if Canadians wish us to get on with the job at hand, which is to perfect the record and get the Bill into committee, or whether Canadians would wish us in the taxpayers interest simply to scrap this week of debate and start again. I think you would find that Canadians would come down on the side of taking the debate as read and going from there.
I would also like to refer to the specific wording in the Bill if I may. You may not have this before you, Mr. Speaker, but I am sure you will have an opportunity to consider it. Clause 2(3) of the Bill includes the words "recourse may be had". I think the operative word there is "may". This means that the Memorandum of Understanding and the interpretation of the Schedule can be dealt with by using other methods. The clause is permissive. It is neither direct nor specific but indicates only that recourse may be had. The Schedule is appended to the Bill and explains in detail the elements of the Memorandum of Understanding. As I have said before, it does not go to the essence of the Ways and Means motion and the Bill. The clause is merely permissive.
If you do some research, Mr. Speaker, and I must admit that I was busy doing that myself last evening, you will find that there is a suggestion in Erskine May that alterations rather than amendments can be made to a Bill. Page 526 of the most recent edition of Erskine May indicates that alterations can be made to correct clerical errors. I submit that this is a clerical error which will be corrected when the Minister tables the document.
I would also submit that the clause in the Bill refers specifically to this Memorandum of Understanding and uses the words: "and tabled". The document is in existence and if the clause used only the word "tabled", I think we would be in trouble. However, it uses the words "and tabled". The document which is in existence is an agreement between two powers, the United States of America and Canada.
I would draw my remarks to a close by saying that no one in this place is suggesting that Standing Order 108 does not exist. I admit that it exists. However, I think it is fair to suggest that the people of Canada would like to see us deal with those Standing Orders in a way that serves democracy and assures
Point of Order-Mr. Gray (Windsor West)
that debate takes place. I suggest that we are all in this together, whether it is the Opposition-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Keep your own troubles. Come on now, wiggle out of that one.


Philip Derek Lewis: We are dealing with them. We have all debated this matter for a week. There is a clerical error which can be corrected by the Minister tabling the Memorandum of Understanding and that will take place in a minute.
I suggest that the Bill stands on its own. The tabling of this document and the perfecting of it by giving it a number is not something that goes to the essence of the Bill or the principle of the debate at second reading but is something which naturally will be corrected at committee stage.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, I note that the traditions and practices of this House have been to follow the rules quite strictly and that we vary from those rules only with the agreement of all Parties in the House, and we do that quite regularly. There was no such call by the Government for that sort of agreement from the various Parties in the House when the Government did not table the agreement as the Bill indicated it should have done.
The second point I wish to make is that this agreement that has not yet been tabled has not yet been translated into French. Because it is such an integral part of this particular piece of legislation, I think Francophone Members of the House have every right to expect it to be translated accurately into French before they decide whether to support or not to support this Bill in principle at second reading stage. How can Francophone Members decide on the principle of the Bill and the position they wish to take on it if such documentation is not available to them?
On those two counts, I would urge you, Mr. Speaker, to rule in favour of the point of order put forward by the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray). As well, I would urge you to recall that previous legislation had been delayed in the House simply because certain paperwork had not been done properly. The most recent such Bill I can recall is Bill C-22. Last June, the Government did not get the Bill put through simply because it had not completed the paperwork. I think this case is similar in some ways to that one. I would urge you to pay some attention to the very good arguments made by the Hon. Member for Windsor West and to pay some fair amount of attention to the fact that all of the extremely pertinent documetation on a very important international agreement was not available to Francophone Members of the House.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment briefly on whether Bill C-37 may be debated in the House at this time. Standing Order 108 says clearly that:
No bill may be introduced either in blank or in an imperfect shape.

January 23, 1987
Point of Order-Mr. Gray (Windsor West)
In Bill C-37, on page 2, clause 2(3), there is a blank in the last line, line 12, which in my view would make the document entirely unacceptable according to our Standing Orders.

I should remind Hon. Members that it is not very difficult to refer to Hansard of January 19 to learn of the events that unfolded here. On January 19, a Ways and Means motion was tabled by the Minister and, in order to proceed with the Bill, the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) received from us unanimous consent to deal with that motion. We divided on it at the time and a Bill was presented at first-reading stage by unanimous consent. We proceeded to second reading thereafter by unanimous consent because the Government insisted that it wanted the Bill to be studied. However, you will recall, Mr. Speaker, that I rose in my place to draw to your attention the fact that we did not have the Bill and that some of the information pertaining to the Bill was lacking. I was assured that we would have full co-operation from the Table which we eventually got. We finally received the Bill in the afternoon while debate was going on.
Today I rise in my place to draw to your attention that we feel that the Standing Order is clear. There is no interpretation possible other than that the Bill is faulty and must be withdrawn by the Government. The Government has an obligation to present another Bill, amended as it should be with the proper date and the number of the documents in question included. In my opinion, this faulty Bill must not only be withdrawn but must be debated over again at second-reading stage. The Speaker will have to inform the House that a new Bill has been presented to the Table and we will have to proceed with first reading, second reading and subsequent stages of the Bill.
Speaking to the point made by the Parliamentary Secretary on the tabling of the documents, the Minister could have tabled those documents on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday.

She could have done so, but she did not.
As far as the translation is concerned, the House will of course recognize that as the Parliament of Canada, we cannot accept that a document be tabled by the Government in one language only.
Of course the Government's problem was that it had to order a translation. The translation must always be tabled by the Minister with the original document, and if they didn't get the translation until today, it is their fault, not mine. They can not do anything right, Mr. Speaker. What do you expect? They're all the same, that bunch. You people don't know what you're doing here in the House.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I believe this is an important matter. This is not a court of law, but we are all aware that in a court of law things have to be done in a proper way.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. With the co-operation of Hon. Members, the suggestion is that because something was not included in a Bill the last number of days of debate should be wiped out as if they never happened. The Chair wants to ask Hon. Members to address the question of what prejudice has the public interest suffered or any Member suffered as a consequence of the fact that the Bill has an error, which is admitted by everyone and which can be quickly and easily remedied. What prejudice has been suffered?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: The rules!


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, you referred to what I was just about to get into. We have certain accepted, indeed the compulsory, procedures that we follow. As the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse) mentioned, we had a similar situation with the first attempt by the Government to change the Patent Act in June of 1986. It was admitted, with some reluctance I suspect, that the Government had not gone through the proper procedures and the debate could not begin.
Regarding what you have asked us specifically, the point is that certain Members of this House, especially those who are Francophones, did not have access to documents in their language. The debate is continuing, and if Government Orders are correct we will continue the debate in a few minutes' time. It is not fair to Members of this House to continue this debate at this time without access to all the information.
I do not suggest that all that has been said is going to be struck from the record. I do believe it is possible for the three House Leaders to get together and discuss how we would reintroduce the Bill, recognizing that certain debate has already taken place. However, I believe that not only on this occasion but on any future occasion we must ensure that legislation is passed in the proper form, starting with the proper introduction, and that all documents referred to in a Bill as being available must indeed be available to all Members of this House.


Ross Belsher: What do you think committees and third reading are for?


Rodney Edward Murphy: My question is what is second reading for? It is a procedure of this House, a procedure we are in right now, and thanks to a motion made by the Government last night it is now impossible to make any amendments. Even the Government cannot make any amendments. We have to ensure that we go through the proper procedure, and I submit that to continue debate at this time on this Bill would be completely improper and unfair to Francophone Members of this House.
January 23, 1987


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address my comments to the question Your Honour has raised regarding how this prejudices the public interest. If one goes through Hansard over the last three or four days one would see that a large part of the debate, in fact the core, has centred on the impact that the Memorandum of Understanding, the agreement in effect, will have upon Canadian economic interests, sovereignty and other issues. The specific nature of the undertakings included in that agreement are absolutely essential to the debate.
We have only been able to debate agreements that we informally possessed; they were not part of the Bill. That is of particular importance because in Question Period yesterday, in answer to a question by the Hon. Member for Nanaimo- Alberni (Mr. Schellenberg), the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney) indicated there was a problem as it related to Schedule B of the agreement. That did not include a list of products to which the primary tax would not apply. A number of secondary manufacturers of lumber products were severely affected by that fact. The only way the problem can be resolved is to renegotiate the agreement and to have it include the list.
The Minister said officials were now meeting in an attempt to resolve the problem. At last count we have 80 or 90 companies who are in a state of limbo. A tax is being collected which is 200 per cent or 300 per cent over and above what they expected, given the countervailing duty. The only way that can be corrected is if the Memorandum of Understanding is tabled so that they and we know what the law is. Not having it tabled, not knowing what is on the list, not knowing if the list is going to be changed, given the answer by the Minister yesterday, means those manufacturers, including several thousand workers and a large part of our value-added manufacturing, are in a state of uncertainty.
It is clear that the only way the Parliament of Canada can properly respond to the interests of those manufacturers is to ensure that we know exactly what is going to be included in that Memorandum of Understanding and the schedules attached to it. They will then know exactly what they are going to be taxed on and there will be no uncertainty.
There is also a much larger issue. There is a large number of people in the industry, as well as provincial Governments, who are asking questions for which there is presently no answer. How does the Memorandum of Understanding apply to them? In contacting various provincial officials to get their response, they say that at the last meeting when they asked to what extent does the $600 million apply, no answers were forthcoming.


Miss Carney:: That is not true.


Lloyd Axworthy: There was no response. There was still a high level of ambiguity as to the meaning and interpretation and application of the Memorandum of Understanding. I make the case to you that the Memorandum of Understanding is not a clerical error. It is not a bagatelle or a side-show. It is
Point of Order-Mr. Gray (Windsor West)
essential to the functioning of this law. Not being part of the law and not having it in both languages means the law we are debating would be not only ambiguous but could also be unfairly applied and would put a number of companies and provincial Governments in a high state of uncertainty.


Roland de Corneille: Point of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: A point of order has been raised. Unless something has happened to interrupt the orderly debate on that point of order I would like to carry on recognizing Members as they rise. A Member has said "point of privilege" and I would want to defer that unless the Member presses the point. We are on a point of order, but if the Hon. Member for Eglinton-Lawrence (Mr. de Corneille) has a point of privilege which has suddenly arisen and which is of great importance, of course, I will hear him.


Roland de Corneille: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether you would interpret it as a point of privilege or a point of order, but my privilege to be able to speak in the House and have access to documents it seems to me is also affected.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Member for the intervention. I think it is on the same point of order. Has the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) completed his remarks at this time?


Lloyd Axworthy: Yes.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to interrupt the flow of debate on this point of order, which is important. However, the question has arisen as to when the document was available in both official languages. That is a key point and I admit it. I am advised by officials in the Minister's office that the document was available in both official languages from the Minister's office on January 5, 1987. I have copies of the Minister's statement and-


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Was it tabled in the House?


Philip Derek Lewis: Parliament was not sitting on January 5, 1987. It was available in both official languages from the Minister's office on January 5, 1987. The question one must ask oneself is whether one asked for it.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, with your permission I would like to address briefly the issue you raised with the House, that is, what prejudice the public would suffer if debate on this imperfect Bill were allowed to continue.
First, I observe that the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Lewis) tried to make a substantial argument to the effect that the gap in the Bill was simply of a clerical nature. I submit that the clerical nature of the error does not relieve in any way the extent of the transgression of the Standing Order.
2638

January 23, 1987
Point of Order-Mr. Gray (Windsor West)
Second, the Parliamentary Secretary quoted from Erskin May. I submit that, unless it is shown that the words of Erskin May relate to a Standing Order of the British House of Commons in the exact words of our Standing Order, that which the Parliamentary Secretary has cited to the House has no relevance or application here at all.
With regard to the matter of prejudice, I suggest that when the House of Commons, in its wisdom, decides that it should have a Standing Order formed in certain words, you are required to take juducial notice that the House of Commons has decided that, in the absence of that Standing Order being followed, there would be prejudice to the public interest. There is nothing in the rules which permits you to decide that some of these rules will be followed in part, or some not followed at all, on the basis of a determination of the degree to which the public interest would be harmed or supported by the following or lack of following of those rules.
With all due respect, if a principle that it is the degree of prejudice to the public interest that counts in determining whether a rule should be followed is to be enshrined into the precedents of this House, it would be open to you, Sir, or another Speaker to say that it does not prejudice the public interest not to follow the rule requiring a debate and vote on second reading. It would be open to you or another Speaker to say that it does not prejudice the public interest if the Government forgets to allow committee stage proceedings on a Bill.
With the utmost respect, Mr. Speaker, there is nothing in our Standing Orders which permits you or any other Speaker to pick and choose which rules are to be applied in the fullest and which are to be applied only in part, depending upon the circumstances.
Standing Order 108 says:
No bill may be introduced either in blank or in an imperfect shape.
That Standing Order exists to the same extent as do any of the other Standing Orders. It is not put into a special category headed, "Rules to be followed if it is not important or the public interest is not prejudiced". It is set out in Chapter XX, Proceedings on Public Bills, in exactly the same way as are all the other Standing Orders in that chapter.
Some may wish to argue that there is some vagueness or imprecision which would allow the Speaker to make a ruling apart from the clear wording of the rule. In that case, I respectfully draw to your attention Standing Order 1 which reads:
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 jurisidictions, so far as they may be applicable to the House.
I have already pointed out that the citation read to us from Erskine May has not been shown to be relevant. However, the real reason I read the Standing Order is to say that the case we
are dealing with is provided for exactly as is set out in Standing Order 1. It is "provided for hereinafter" in the very specific words of Standing Order 108.
In conclusion, I submit again that in adopting this rule the House has said that it is contrary to the public interest, that there is a prejudice to the public interest in not following Standing Order 108 to the same extent as any and all other rules of the House are followed. I submit, therefore, Mr. Speaker, that if you do not uphold the very clear words of this rule, which apply very clearly to the defect in the Bill, the public interest, by definition, will be subject to a prejudice, and both In the short and long run the operations of this House and our democratic systems will be harmed.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the points made by both sides are well taken. However, you will recognize, Sir, that there were some rather extraordinary circumstances which allowed us to embark upon debate on Bill C-37. There was a desire by at least two Members in this Chamber to have an emergency debate on the issue under Standing Order 29. There was a great amount of co-operation by all Hon. Members to allow a debate on this issue to take place to the fullest extent. Presumably that is why both opposition Parties, after consideration of the matter, decided to provide the unanimous consent required to allow us to proceed with the tabling of the Ways and Means motion and with the motions for first and second reading, allowing us to begin the debate in an abbreviated length of time. There has been a great deal of co-operation. It was in the interest of all Hon. Members to facilitate the process to allow this piece of legislation to proceed.
Standing Order 108 states:
No bill may be introduced either in blank or in an imperfect shape.
The decision which you must make, Mr. Speaker, is whether this Bill was imperfect in shape. I am not sure whether there is a clear definition of an imperfect Bill. Certainly a blank Bill would be imperfect. I would submit that failure to outline the principal aspects of the Bill or details pertaining to the principle of the Bill would put the Bill in a position of being void. However, we are dealing here with simply a slight technicality which can quite easily be changed.
The issue is whether Hon. Members opposite had access to the agreement, which is clearly part of the Bill, and to answer your question as to whether any prejudice has been suffered. We are now told that Hon. Members did have access to the agreement. I understand that they quoted from it during the course of debate and they have quoted from it during Question Period. To suggest that it was not available is inaccurate. It was available and was used.
To deal with this issue in its clear technical sense, I refer you to Standing Order 235 which suggests that any Member is bound to bring to the Speaker's notice any incident that he considers a breach of order, and that he should do that at the earliest possible time. It has been suggested that Members
January 23, 1987

opposite were aware of this so-called imperfection for some time. That is based on the remarks they have made. I suggest that if that was in fact the case, they were duty bound to bring forth the notice of breach of order to the House at the earliest possible opportunity. They failed to do so.
Quite frankly, I believe the Parliamentary Secretary has outlined the background to this issue in fairly succinct form. However, to clearly answer your question about whether prejudice has been suffered, in my humble submission, I believe the answer is no.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I rise on another point of order. The Hon. Government House Leader seems to have referred to Standing Order 235. My set of Standing Orders only goes up to Standing Order 158.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I am sorry, I was referring to Beau-chesne, Citation 235.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: May I say that a citation of the kind found in Citation 235 cannot override the clear and precise words of a Standing Order. I further submit that, in any event, the breach of order we are complaining of did not happen only on Monday, but began on Monday and continued without a break until this very moment. Even if this precedent has some relevance, which I submit it does not, I think we are consistent with it because the breach in question began on Monday and continued without a break until this very moment, and continues as we speak.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I believe there are three crucial issues we face on this point of order, and with which you obviously are faced in making a decision. First is the very cogent case that has been made by the House Leader for the Liberal Party which I believe, from my reading of the sections of the rules as a relatively new Member, would appear to be absolutely clear-cut.
I think there is a second, equally important consideration. It is that a great many of the issues which have been debated and discussed before us as Members of Parliament have themselves been questions of fact, and difference of fact, which would indeed have been greatly facilitated by the tabling of the original agreement with the United States. In particular, I recall an exchange between myself and the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney) in which she made the point that what we believed to be clearly part of the agreement was, to her mind, clearly not part of the agreement. I suggest that the tabling of the document would have been of considerable benefit in facilitating a logical debate.
Third, I believe a logical contradiction has emerged in the Government's defence to this fairly serious charge. First, it has claimed that these documents were not tabled because they were not translated. It has turned around to say that they were translated on January 5. Clearly, the documents could have been tabled in both official languages.
Point of Order-Mr. Gray (Windsor West)
Finally, we would not want to see this week's debate simply disappear and wiped off the record. I believe we feel a sense of grievance about the attempt to cut off debate which was taken last night. I think that is probably part of what underlines what is taking place here today. However, I believe that it should not be beyond the capacity of the Speaker, perhaps with the House Leaders, to work out some compromise by which this period of debate can stand, yet still allow the possibility of more extensive debate next week, making it possible to have full scale consideration of what I believe is one of the most dangerous pieces of legislation that has ever come before the House of Commons.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, certain facts are clear. First, a piece of legislation, Bill C-37, was introduced in the House of Commons in an imperfect form.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: And in a blank form.


John V. Nunziata: And in a blank form. In my view, the issue is whether the imperfection of Bill C-37 would render the introduction of the Bill and the debate to date void ab initio. It is my respectful submission that the imperfection of Bill C-37 renders the proceedings to date void and that the only proper course at this point is for the Government to reintroduce a Bill in perfect form.
To accept a Bill in this form would, first, be in direct breach of Standing Order 108 which is clear and unequivocal. It states:
No Bill may be introduced either in blank or in an imperfect shape.
In my respectful submission, you ought to ask yourself why did Parliament in its wisdom adopt that particular Standing Order? I think the reason is obvious. A Bill has to be complete. It would be contrary to the principles of natural justice and the rule of law for a Parliament or any legislature or governing body to introduce a Bill that contains some blanks.
The Government argues that it is a clerical error or a minor imperfection. However, how does the Government intend to correct the imperfection? When will the blank be filled in, and how is that done? It seems to me that the only way to correct the imperfection is to either start again or introduce another Bill to fill in the blank.
You indicated in your comments that the standard to be used is whether prejudice has been suffered as a result of the imperfection.


Mr. Speaker:: I am listening very carefully to the words of the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata). I would not want any misunderstanding here. The Chair was not saying that that is necessarily the standard. The Chair was trying to get at the common sense of the matter and asking Hon. Members to address that. That is why I asked what prejudice has anyone suffered so far? However, I am listening to all of the arguments and I am not predisposed to making any decision.

January 23, 1987
Point of Order-Mr. H. Gray
Perhaps the Hon. Member may want to rise again after the adjournment.
It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this day.
At 1.03 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS
[Stage Direction]

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to advise Hon. Members that at the time of adjournment there was before the House a point of order that had been raised with respect to the agreement referred to in Bill C-37, which has not yet been tabled. In the Bill it refers to the document as having been tabled on January 19 under number, and then there was a blank, because when the Bill was printed no one knew what that number would be.
Debate commenced on Monday by unanimous consent, and after there had been an application for an emergency debate. The Speaker did not have to rule on the application for an emergency debate on the softwood issue, because all Parties agreed to bring this legislation into the House. The Bill was brought into the House and debate commenced. But, for whatever reason, the agreement between Canada and the United States on the softwood issue, was not tabled.
It is my understanding, and I think that this was expressed to the Chamber this morning, that later today the Minister intends to table that document. It is also my understanding that the document is in both languages. I see the Parliamentary Secretary nodding.
The point made by the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray), which has been reiterated by others, is that because the pieces of paper that constitute the Bill did not have printed on them the number of the agreement, and because there was an error in saying that it was tabled on January 19, strictly speaking, under the rules, the Bill ought not to have been accepted in the Chamber.
Some Hon. Members are arguing as a consequence of what various people discovered late yesterday afternoon that the debate of Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday is a nullity, and that it ought to be treated as if it had never happened. Others have said that they do not go quite that far, but in order to remedy the defect the Bill ought to be reintroduced, and Hon. Members be invited to restate the vivid positions they made in the vigorous debate that took place on during Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday.
During the interventions this morning the Speaker did ask Hon. Members to address this question, because I felt it was important in the public interest, and knowing that the public is watching this debate, what prejudice has anybody suffered. I
have heard some response to that. One is that if there is any change from the absolute literal legalistic interpretation of a rule, that is a breach of the public interest, because the rules were obviously designed in the public interest.
The Speaker has been considering this matter over noon hour. I have not come to any conclusion. I invite Hon. Members to listen carefully to the debate. I also felt it important, because the public may be wondering what this is all about, that some explanation, as concise as I could make it, and without taking one side or the other, ought to be made at this point.
Before the noon hour the Hon. Member for York South- Weston (Mr. Nunziata) was addressing the Chair. I suggested at that time that he may wish to return to his argument and continue it after the adjournment. I now recognize the Hon. Member for York South-Weston.


John V. Nunziata: I appreciate your comments, Mr. Speaker. As I indicated before the lunch break, it would be my respectful submission that, as a result of the fatal flaw in Bill C-37, the proceedings to date should be rendered or declared null and void by the Chair, and that the debate should be rendered academic.
I said so for a number of reasons. First, to allow the debate to continue and to recognize the debate over the last four days as-and I use the term loosely-legitimate would be in direct contravention of Standing Order 108, which reads as follows:
No Bill may be introduced either in blank or in an imperfect shape.
The language in that particular Standing Order is mandatory, I would submit. It is not permissive. It does not give authority to determine the extent of an imperfection in a particular Bill, or to determine the impact or prejudice involving a breach of the particular section, or to ignore the particular section. Our parliamentary system is made up of a lot of jurisprudence. We often refer to different works on the subject such as Erskine May and others. We refer to the law of precedents, rulings made by the Speaker on previous occasions. Parliamentary jurisprudence,the law of Parliament, and therefore the law of Canada, also includes the Standing Orders.
It has been suggested by the Government House Leader that the flaw with regard to Bill C-37 is a slight technicality. With the greatest of respect, I must take issue with the House Leader for the Conservative Party when he says that it is a slight technicality.
Clause 2(3) is the crux; it goes to the very heart of Bill C-37. Bill C-37 was a piece of legislation introduced in the House to give full force and effect to the Memorandum of Understanding which was signed by the Government of Canada and by the Government of the United States. Clause 2(3) reads:
In interpreting the schedule, recourse may be had to the Memorandum of Understanding concerning trade in certain softwood lumber products between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States dated
January 23, 1987

December 30, 1986 and tabled in the House of Commons on January 19, 1987 and recorded as document number-
There are two major problems with this particular section. First, there is a major error. The Bill says that it was tabled in the House on January 19, 1987. It was not. The Memorandum of Understanding was not tabled in the House on that particular day. On that particular day, first reading was given to Bill C-37.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member is absolutely accurate in what he says about the Bill where it says tabled January 19, which was the first day of debate; that was Monday. In fact the agreement, that document, was not tabled; he is absolutely correct. However, I think it is important for Hon. Members to remember also that that apparently was not as a consequence of any deliberate neglect.
The argument used by the government side is that the entire situation is a consequence of the arrangements, loose as they may have been, on that day. The Hon. Member's point is exact with regard to January 19 and the blank, which would have been the number of the tabled document; that is how the Bill appears. The Hon. Member's point is that that is enough to fatally flaw the document.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I was not suggesting that there was deliberate neglect. However, I would submit that there was neglect. It is not my intention this afternoon to lay blame at the doorstep of any individual. Someone erred, someone fell asleep at the switch. If anyone is to assume responsibility for the negligence surrounding this particular incident, it is the Government. However, it is not my intention now to criticize the Government. We are faced with this situation. Your Honour is put in a position where you must make a rather difficult decision.
In my view, as I indicated, there is only one course of action for the Chair to take, that is, to declare the debate which has occurred null and void and thereby require the Government, if it so desires, to reintroduce the Bill, whenever it so decides.
To rule otherwise would not only be in contravention of Standing Order 108, but it would set a very dangerous precedent in the future. It would set a precedent which would say to Governments and Parliaments of the future that they could introduce legislation in the House of Commons which is imperfect, which is in direct contravention to Standing Order 108, and that they could introduce a Bill with blanks in it. That is no way to run a railroad; it is certainly no way to run a Government.
If one considers the public interest-and I submit that your decision, Mr. Speaker, should be based exclusively upon what is in the public interest-I believe you should rule in favour of respect and adherence to the rule of law, including the Standing Orders.
I can draw an analogy to the criminal law. Often arguments are made based upon technicalities surrounding the laying of an information in a criminal court, or surrounding the
Point of Order-Mr. H. Gray
obtaining of evidence. There are technicalities in criminal law which are considered so basic and important in going to the root of the criminal justice system in Canada that charges are thrown out of court. Judges and courts have said that they must show to the world, or to all citizens of Canada, that they believe in respect for the rule of law. Notwithstanding that an individual may be set free after having likely committed an offence, it is more important that they respect the rule of law and, therefore, based upon a technicality, they declare a certain proceeding null and void.
Similarly, given our democratic system, I believe it important for you, Mr. Speaker, to send a very clear message, not only to the Government but to all parliamentarians and Canadians, that as lawmakers we will respect the laws we pass and that we will follow very strictly rules and regulations in place in Parliament to ensure that democratic principles are followed. They are part of our democracy, these rules which give the Opposition certain rights of debate and reply and give the Government certain rights.
One could argue that there is really no necessity for second reading debate on any particular piece of legislation. One could ask, what prejudice is there to the public if we eliminate a certain portion of the proceedings? In order to pass a piece of legislation in Parliament there are very firm rules and regulations. A Bill must be introduced in the proper form. Second reading debate follows. The Government is given an opportunity to introduce the Bill. The Opposition is permitted to respond. After second reading debate, which is debate in principle, is exhausted or closure is brought in it is referred to a committee, or goes into Committee of the Whole. Committee has the opportunity to amend. It comes back to the House for third reading. Royal Assent is given.
It is very important in our parliamentary system to ensure that democracy is pursued. The moment we start tampering with those very important and crucial rules, the moment we start saying "Well, we made a mistake, but so what; it is technical in nature; it is a slight technicality; it is really not that important", that is the moment the system starts to crumble. That is the moment respect for our parliamentary rules and regulations is adversely affected.
I respectfully request, Mr. Speaker, that you rule in this particular case that the Bill is flawed, that the flaw is fatal, that the proceedings that have taken place were irregular and that the debate cannot proceed on this Bill introduced in the form it was introduced. The only alternative then would be for the Government to re-introduce a Bill that complies with Standing Order 108 and complies with all other rules and regulations of this House. Thank you for the opportunity to speak, Sir.


Mr. David Kilgour (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. The Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) is confusing an indictment in a criminal case where, you will recall, it is

January 23, 1987
Point of Order-Mr. H. Gray
very important that it be worded precisely and contain all the ingredients of an offence. When there is a defect, as Your Honour knows, the court strikes the indictment down. You will know from your own experience in the courts that when no application is made at the beginning of a trial, the trial goes through to completion. There is a rule that if you do not object at the earliest opportunity the defence is taken to have consented to the form of the indictment. With respect, Sir, I think that is the fundamental mistake of the Hon. Member who just spoke.
This Bill can go to committee where it can be perfected, if there is a defect in it.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: No. Standing Order 108; it does not cure it.


David Kilgour: It can be perfected at the committee stage or when it comes back for third reading. Doubtless it will be perfected. The point the Member makes that there has been a prejudice because there has been a fatal flaw is, in my respectful submission, nonsense. Nobody has been prejudiced by this. There has been lengthy debate on the Bill. Members have spoken on and on. But no one raised this point until about two and one half hours ago. The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) pointed out from Beauchesne that you must raise the point at the first available opportunity, which was not done in this case.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: That doesn't cure the Bill.


David Kilgour: In short, probably no Bill that comes into this House is perfect. I am told there is no precedent on what this term "imperfect" means in Standing Order 108. I respectfully submit that every Member in this House would look very foolish if we were to try to say that the Bill was void ab initio now, an argument by the other side. Bearing in mind the fact that the reputation of Parliament is a factor, and bearing in mind that there is no precedent of which I am aware as to what "imperfect" means or does not mean, I would respectfully ask you to rule that the Bill is sufficiently perfect, that there has been no prejudice and it can go ahead to a vote and committee stage, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: I wish to comment on only one point, Mr. Speaker. A number of other important points have been made, and I know you are taking them into account. You did raise the question for us, Mr. Speaker, as to what prejudice or what harm may have been done by the oversight, if it was an oversight, and we assume that it was. In that connection, I was quite surprised by the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary's argument in connection with the word "may" in Clause 3. He read, as it is:
In interpreting the schedule, recourse may be had to the Memorandum of Understanding-
The Member says that is permissive. My reading of the English of it-being more versed in the English language than I am in law and what we have to deal is the English text-is that any Member may have recourse to the memorandum. It
does not mean in the same permissive sense that the Government may make that recourse available. In other words, permissiveness is one way. Any Member may use that document-quote that document if he has it-have access to that document-that is implied-but it does not mean there is anything permissive on the part of the Government introducing the Bill. Members are not told the Government may or may not make it available. This means the Government shall. That is the clear intent although it is not worded so. The memorandum shall be available and any Member may make use of it.
In fact, in the business of the week after I got here I did not immediately become aware that there was this memorandum supposedly available. We were told, of course, that it was available to us in the Minister's office. That raises a very interesting point. It says here that it shall be tabled and it may be available, or we may use it. That is the rule of law, that it shall be tabled, that it shall be printed and available in a public way.
Not by any means is everything in a Minister's office public. There is a great deal that does not become public until the Prime Minister's (Mr. Mulroney) office or somebody leaks it. In this case, I do not think there is any question that the Minister would have withheld the document if anybody had asked for it or when people did ask for it. I do not think there was any question of withholding it. In fact, that is not the method prescribed by the Standing Orders for making available to all Members of Parliament and the public the basic document upon which this Bill rests.
The only reason for having this Bill was the agreement embodied in that memorandum. Not only the 282 Members of Parliament but a number of interested persons, therefore, have an interest in that memorandum being readily available. To say, "Well, we didn't table it; you could not have got it by asking the Clerk; it would not be distributed in the normal course to Members offices as a tabled document, but if you had thought to ask the Minister for it, she would have given it to you", is not good enough, Mr. Speaker.
It is not only a matter of some potential injury to Members of Parliament who did not have it readily available, as I did not-nobody told me until today to ask the Minister for it- but to members of the public who know the rules even less than anybody here. They do not know that the document is available. They might guess, but they do not know. The Bill says it is available in the sense of a tabled document, which is simply not true. During this week when the matter has been in the newspapers and in other media every day, when a number of people outside this House of Commons were interested, that document has not been as available as the Standing Orders and this section required.
Therefore, I think there has been injury and there could be a great deal of injury in future were you to rule that this oversight makes no difference and the debate we have had is just as valid as if that document had been properly available to all Members of Parliament in both languages and properly available to the public, which it was not. If that were to be the
January 23, 1987

precedent, Mr. Speaker, then we have not the rule of law but the rule of persons. While one does not need to discuss the personality or character of this or that official or Minister, we obviously do not wish to have a situation in which documents are available only on the action of our Minister. They should be available in an impartial way on the action of the Clerk.
I believe, although it may seem strange or unnecessary, it is necessary to rule that the debate we have heard heretofore was an interesting conversation, but it was not the debate as prescribed by law on second reading, particularly because that ruling would have regard for the possibility of the Government introducing measures to limit the debate. The debate has not been full because the document with all the facts was not fully available.


Roland de Corneille: Mr. Speaker, when I rose before, I said that I wanted to talk about my privileges as a Member of Parliament simply because there is a Standing Order that states that no Bill may be introduced either in blank or in imperfect shape. That is part of the rules that are given to me by which I as a Member of Parliament operate. The rules guarantee that I have certain rights and privileges on behalf of my constituents. I believe I have a right as a Member of Parliament to say that my rights to represent my constituents are influenced by my ability to depend on the Standing Orders and my knowledge of the rules by which I will operate. It is important for me to know that you will also watch those rules as the Speaker and I know that you have done an excellent job in that respect. No disrespect to you is meant by my point. I am simply bringing up my concern about the debate that took place thus far.
In the debate, I was unable to discuss the text with authority. I would have spoken to Clause 6 of the mutual agreement but, instead, I debated the way in which the agreement was reached rather than the terms of the agreement itself.
The absence of a specific document could be extremely important. If, after the debate had moved along, one were to find that there were changes or differences between what one thought the document was and what it really was, things could become extremely difficult. One would look as if one were quoting from a flawed text.
It seems to me to be an absurd argument to say that we could go to the office of a Minister to get a document. This House is a political place. Could you imagine, Mr. Speaker, from a political point of view, that I would go to the Government for anything accurate these days? Can it be imagined that I would go to the office of a Minister to beg for his documents and then trust those documents? It is the House of Commons to which I must be able to come to get the official text, and not some office of the Government.
If a precedent is set that it is acceptable to go to an office of a Minister if we want information about our Bills, it would be a very serious departure from anything we have done in the
Point of Order-Mr. H. Gray
past. There is the Table, there is the Speaker's office and there is a way for Members of Parliament to come to you without having to become beholden to the Government for anything. We should be able to come to the House of Commons for documentation, and if such documentation is not tabled, and is part of a Bill, then in fact that Bill is not complete.
When I debated the Bill I spoke to the issue of how the mutual understanding was brought about, but I did not speak to the issue of the text. I have here notes on what I might have said later in this debate. But, in any case, the Government chose to try to strangle the debate. My remarks would have dealt with Clause 6 of the agreement, but I do not yet to this minute have from the Table the access to Clause 6 which I need to be able to debate it. That is why I was talking about privilege. I was referring to my privilege as a Member of Parliament to be able to carry out my functions without being beholden to the Government, or finding it necessary in any way to turn to the Government for anything to do with the text of a Bill to be debated in the House of Commons.


Mr. John McDermid (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, I have been listening with great interest to the debate that has been going on and I would like to make a few points if I may.
The Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nun-ziata) talked about tampering with the rules as if this were being done deliberately. I contend that in fact, we tamper with the rules every day as we did when this Bill was introduced. At the time it was introduced it was not introduced in accordance with the Standing Orders. We tamper with the rules from time to time.
The Hon. Member who just spoke said that he could not discuss the text of the Bill with authority. However, I listened with great interest to the speech he made yesterday and, as found on page 2545 of Hansard, he said: "but so are the Canadian people, not only by this agreement," which he had in his hand, "but by other evidence". Then, on page 2546, he said the following:
-Canada caved in and signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the United States that did, indeed, impose a 15 per cent duty-
If he did not have the facts in front of him, how could he have been so emphatic when he said that these things were indeed done?
I agree with my colleagues, including the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski), who have submitted that the public was not prejudiced. The documentation was in the public domain and was available to anyone on December 31. Members were not prejudiced. The documentation was sent to their offices in both official languages on January 5. There have been 20 hours of debate on this matter so far. Every Member of Parliament, without exception, I believe, had a copy of the agreement, and many of them quoted from it rather-if you will pardon the expression-liberally during the 20 hours of debate. I do not believe that either the public or the Members were prejudiced in this particular instance, and I

January 23, 1987
Point of Order-Mr. H. Gray
feel that we should get on with your ruling, Mr. Speaker, and then move on to Orders of the Day.


Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, a very exact rule of order is involved here. The rule is Standing Order 108 which indicates that no Bill may be introduced either in blank or in an imperfect shape. What we have here is a Bill that has been introduced in both a blank shape and an imperfect shape. It is not one or the other but both.
Where is the blank? The blank is on page 2, line 12 of the Bill. There is the blank.


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask the Hon. Member if he can see the blank.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, I can see the blank because there are dots there. In fact, there are about 15 dots there. That, Mr. Speaker, is a blank.
What is the imperfect shape of the Bill, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: The blank?


George Baker: No, Mr. Speaker, the blank is in a perfect shape. It is in a straight line and it is all dots.
What about the imperfect shape of the Bill? We know the Government is imperfect and perhaps that is what led to the introduction of this imperfect Bill.
It is interesting to listen to lawyers discussing issues in this House. Of course, Mr. Speaker, you are a lawyer and you will know the truth of what I am about to say. Two lawyers are arguing back and forth about what should or should not be in a Bill, but they know that a Bill that is not complete cannot be introduced into the House of Commons. As you know, Mr. Speaker, a judge has to make rulings on the basis of the intent of legislation.
In this particular clause, there is the following phrase: "in interpreting the Schedule, you can use a document which is number" blank. What are we coming to in this Chamber? Any logger, anyone in the forest industry, would know what the Schedule is. It talks about dressed lumber, drilled lumber, treated lumber, rough lumber and softwood lumber. That is what the Bill is all about. However, in interpreting the allimportant Schedule you have to refer to document number, blank.
We are not blaming the drafters of the legislation. They are trying to do their best. We have some of the best drafters of legislation in the world; overworked, underpaid, but they are the best in the parliamentary system of Government. However, in drafting this particular clause the draftsman had nothing to work with. Not only did he not have the document, he did not have the number. What did he do? He had to leave a blank and he put in 15 or 16 dots. It now comes to the Parliament of
Canada. It went to the Minister's office, was ordered to be printed by this House, but we did not know there were blanks in it. We can see there are blanks in it now. How were we to know then that the Government of Canada for the first time, as I understand it, brought a Bill in with blanks in it? We did not know that when it was first being printed. We only noticed it a few hours ago.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Baker: The rule is clear. We ask you to rule on the basis of Standing Order 108. This Bill is both blank and in imperfect shape. It is also certainly a good reflection of the Government of the day.


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, today's debate has revolved around the interpretation of Standing Order 108. As you well know, that says that no Bill may be introduced either in blank or in imperfect shape. That is quite true, but of course the House has the power to change any rule by unanimous consent. You will note that in Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, page 6, Citation 13, there is comment to the effect that within the ambit of its own rules the House may proceed as it chooses. It is a common practice for the House to ignore its own rules by unanimous consent. Thus Bills may be passed through all of their stages in one day, or the House may decide to alter its normal order of business or its adjournment hour as it sees fit. The House is perfectly able to give consent to set aside its Standing Orders and give its unanimous consent to waive procedural requirements and precedents concerning notice and things of that sort. Whenever the House proceeds by way of unanimous consent that procedure does not constitute a precedent.
It is not in order for one Member to ask for unanimous consent to compel another Member to do something.
You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that on January 19, as recorded in Hansard at page 2370, when this legislation was introduced, the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney) moved that Bill C-37, an Act respecting the imposition of a charge on the export of certain softwood lumber products, be now read the first time and be printed. The motion was agreed to, the Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed. That was done through unanimous consent. What happened, in my respectful submission, is that the House, in accordance with the provisions of Citation 13 of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, has by unanimous consent agreed to introduce this Bill. In effect, to introduce it in whatever form it was in.
You will remember that at that time you were being pressed by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) to proceed with an emergency debate on this very issue. All sides of the House were most anxious to press on with the debate. It is my submission that Hansard indicates there was unanimous consent to the introduction of the Bill. In effect, the House accepted the Bill in the form it was in by unanimous consent and there is no question whatsoever about Standing Order 108

January 23, 1987

being invoked. In fact, it was unanimous consent, as indicated in Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, whereby the House proceeded on its own to ignore its own rules and proceed with the introduction of the Bill.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) is rising, but there are other Members who have not yet spoken.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I just wanted to correct some of the points made by the last speaker. I do not disagree with his argument that we gave unanimous consent for the Bill to be presented on first reading. We never questioned that. What we did not give was unanimous consent to waive Standing Order 108. That is the debate. I am not disagreeing with his reading of Hansard of January 19, not at all. I am just telling him that the Bill is imperfect, it is not acceptable, it goes against Standing Order 108 and that is the whole argument.


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened to this debate this morning and this afternoon and I do not think there is much doubt that if it comes to making a decision you will have to rule that the Bill has been introduced in imperfect form and, therefore, the point of order raised by the Liberal House Leader will have to stand.
I think we should look at this from the point of view of what is best for the people of Canada. We oppose this Bill, but we were willing to co-operate on January 19, as the previous speaker mentioned, in introducing the Bill and waiving the time period between first reading and second reading and so on. We were prepared to have a reasonable debate beginning on January 19 without going through all the technicalities.
The concern of opposition Members is that the Government decided to play hardball on this whole question. Last night the Parliamentary Secretary moved that the question be put. He was interested in stifling debate. He wants to use the rules against us to prevent a full and proper debate of this Bill. We think that debate is necessary. We have issues that have to be raised. His motion means that that kind of debate cannot take place.
Perhaps there is a way out of this impasse. Perhaps you could call for a 15-minute recess and sit down with the House Leaders and see if some kind of deal can be made. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary might want to withdraw his motion.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, order. I hesitate to interrupt the Hon. Member. I will hear him out. However, I just point out that the Hon. Member in inviting all Hon. Members to work out a deal has created instant, mild disorder in the Chamber. That is a most extraordinary result of an Hon. Member making what seems to the Chair to be such an eminently sensible suggestion.


James Douglas Manly: In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I submit that if an agreement cannot be reached among the three Parties, you
Point of Order-Mr. H. Gray
have no alternative but to rule that the Bill was introduced in an imperfect manner.


Ross Belsher: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is any doubt in people's minds that there is an imperfection in the Bill before us which has been debated for the last several days. However, with regard to the suggestion that has been made that people do not have access to the information, on the afternoon of January 8 when I called upon various remanufacturers in my riding who were vitally interested in the contents of the memorandum of understanding, I found that they already had a copy. The information had gone out and had been widely disseminated. It is false to say that the people of Canada and Members of Parliament did not have that information.
I hope that common sense will prevail. As imperfect as we all are, our nation's business should proceed. We should deal with the Bill in its present form after making the necessary corrections. I do not think anyone noticed the imperfection in this Bill until yesterday afternoon. Everyone took part in the debates on the motion to alter this Bill and to delay it for six months. It would be an injustice to the Canadian public to wipe out all that has happened in the last several days.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, since my last intervention several points have been made, particularly by yourself, which I think require a response.
I can sympathize with the interest of the Chair in resolving the matter satisfactorily in order that debate can continue. As our House Leader pointed out in his first statement, there is a very important principle at stake here, that is, the sanctity of the Standing Orders. While we respect the suggestions to "fix a deal", as helpful as they may be, it is vital to resolve this problem correctly. Knowing the weakness of the Government in negotiating deals, knowing that it always gives in to any negotiations, the offer is tempting. However, the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney) is not in the Chamber and we would certainly want her to be available for those negotiations. I would not like to suggest that perhaps she has left for Hawaii, but we do not know.
This is simply not a matter of trying to work out a minor clerical error. There is a fundamental principle involved, which I am sure Your Honour fully respects. If the last speaker reflected upon the matter more carefully, I am sure he would realize that this matter does not deal only with an export tax. It is a matter which will govern the proceedings of this House in this and future sessions. To compromise our Standing Orders would be to set a very dangerous and serious precedent.
The argument has been made by the Government House Leader and others that the unanimous consent of the Opposition to proceed with the debate on Monday was an acknowledgment that we were prepared to accept the Bill. One can see from reading Hansard that that is not accurate. We had moved a motion to have an emergency debate at that time. The Government House Leader said that they would instead introduce a Ways and Means Motion to debate the matter. As

January 23, 1987
Point of Order-Mr. H. Gray
you well know, our preference was to have an emergency debate so that we could debate the issue in principle before the Bill was introduced. We cautioned the Government that its haste in introducing a Bill in an unreflective manner would lead to trouble. However, we conceded to allow debate to be generated in that fashion. It must be remembered that the Ways and Means motion was introduced before the Bill was fully published and we reserved our caution.
The argument has been made that there was opportunity during the last four days of debate to consider the Memorandum of Understanding. The fact is that we were fully aware when we finally saw the Bill that the Government had made a mistake. It was only when the Parliamentary Secretary moved that the question be put, which would cut off debate, and we realized we would not have an opportunity to see the Memorandum of Understanding until second reading was concluded, that we took the action which we did.


John Horton McDermid: It was sent to your office on January 5.


Lloyd Axworthy: It was the action of the Parliamentary Secretary to restrict the debate which made us realize that the Government obviously had no intention of tabling the memorandum which would have made Bill C-37 a proper Bill. Although they say there were copies of the Memorandum of Understanding available in the Minister's office, there was no assurance given that that was the proper and official memorandum. Only by having it tabled in this House as part of this Bill could we be assured that it was the official memorandum.
As I pointed out in my previous intervention, the Minister herself said yesterday that she was going to start negotiating a change to that agreement with regard to the remanufacture of secondary products. They were going to change the agreement before they had even tabled it. Therefore, at that point in time we were being asked to buy a pig in a poke, a Bill which was incomplete and flawed. When the Parliamentary Secretary moved a motion to cut off debate the Government had not lived up to its obligations. Our House Leader then took action at his earliest opportunity, which was before Routine Proceedings today. The crucial point is that the Government precipitated the problem by moving the motion which it did yesterday.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, we have now heard from the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) why they took the action which they did. We have heard a lot of fluff around here.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: What do you mean, fluff?


Rodney Edward Murphy: You screwed up. Admit it.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: You messed it up yourselves. Come on.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: That is exactly what it is, Mr. Speaker. The words of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) clearly acknowledge that they knew when we began debate on the Bill that the Memorandum of Understanding was not
tabled. The first words that he uttered, as reported at page 2375 of Hansard, were:
Mr. Speaker, the Bill before the House incorporates an agreement, which presumably in due course will be tabled-


Lloyd Axworthy: Sure, we were waiting for it.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: What has transpired, Mr. Speaker? There have been several days of debate.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: We haven't even had the Bill yet.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, may I have the floor, please? If the Member wants to speak, I will certainly hear him out.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I am on the record. I asked for the Bill. You did not have it.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) has made a single contribution to the debate. If he wishes to rise and add something, I am sure there will be an appropriate time to do so and the Chair will recognize him at that time. In the meantime, the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) has the floor and is making points of interest to Hon. Members and to the Chair.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Stick to the facts.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The Hon. Member says: "Stick to the facts". I am sticking to the facts and I am quoting exactly what his leader stated in the House.
The other fact is that this Bill has been voted upon. An amendment was moved and a vote was taken. I submit that there are two clear examples of the fact that clearly the Opposition, which is now-


John V. Nunziata: You cannot correct a nullity.


Mr. Speaker:: I think all Hon. Members will agree that the Chair has listened with great patience and interest to all arguments. Most of the arguments have been put with very little interruption.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am pointing out to you that it was clearly an acknowledgement of the fact that the Memorandum of Agreement was going to be tabled in due course. It can be tabled today. The other fact is that the Bill has been voted upon. Members opposite certainly would not have allowed a vote to take place if they thought the Bill was out of order.
I submit that you have been very patient, very diligent, and you have been very generous with all Hon. Members. I submit that whatever your decision, it is the time to have a decision as soon as we possibly can so that we can either get on with the continuation of this debate or go on to other business.
January 23, 1987


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, there are three points which I believe show flaws in the argument which the Conservative Members have put before you this afternoon on this important point of order. The first flaw is that the agreement itself has not yet been tabled. If there had been a mere delay in the tabling on Monday, perhaps that would have represented a mild oversight which, as the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) has noted, was recognized by the Leader of the Official Opposition during the debate. However, that does not offer any excuse for the agreement not to be tabled for the rest of the week.
Second, the question was raised on Monday as to what unanimous consent was being given. It seems quite clear to me, and I believe to most Members of the House, that unanimous consent was being given to Standing Order 68 rather than Standing Order 108. Standing Order 68 states that 48 hours notice shall be given of a motion for leave to present a Bill, resolution or address. That was the exemption which we accepted unanimously in order to facilitate consideration of the Bill. There was no intimation at any time that Standing order 108 was, itself, being exempted by unanimous consent.
Finally, it must be made very clear that it was not the Bill that was voted on, but a procedural amendment to put the Bill off for a period of time. There has not been any vote on the Bill itself. Instead, it is a question of a procedural amendment which took place and one that would have removed the Bill for some considerable time before such a vote took place. I suggest that argument is essentially hollow.
In view of these facts and the lack of willingness on the part of the other two Parties in the House to talk seriously about some arrangement which might take us through the impasse- about which I have spoken to representatives of the other Parties-unfortunately it now becomes incumbent upon you to come to a decision. I would urge that that decision be very much in accordance with the rules of the House so that there is no precedent that under any circumstances rules can somehow be overlooked.


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, in order to be of assistance to you in making a decision, I want to draw your attention to a precedent. This happened on June 26, 1984, in the second session of the Thirty-Second Parliament, when the matter under discussion was the second reading of the Western Arctic (Inuvialuit) Claims Settlement Act. The citation can be found on page 5139 of Hansard for that day. At that time something very similar happened, again on page 2, Clause 2 of the Bill under discussion. The blanks and the number of the agreement had been omitted from the Bill. I argued then just as strenuously as the Opposition is now arguing that the Bill was therefore defective and should not be admitted.
However, at that time, members of the Liberal Party argued that this was merely a technicality and should not prevent discussion of the Bill as it stood. The Deputy Speaker at the time found in favour of the Liberal Government Members who
Point of Order-Mr. H. Gray
had argued that it was merely a technicality and should not prevent discussion of the Bill. I think you might want to look at that precedent before you render your decision.


Roland de Corneille: Mr. Speaker, the House can do almost anything in terms of the way we proceed if it so agrees by unanimous consent. I imagine that we could have proceeded if we were dealing with a subject that was debatable and one which we felt the Government wanted to debate. However, when we hear the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney) state that there are further changes that might be negotiated in the Memorandum of Understanding, we may find when it is tabled that that part of the debate which has taken place was not totally relevant because changes may have been made therein. On the basis of that type of problem, we are faced with the Government's text, not the text of the House of Commons. The very fact that it might be renegotiated means the Government must state clearly whether it is tabling a final Memorandum of Understanding, or will it also be under review? Will the Government use its power to obstruct that?
This is a very serious matter. We are talking about an untabled document that is related to the debate that has taken place so far. We may find that it has changed or that the Government may want to change it in the future. The question before us is one of a Bill that we see one minute and not the other.
I believe this is a matter of principle and precedent. I do not believe that the question of this Memorandum of Understanding, that is so basic to the whole Bill, can be called a small technicality.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, it was not my intention to rise again on this point of order. However, in the ensuing discussion I feel there has been an attempt-I am sure not a deliberate attempt-to kind of muddy the waters. I think it is very clear that under our new rule, Standing Order 108:
No bill may be introduced either in blank or in an imperfect shape.
According to Hansard on January 19, 1987, page 2370, the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney) moved:
-that Bill C-37, an Act respecting the imposition of a charge on the export of certain softwood lumber products, be now read the first time and be printed.
That is when we ran into problems. We assumed, and rightly so, that the Bill was in perfect shape and was able to be introduced and printed at that time. The Bill before us, as has been explained by a number of Hon. Members, is not perfect. It is not complete and does in fact have a blank on the top of page 2. That is the problem we face.
The Government had an obligation to prepare and to present a Bill in a perfect and complete form. That is the intent and the exact wording of Standing Order 108. The Government failed in that obligation. As a result, it is possible for the Government to now put almost any memorandum or piece of

January 23, 1987
Tabling of Documents
litterature in front of us and claim that is what we are indeed debating.
The purpose of Standing Order 108 is very clear. The House of Commons must have a complete document. That is what we should be debating. That is why we have a first reading, second reading, committee study and third reading, so we can deal with legislation in a proper form and go through the proper procedures. We have not done that.
I would submit the Government has failed to present a proper Bill in a complete form. The Government has admitted that time after time over the last few hours. It has admitted it has broken the rule which says that no Bill may be introduced either in blank or in imperfect shape. Because the Government has broken not only the intent but the actual wording of Section 108,1 submit the Chair has no choice-it always has a choice, but I would think it is necessary for the Chair to say that this Bill has not been presented correctly and, therefore, it cannot be acceptable for debate at this time.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair thanks Hon. Members for their interventions. I think there is a general disposition in the Chamber to close off debate on this quite interesting point. I will not take the risk of prolonging debate by posing any further questions to Hon. Members. Therefore, if there are no other Hon. Members rising, we will continue for now with Routine Proceedings.
In any event, I want to make it clear that I will have to reserve on this ruling. Because of the number of Hon. Members who have spoken on the matter and the attention it has been given, I think Hon. Members will understand that it is very important I do reserve. Therefore, I will not be giving a ruling this afternoon. We will now move to Routine Proceedings.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I certainly understand the need to fully evaluate all the evidence. I would just like to ensure, however, concerning all the points which have been raised, that once we are finished with Routine Proceedings, Government Orders will not include Bill C-37, that we will not proceed with Bill C-37 but go on to other Government business until such time as the Speaker's ruling is made on Bill C-37.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) rising to make the same point?


Rodney Edward Murphy: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I agree with the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) that as long as the Chair has not made a ruling at this time, it would certainly be inappropriate for the House, for the next little while, to debate a piece of legislation which a vast number of Hon. Members have submitted has been improperly placed before the House.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank both Hon. Members. All Hon. Members will know it is not for the Chair to say at this point what the conditions of the reservation are. I am indicating to
the Chamber that I am going to reserve. I think Hon. Members will know why. There are a number of points which have been raised and they are serious points.
My purpose now is to carry on with Routine Proceedings. If Hon. Members want to rise after that, they, of course, are free to do so.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 67(2) I have the honour to lay upon the table copies, in both official languages, of a Memorandum of Understanding respecting the export of certain softwood lumber products and referred to as Bill C-37.
V *	*


PETITIONS
Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Government's response to 23 petitions, Nos. 332-309, 332-319, 332-331, 332-345 to 332-347 inclusive, 332-407, 332-432 to 332-438 inclusive and 332-449 to 332-457 inclusive.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege and responsibility of presenting a petition duly certified by the Clerk regarding low-level flight training of pilots of NATO countries at the Canadian Forces Base at Goose Bay, Labrador. The petitioners point out that these flights disrupt the life of the native people and that training pilots to fly under the radar into eastern Europe is a provocative and aggressive war action which tends to endanger world peace.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to ensure that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) ends all low level flight training at the Goose Bay Canadian Forces Base and cease negotiations with NATO for the establishment of a larger base there.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today. The first petition is from a
January 23, 1987

number of constituents in Vancouver East, particularly those living in the Chinatown area of my riding. The petitioners feel that the federal Government's decision, through the Canadian Transport Commission, to locate the transfer point for dangerous goods in the riding of Vancouver East presents an extremely hazardous situation for residents and workers in the surrounding vicinity which, as you know, Mr. Speaker, is a very densely populated downtown area. The petitioners are very concerned that this transfer point be changed. They also ask that the Canadian Transport Commission finalize a permanent solution to the movement of hazardous commodities which will be acceptable to the citizens of greater Vancouver and the region.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: My second petition is one we continue to receive. It is signed by residents of Port Coquitlam, Burnaby, White Rock and New Westminster. They again ask the federal Government to withdraw its plans to change the Patent Act which they feel would be very damaging to Canadian citizens, that it would raise the price of drugs and is also another example of the Canadian Government's concessions to the United States in the free trade negotiations.


Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a petition which has been certified correct as to form and content according to Standing Order 106. It is signed by the business people of the hamlet of Rossport in northwestern Ontario. The petitioners call upon Parliament to allow for the continuance of a small post office within Rossport and the hiring of a postperson for same.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, by the authority vested in me by virtue of my election to the House of Commons, I consider it my duty and honour to present to the House seven petitions, each containing the names of 25 Canadians who request that the Government rescind the tariff which it imposed on imported books in the English language. The petitioners call upon Parliament to rescind this tariff which threatens irreparable harm to the Canadian book industry. It compromises federal policy on cultural industries in respect of free trade negotiations. All the petitions have been certified by the Clerk.
[ Translation]


Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty as well to present to the House a few petitions duly certified by the Clerk of Petitions. These petitions originate from people in Belleville, Ontario, in Vancouver, British Columbia-a region with which you are
Petitions
very familiar, Mr. Speaker, certainly among the most beautiful in Canada-and from Ottawa.

The petitioners humbly pray that Parliament rescind the tariff on books. This tariff threatens irreparable harm to the Canadian book industry.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Pursuant to Standing Order 106, Mr. Speaker, I wish to table petitions humbly calling upon the Government to rescind the tariff on books which is doing irreparable harm to the Canadian book industry and compromises federal policy on cultural industries with respect to the free trade negotiations.

I also have other petitions which humbly ask the Government to rescind the retaliatory tariff it has imposed on imported books in the English language which has limited the access of Canadians to literature and information. This tariff has had little negative effect on the publishing industry of the United States, yet penalizes Canada's consumers, book publishers, book sellers, and distributors of Canada's culture. Rising book prices have placed a strain on the book acquisition programs and policies of our nation's public and specialized libraries.
The undersigned petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to rescind this tariff which threatens to do irreparable harm to the Canadian book industry, and compromises federal policy on cultural industries in respect to the free trade negotiations.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with Standing Order 106, I rise to present a petition on behalf of a number of residents of Victoria, Vancouver, Whitehorse, and Winnipeg concerning the retaliatory tariff on imported books in the English language, which has limited the access of Canadians to literature and information. The tariff has had a negative effect on the publishing industry, penalizes Canadian consumers, and has a major deleterious effect on the opportunity of Canadians to understand the proper and important area of literature and information. I present these petitions on behalf of Canadians who are deeply concerned about this issue.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of some 50 residents of Ontario which calls upon the Government to withdraw the retaliatory tariff on English language books, because of the negative impact it will have on the Canadian book publishing industry, and the book sellers groups in various parts of the country. It also threatens to do irreparable harm to the Canadian book industry and compromises our policy on cultural industries in respect of free trade negotiations with the United States. I have great honour in presenting this petition.

January 23, 1987
Order Paper Questions


Roland de Corneille: Pursuant to Standing Order 106, Mr. Speaker, I have a petition bearing the signatures of residents of Vancouver and Calgary.

These petitioners wish to call upon the House of Commons because of their concern, as members of library associations, about the effect of the tariff upon libraries in their communities, especially in Calgary and Vancouver. The retaliatory tariff is hurting Canadian books, libraries, book publishers, and particularly the citizens who have to pay taxes in order to buy these books. Therefore, I am presenting this petition to the House of Commons on their behalf.
1 also have a petition from people who are in St. John's, Newfoundland; Ottawa, St. Catharines, Montreal, Winnipeg, Kingston, Niagara Falls, New York; and Edmundston, New Brunswick. These petitioners are presenting this petition to call upon the House of Commons to do something about the problems concerning the tariff on books which is greatly affecting the libraries in our communities.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions to present this afternoon. The first deals with the Government legislation to amend the Patent Act. It is from my home constituency of Essex-Windsor. The many Canadians who have signed this petition feel that the changes being suggested will severely restrict the ability of average Canadians to buy the necessary prescription drugs. It will unfairly hurt Canadians whose health needs require the purchase of those drugs. It will result in higher costs to the provincial government drug plans. As I have noted before with such petitions, they too, as with the lumber agreement, are clearly concessions in the free trade talks that we are carrying on with the United States.
The second petition is precisely the same type, but it comes from the Province of Saskatchewan. It includes signatures from people in Moose Jaw, Regina, and in a number of other municipalities within the Province of Saskatchewan. This petition makes precisely the same points.


Steven W. Langdon: The third petition is from people in Toronto. This petition protests the low-level flight training of pilots of NATO countries at the Canadian Forces Base in Goose Bay, Labrador. It suggests that hunting, fishing, tourism, and mining can provide more stable, healthy and peaceful employment than the Goose Bay Canadian Forces Base. Therefore, it calls upon the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to end all low-level flight training at the Goose Bay Canadian Forces Base, and cease negotiations with NATO for the establishment of a larger base there. As I say, it is signed by people from Toronto, and also by a significant number of people from Ottawa.


Rodney Edward Murphy: I have the honour under Standing Order 106 to present a petition on behalf of residents of Thompson, Manitoba, who express their concern with the federal Government's attempt to change the Patent Act relating to prescription drugs. In the petition these Thompson residents have expressed their concern that the result of this change in legislation will severely restrict the ability of average Canadians to buy necessary prescription drugs. They also express the belief that this is yet another example of the Government conceding to the United States at the expense of the average Canadians in the free trade negotiations.
Therefore, the residents of Thompson humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject these proposals which would increase prescription drug prices for Canadians.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, under the authority of Standing Order 106, it is my pleasure to introduce a petition approved as to form from a number of residents in Toronto, Pickering, Islington, Kleinburg, and Montreal. These people are protesting the present low-level flight training of pilots of NATO countries at the Canadian Forces Base in Goose Bay, Labrador. They say that it disrupts the way of life of native people, and also pollutes the area, and that hunting, fishing, tourism, and mining provide alternative employment in the area and could be promoted by the Government better than they are.
Therefore, because of that and because of the danger to world peace of this provocative and war fighting training, they ask Parliament to ensure that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) will end these low-level flight training programs at Goose Bay and cease negotiating with NATO for the establishment of a larger base there.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 51 and 56.


Mr. Shields: For each year since 1980, by province, did the Government make any contributions of more than $1 million to corporations in Canada by means of (a) grant contributions (b) loan assistance comprising interest rate buy downs, interest free loans or low interest loans requiring $1 million of government
January 23, 1987

expenditure (c) loan guarantees where the Government has been exposed for more than $1 million and, if so, in each case, what was the (i) name of the company (ii) amount of assistance (iii) date the project was accepted?


Philip Derek Lewis: The
information requested can be found in Volume II-"Details of Expenditures and Revenues" of the Public Accounts of Canada tabled each year in the House of Commons.


Mr. Gauthier: Over the past 15 years, what were the amounts paid by the Government for the financing of benefits under the Public Service Superannuation Act (PSSA) and, what was the amount for indexation?


Mr. Chuck Cook (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: Employer Contributions
PSSA	(000,000's)	Indexing1971-72	183	101972-73	206	121973-74	209	211974-75	287	541975-76	321	801976-77	331	1101977-78	353	1571978-79	381	1831979-80	329	2241980-81	400	2621981-82	606	3431982-83	478	4101983-84	467	4691984-85	495	5151985-86	513	549[ Translation]


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


Mr. Speaker:: The	questions	enumerated by	the Hon.Parliamentary Secretary have	been answered.	Shall the
remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, January 22, consideration of the motion of Miss Carney that Bill C-37, an Act respecting the imposition of a charge on the export of certain softwood lumber products, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee, and the amendment of Mr. McDermid (p.2601).
John V. Nunziata: On a question of privilege-


Lloyd Axworthy: I have a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps, if the Chair says something now, some of the interventions may not be necessary.
The Chair has signalled the intention to reserve on what is clearly a complex question which is concerning many Hon. Members in the Chamber. I think there is a general disposition in the Chamber to agree that the Chair needs time to consider the matter. As a consequence, we have moved through Routine Proceedings, and it is appropriate now to carry on with Orders of the Day and with debate on Bill C-37.
Having said that, the condition which the Chair would put on proceeding with debate on the Bill until the end of today would be that further debate would be without prejudice to any of the points made in the arguments today. I would hope that that would meet with the approval of Hon. Members. If Hon. Members still want to argue the point, they can, but I think I am indicating what is the appropriate procedure under the circumstances.
I make it very clear to all Hon. Members that continuing the debate until four o'clock will not in any way prejudice any of the positions taken on the point of order and in the arguments which have been so fully put. Of course another undertaking or condition is that the question will not be put. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy).


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, we certainly take-


Philip Derek Lewis: Are you rising on a question of privilege or a point of order?


Lloyd Axworthy: On a point of order.


Philip Derek Lewis: Your colleague was seeking the floor on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: There seems to be some confusion. Perhaps I can help. The Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) was seeking the floor on a question of privilege. It

January 23, 1987
Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act
probably should take precedence. Could I hear the Hon. Member?


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to set down my question of privilege until the Hon. Member for Winnipeg- Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) completes his submission.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Member. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. I believe my point of order in fact will address the issue to be raised.
We certainly accept and thank the Chair for the condition applied, that any debate would take place without prejudice. I would only say, in parentheses, that it is unfortunate the Government House Leader or his Parliamentary Secretary, taking into account what they heard today, did not show some eminent sense and simply defer debate on the Bill until such time as we have had an opportunity to hear the Speaker's ruling. Nevertheless, that was their decision, and the commentary it makes about their respect for the process of this House stands.
However, what I want to raise by point of order is the conduct of the debate. The Government has just now tabled the Memorandum of Understanding. There are people with immense talents on this side of the House but a capacity for speed reading is not necessarily one of them. For us to ask Hon. Members to proceed with the debate, having just received that memorandum-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: -is a matter of privilege.


Miss MacDonald:: Come, come, don't you read your mail?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I would be the first to admit that through my own ingenuity I was able to procure a copy of the Memorandum of Understanding at an earlier date. However, that was certainly without facilitation by the Government. It was just that we have an incredibly effective staff that is able to pursue these things to the furthest reaches of the earth.
However, that may not be the case of other Hon. Members who are busily occupied with other matters. As the trade critic, I would have more of a preoccupation. However, we still have Members of the House-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, can you hear me over the uproar?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Lloyd Axworthy: I would like to make a further point, if I may.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I assure the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry that I can hear him. I am having a little more difficulty understanding him, but-


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I know it is late in the afternoon. I realize the powers of comprehension have a tendency to wane by this time of the day.
The second point I would make is one which was made earlier. How do I know that the document just tabled is the same document as the one that was signed? There have already been indications by the Minister that the document was to be changed. We are now faced with having to continue a debate on the basis of documents in a Memorandum of Understanding which we are not sure are bona fide or in fact whether it is the same Memorandum of Understanding which was signed on December 30.
I simply wanted to make that point of order and perhaps plead with the Government House Leader that, for the sake of some respect for the rights of Members of Parliament, he call another order of business until such time as we have perused these documents, and of course to await the ruling of the Chair.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I would have otherwise been scheduled to speak on Bill C-37 at second reading stage exactly four minutes ago. I requested a copy of the Memorandum of Agreement about 10 minutes ago. It was tabled about 15 minutes ago in the House. I just received the Memorandum of Understanding signed by officials of the Government of Canada and by officials of the Government of the United States.
It is a 17-page document. I have to take exception with the Government for proceeding with Bill C-37, notwithstanding the fact that we have argued the point as to whether or not Bill C-37 is properly before the House. I submit that that shows contempt, not only for other Hon. Members in the House but for the Chair, in view of the fact that the Chair has reserved on this particular ruling.
My question of privilege is as follows: If as a duly elected Member of Parliament I am required to speak to a particular piece of legislation, which is in question at this point in time, how am I able to do so when I have been given four minutes to read and understand a 17-page legal document?
I submit that it is your responsibility as Speaker of the House of Commons to protect the rights of individual Members of Parliament who may be affected by the actions of the Government. I cannot speak to Bill C-37 given the circumstances that occurred. The Memorandum of Agreement was just tabled. I say to you, Sir, that this is the first time I have seen this Memorandum of Agreement referred to in Bill C-37.


Mr. Speaker:: I will respond immediately to the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) who, as usual, has made his points succinctly. I want to say to the Hon.
January 23, 1987

Member that the situation we are facing here is one that has come about as a consequence of a unique series of events, including, of course, the unanimous consent to bring the Bill in and including, of course, that a number of days of debate have gone by.
The Hon. Member says that he has only just seen the agreement referred to in the legislation and he cannot speak to the Bill. That might well be. I say that sincerely. But the Hon. Member will have another opportunity to speak. It may be that as time goes on he will find time to look at the agreement and may feel that he is then in a position to speak. If something happens that the Hon. Member is denied the right to speak as a consequence of anything that has transpired then the Chair will hear him again.
[ Translation]


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised and shocked at the arrogance of this Government, after two and a half hours of debate during which we tried to explain that Bill C-37 is defective as to form and that the date it contains for the tabling of a document, January 19, 1987, is wrong. We will have to amend this Bill.
As for the item on page 2, we spent two and a half hours on a fairly comprehensive debate on Standing Order 108 which clearly says that the Government may not introduce a Bill that is incorrect or incomplete, with blank spaces. And now this Government is calling the same Bill after a two-and-a-half hour debate. How stubborn can you get? They refuse to understand that the Bill is defective and that it will have to be reprinted and amended to conform with the standards of the House of Commons.
Mr. Speaker, I fail to understand why this Government doesn't show some common sense and do what it has to do, namely, call another order of the House, since our speakers are ready.
I think it is incredible they should persevere in this blind arrogance and maintain before the House a Bill that is incorrect and defective as to form and that infringes our Standing Orders.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I want to echo the points which have been made by a number of those on this side of the House. It seems to me very, very unfortunate having had quite a serious, careful and I think thoughtful debate about the problems that present us procedurally with this Bill.
Let me make it clear that what I think is unfortunate is that the Government has brought this Bill forward nevertheless. I think in the tentative ruling you have just presented to the House it is not possible to have a vote on the Bill today. I assume that also means debate will not be completed on the Bill today. It seems to me pointless for the Government to bring this forward and to expect a debate to take place. As things could very well exist, we could all simply sit in our places and no debate would take place from now until four
Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act
o'clock and by your ruling it would not be possible to move to a vote. Neither would it be possible to cease having speakers in the future. I really do plead with the Government to see sense in this case and to move to another piece of legislation which will permit us to carry forward discussion and to make at least some minimal use of the few remaining minutes of today's session of the House of Commons.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In speaking to the point of order as to whether it is a matter of a point of order or a matter of privilege as to accessibility of the Bill to Hon. Members in preparing themselves for the debate, which is the issue now before you on a point of order, I would not for a minute have gone ahead with the debate if we felt it would prejudice the rights of anybody to enter into discussions.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I can assist the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary. The Chair felt that there was a point of privilege on the question of the accessibility to the agreement raised by the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata). I have ruled on that. I said that it may well be that he cannot speak now because he has not yet had a chance to look at the Memorandum, but that there may come a time when he will be able to speak. If, however, as time went by a Member for some reason due to what has happened could not speak, then I would hear him again. If something has happened that strikes the heart of whether a Member can be heard or can speak, then that, of course, would get very close to privilege. That is the position the Chair has taken. I might also point out to the Parliamentary Secretary and to other Hon. Members that Standing Order 22(2) reads:
Government Orders shall be called and considered in such sequence as the Government determines.
The Government is within its rights to carry on with Bill C-37 this afternoon if it can.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to enter into the debate since I have waited patiently for an opportunity. If other Members find themselves in an awkward position, since I believe we are in the 10 minute period for speeches, I would be prepared to alleviate them of the necessity of scurrying through their notes to debate. I would ask for the floor if all points of order and privilege as to whether or not the debate should proceed are finished. I have some interesting comments-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Just a minute. Are you on a point of order or are you speaking to debate?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I know the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Gauthier) usually likes to wait until I have a chance to recognize him.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Yes, I am usually polite.


Mr. Speaker:: I recognize the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary on debate.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: No. He was on a point of order.

January 23, 1987
Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act


Philip Derek Lewis: Yes, I rose on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary rose on a point of order but he made it quite clear before he sat down that he was prepared to carry on with debate. I am prepared to recognize the Parliamentary Secretary on debate.


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would argue that it is irregular for an Hon. Member to rise on a point of order and, without resuming his seat, seek recognition again for debate. That is not the regular way we proceed in this House. In fact, the Hon. Member has been recognized for two distinct actions and I submit to Your Honour that that is not the regular way to proceed.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps in trying to facilitate things, I have confused things. Is the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner) putting the point that there were others rising for debate?


B. Keith Penner: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand the point. Perhaps the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary would kindly defer. Who was rising on debate?


B. Keith Penner: I was.


Mr. Speaker:: I recognize the Hon. Member for Cochrane- Superior on debate.


Roland de Corneille: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to put it on the record that even as of this time, I have been unable to get a copy of the Memorandum of Understanding from the Table Officers. I have spoken to the Pages and they cannot get one because there are not enough copies available. Again, I wish to use this to illustrate to you the position in which we as members of the Opposition are being placed when it comes to checking if the document is the same one.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member has raised a matter of importance. I am sure something will be done as soon as possible to find copies. The Chair also points out that debate has gone on for a number of days apparently without copies or with one copy that someone could find. In any event, I recognize the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior on debate as I think that is what he wishes.


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, in rising to debate this Bill, I am at the outset cognizant of Your Honour's instruction to the House that my participation will not in any way prejudice Your Honour's decision on the important point of order that has been raised this afternoon.
I must say that the softwood lumber issue is of immense importance and concern to the people of northerri Ontario, the region which I have the honour of representing. Since this may be the tail end of a debate which will in time prove not to be in
order and since what has already been said and what remains to be said may be determined by Your Honour to be null and void, I have no choice in the matter but to move:
That this House do now adjourn.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion negatived.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the point I wanted to make was that it is very clear from the opening speeches of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) and the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) that the agreement in question was available to these Hon. Members. Hon. Members opposite who have claimed they could not get a copy of the Memorandum of Understanding had difficulties within their own caucus. On page 2377 of Hansard, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition quotes from the agreement.


James Douglas Manly: Does your Leader give everything to you?


Philip Derek Lewis: We will get to the Leader of the New Democratic Party in a moment. The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition goes on to say that this agreement determines the price. This is the agreement to which none of the members of the Liberal Party had access.
On page 2379 of Hansard, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition mentions the 30-day cancellation clause. Once again, this is from the Memorandum of Understanding which was not available to my colleagues in the Liberal Party yet the Leader of the Opposition had this agreement. He goes on at page 2380 to mention the agreement contained in this Bill. Obviously, in preparing his notes, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition had available to him the Memorandum of Understanding which my colleagues opposite claim they were not able to obtain.
I do not want to leave the impression that the only competent person on that side of the House is the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the New Democratic Party also had access to the agreement. On page 2385 of Hansard, the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent)
January 23, 1987

mentions paragraph 6 of the Agreement negotiated by the Government with the United States. Further down on the page, he said that he wanted to say with reference to the issue of sovereignty that the same agreement contains the following words, and he goes on. This is the Memorandum of Understanding the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Lang-don) could not find. However, it was sitting there on the front-bench seat of the Leader of the New Democratic Party.


Steven W. Langdon: I said nothing about that.


Philip Derek Lewis: He said: "My goodness, I'm prejudiced. I can't find it. Oh, I see, it's over there on the seat of the Hon. Member for Oshawa".
On page 2385 of Hansard-


Roland de Corneille: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Does the Speaker believe that the present debate is at all related to the Bill?


Philip Derek Lewis: I will save you the embarrassment of answering that, Madam Speaker, because I do not wish to embarrass the Hon. Member any further. The point is that the Memorandum of Understanding was in the hands of the Opposition, in their offices, and they did not take the time to read it. To spend the time of this House suggesting that they did not have it in their offices is nonsense and all Hon. Members know that. The fact is that the Memorandum of Understanding was quoted by both Leaders of the Opposition.
I submit to you, Madam Speaker, that since it is four o'clock, we should end the debate on this delightful and informative note and proceed with Private Members' Business. By the way, I was shocked to see members of the Liberal Party try to deny a private Member her right-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. That's a lot of nonsense and he knows it too.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-PUBLIC BILLS   NON-SMOKERS' HEALTH ACT MEASURE TO ENACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from November 20, 1986, consideration of the motion of Ms. McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood) that Bill C-204, an Act to regulate smoking in the federal workplace and on common carriers and to amend the Hazardous Products Act in relation to cigarette advertising, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Hull-Aylmer):: Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to take part in the debate on the Bill presented by the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald), Bill C-204, an Act to regulate smoking in the federal workplace and on common carriers and to amend
Non-Smokers' Health Act
the Hazardous Products Act in relation to cigarette advertising.
Madam Speaker, I think this is an extremely important matter, especially now that we have had clear evidence for a number of years that smoking is indeed harmful to the health of Canadians.
The House will recall that not long ago, I think it was December 11, 1986, The Ottawa Citizen published the results of a survey in the Ottawa-Hull region that asked people if they would be agreeable to a complete ban on smoking in offices. Much to the surprise of the firm that conducted the survey, 79 per cent supported a ban on smoking at their place of work.
Of course I know that for a long time, the medical profession in particular has always been in favour of a ban on smoking in public places. Since 1938 some very important studies have been made, and in fact I think that in France, in 1859, more than a century ago, reports made on patients who died of cancers of the lip indicated that of sixty-eight cases, sixty-six were pipe or cigar smokers. As I recall, it was in 1938 that John Hopkins University Professor Pearl proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that the mortality rate among smokers was much higher than it was among non-smokers.
A number of other studies made in Canada, Great Britain and the United States also indicated quite clearly that the death rate among male smokers was 70 per cent higher than among male non-smokers.
In 1968-69 I had the pleasure of chairing the committee which studied the whole question of tobacco and cigarette use, and I can tell you that our report had a worldwide impact because we were the first country to make an in-depth study on the harmful effects of smoking.
We made a number of recommendations and some of them have since been implemented, such as a ban on radio and television advertising, as well as warnings on cigarette packages and cartons, including certain precautions to be taken by people who did not give up smoking.
If no action is taken in this respect, I am afraid there may very well be a 50 per cent increase in the number of lung cancer cases by the turn of the next century. Lung cancer is now the main cause of death among all cancer patients. It has a direct bearing on coronary arteries, which happens to be one of leading causes of death in Canada.
I commend my colleague from Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) for introducing this Bill because I think it is imperative that we do something about this disease. I use the word "disease" advisedly for the simple reason that, if we fail to take appropriate action, air pollution in offices, public places and public transit systems will boost the lung cancer rate by 50 per cent, as I said earlier.
It is rather strange that, in our report to the House in 196869, we recommended that the members of the Canadian

January 23, 1987
Non-Smokers' Health Act
population who should lead by their example in Canada be encouraged to do so. This included such people as parents, naturally, as well as teachers, doctors, nurses, and all those who had direct or indirect dealings with public. We also found some rather strange facts in our study as concerns the example which some people should give when it comes to smoking.
For instance, at the beginning, men smoked much more than women, but for some reason, during the sixties, women started to smoke more than men. Elowever, since 1981, there has been a slight tendency for women to smoke less. Another interesting fact is that those who do smoke seem to do so more than ever because, while the number of smokers has gone down, the volume of cigarette consumption has increased, which could lead to a national disaster if we do not take action to put an end to this ill, which I find worse than acid rain, and we know what harm acid rain can cause to vegetation in this country. However, in this case, it is human beings who are being harmed.
From the submissions presented to the Standing Committee on Health and Welfare, we also found that it was essential to educate the public, and this point is closely related to the role of those who should preach by their example. However, we found, for instance, that there were cigarette machines at the door in certain school boards. Then we asked some school boards: "Why not put them in a remote spot?" And they replied: "It is our only livelihood. The money coming from the machine enables us to carry on certain activities which otherwise we could not." I think that educators entrusted with the care of our children should act consistently and intelligently. There has been no co-operation since 1968. I know that lately there has been a bit more co-operation from some professional organizations which seem to be more eager to exert pressures on the Government so that legislation is passed to eradicate totally the nefarious effects of smoking in Canada.
We should also point out that, strangely enough, youngsters under 15 years of age are smoking and drinking. Both are closely related.
Madam Speaker, I should have liked to have dealt more thoroughly with this very interesting issue but I have to close now to allow another Hon. Member to speak. I hope that when the matter comes to a vote, all political parties in the House will agree to eradicate forever the dangerous and lethal effects of smoking.


Mr. Ted Schellenberg (Nanaimo-Alberni):: Madam
Speaker, it is rather refreshing to finally debate something today. If this kind of nonsense continues, perhaps we should have five or six hours of debate on Private Member's business and one hour on Orders of the Day.
It is quite appropriate that this Bill is being debated so soon after "cold turkey day". I commend the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) for her Bill and
would like to say a few words on behalf of the smokers of Canada, of whom I am one. I will first comment on the good things about Bill C-204. The Hon. Member for Broadview- Greenwood and I have sparred with each other in the Committee on Communications and Culture. She would not allow any smoking in that committee. I was not there the infamous day she broke all the ashtrays, but I heard a great deal about it. I believe the Hon. Member means well, although there is a clause in this Bill which does impugn minority rights.
In her remarks on the introduction of this Bill on November 20 the Hon. Member complimented the Government on the parliamentary reform which allowed her to bring in this Bill. She also said that discouraging smokers will mean more jobs in other sectors. She said:
People who stop smoking buy other products and other services. They go to the movies and to restaurants, they buy clothes, and so forth. I think rising demand in these sectors will create more employment.
That is a very good point and very reasoned debate. She also said that this Bill "would provide for designated smoking rooms for those individuals who do not smoke, who happen to be a majority in this country". I agree with that. However, she went on to say:
It would also mean that there would be no smoking in common carriers under federal jurisidction.
I will get into that in a moment.
The portion of Bill C-204 which makes eminent good sense is that which deals with the banning of the advertising of tobacco products. Cigarette smoking is emerging as a major public health concern for many Canadians. As a result of this growing awareness of the effects of cigarette smoking, the public wants some action on several tobacco issues, including tobacco advertising. The Non-Smokers' Rights Association has documented numerous violations of the current tobacco manufacturers' voluntary tobacco advertising and promotion, including the practice of advertising tobacco products on billboards and store posters within 200 metres of school property.
Moreover, the "Tempo" cigarette ad campaign last year raised public concern and was, in my opinion, clearly directed at recruiting new smokers among Canadian youth, in contravention of the voluntary advertising code. The new 15-cigarette Export A pack has also been a worrisome tobacco marketing practice since the lower price does make the product more accessible to Canadian youth. Unfortunately, in a declining tobacco market an increasing number of these questionable advertising and promotion campaigns can be expected.
Advertising and promoting such a hazardous product has been a source of concern for some time. This is due to the fact that advertising associates tobacco products with healthy, exciting and glamorous lifestyles, that it increases the acceptability of tobacco products among young people, and that it generally legitimizes tobacco use.
January 23, 1987

I remember that when I was very young there were advertisements on television for a certain brand which claimed to be the "coolest, cleanest, and most refreshing". You may remember that as well. My oldest sister was smoking that brand in the house at the time. I thought to myself how wonderful it would be to enjoy that coolest, cleanest, most refreshing, fun thing. Therefore, the advertising does have an impact.
A number of Canadian magazines and newspapers, including the Kingston Whig-Standard, the Brockville Recorder and Times and The Globe and Mail, are now refusing to accept tobacco advertising because they believe it is unethical to advertise a product which is so clearly hazardous to your health. They may consider banning political advertising for the same reason.
My colleagues in the federal Government have met with representatives of the Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers Council with a view toward taking stronger action on tobacco advertising and promotion. Of special concern are the issues of life-style advertising and promotion aimed at teenagers and adults, the effectiveness of current health warnings, and the effectiveness of current compliance procedures.
Smokers must face another reality which I, as a smoker, accept. More and more employers are establishing policies which restrict smoking in the workplace. For example, the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia and a variety of other companies have adopted as their goal a smoke-free workplace and are moving in that direction. Bata Industries Ltd. has already entirely banned smoking on the job. Municipalities such as the City of Ottawa are banning smoking at work stations and are working toward a complete ban on smoking in the workplace. In my home Province of British Columbia, the City of Vancouver passed a by-law significantly restricting tobacco smoke in most indoor public places in the city including places of employment. Workplaces in Vancouver must now automatically become non-smoking areas if no consensus can be reached among employees on smoking in the workplace. Smoking has also been banned in areas such as taxis, retail shops, service counters and queues.
In my own riding of Nanaimo-Alberni many municipalities and school boards are restricting the presence of tobacco smoke, but they insist on having an area somewhere in the building where employees can enjoy a puff, or sneak a puff, as is the case these days.
When this debate began on November 20 my colleague, the Member for Calgary South (Mrs. Sparrow), mentioned that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) has proposed a new air regulation to ban smoking in Canadian aircraft for both domestic and transborder flights of two hours or less. Most smokers can accept that. Most of us manage to sit through a movie for two hours without feeling the urge. However, the key is "two hours or less".
Non-Smokers' Health Act
Generally smokers are courteous. Some may be surprised at that, but we are. We normally respect the rights of others, but we have rights as well. Clause 5 of the proposed Bill reads:
No person shall smoke anywhere, other than in a designated smoking room, in or on an aircraft-a ship-a railway car-(or) a motor vehicle operated pursuant to-
This puts a whole new meaning on the old political adage that as far as the NDP are concerned, if it moves, legislate it. Why should we expect any Canadian who takes a six or seven-hour flight across the country not to be able to indulge in a cigarette? This legislation may be enforceable on a boat, a train, or a bus, but I think that is asking a bit too much on the long flights which some of us often take across the country.
We are told that one-third of Canadians smoke and two-thirds do not. We know that all Parties in this House are concerned about minority rights. We would not want to unduly infringe upon the minority rights of Canadians.
This Chamber is a good example of how courteous smokers can be. There are many unwritten rules in the House of Commons. No smoking is allowed here where we stand. I understand that is also the case in Quebec, although the previous Premier slipped one day. No coffee is allowed in this part of the Chamber and male Members must wear a jacket and tie. Female Members do not have that regulation imposed on them, but I am sure equal rights will get into that as well. Yes, Madam Speaker, you do wear a jacket and tie. Madam Speaker is looking very spiffy today.
I believe it is only common courtesy to allow those of us in the minority in Canada to continue to do as we wish as long as we do not infringe, in the long haul, on the rights of other Canadians who do not smoke.
I offer those words of wisdom on behalf of my fellow Canadians who do smoke. I hope we can pass this Bill after making a couple of amendments in committee, if at all possible, which would allow those of us who must have a puff to do so on common carriers, and particularly on airplanes.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, it is interesting that more and more groups are supporting this legislation. I would like to begin my remarks by listing some of the groups which have indicated their support for the legislation. I will not give a complete list, because I would not have any time left to speak on the legislation itself. Those groups which support the legislation include The Lung Association, the Medical Society of Nova Scotia, the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Health Unit, the Canadian Cancer Society, the Canadian Council on Smoking and Health, the Canadian Medical Association, the Manitoba Medical Association and the Canadian Hospital Association. As I indicated, that is only a partial list because there are more groups who support the legislation.
As the Hon. Member for Hull-Aylmer (Mr. Isabelle) mentioned, this is something that has been studied in the past

January 23, 1987
Non-Smokers' Health Act
but on which we have not had government action. The problem we face at this time is that if Members of the House do not support this legislation it will not pass. We have no guarantee that the Government will act in this matter.
I am not giving away any secrets, but it is interesting to note that the Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) and myself met with the Minister of Labour (Mr. Cadieux) on Wednesday morning. He indicated that as far as he knew there was no government intent to act, although he would consult with the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) and the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) to see if perhaps they had some plans about which he could be made aware. In fairness to the Minister of Labour, he stated that he understood something might be implemented with respect to advertising and other matters.
It is ironic that on a matter which concerns the health of so many Canadians and indeed the lives of so many Canadians, the Minister of Labour who is responsible for the enforcement of occupational health and safety across the country does not know what the Minsiter of National Health and Welfare or the President of the Treasury Board, who is responsible for workers in the federal Government domain, may or may not be doing.
I am very concerned that there is no Government action and that the best we get is an occasional indication that perhaps the Minister of National Health and Welfare will put his foot down on the tobacco companies. That is not good enough because it does not provide the leadership that many Canadians want.
This week the federal Law Reform Commission indicated that our federal laws with regard to workplace safety are completely inadequate. Polluters are allowed to get away with anything and it is suggested in the report that Canadian workers are treated as guinea pigs, and that it is dangerous to work in Canada. These remarks are made by a very responsible group and they indicate the problem we face in general with workplace safety. Yet, referring back to the Minister of Labour, I asked him prior to Christmas if there would be any new legislation with regard to occupational health and safety. Again, he indicated that he did not think that would happen. He could not commit himself to inaction for two years but he did not think there would be any legislation. It is evident that the Government is not taking the lives of Canadians seriously.
The Hon. Member for Hull-Aylmer pointed out in his learned statement to the House that allowing smoking in Canada is costing lives. It is not a matter of whether the Member from British Columbia believes he should have the right to smoke on his flight to British Columbia because it is seven hours long. I am going to British Columbia twice in the next couple of weeks and I do not want to have to be on the same airplane as that Hon. Member because his smoking will affect my health. That is the problem.
For some reason, there are Members in the House and people across the country who believe that we are picking on
them as a minority if we say they should not smoke. The truth is that if they want to smoke in an airplane, in an office building, or want to smoke at the workplace, they are endangering not only the health but the lives of other Canadians. Public education is necessary for those people, as well as young people of Canada, but it is not just a matter of talking about the dangers to their own health and lives, but a matter of them understanding how they are hurting other Canadians.
There are very few Canadians who really believe that smoking is acceptable. There are very few Canadians who believe they are not hurting themselves when they smoke. There is an attitudinal problem among a number of smokers because they believe they are hurting no one else but themselves.
Perhaps someone in the middle of a field or at the bottom of a mine shaft is not damaging the health of other Canadians, but most Canadians work closer to each other and travel in more confined quarters. There are areas of the House of Commons that are certainly not very healthy to walk through when there have been a number of smokers there.
We need legislation that will protect Canadians. I believe the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood should be congratulated not only for presenting this Bill in the House, but for the very forceful manner in which she has often made sure that people across the country know that this legislation is here. I hope Members of Parliament will do the same as the Member for Broadview-Greenwood and ensure that the people of Canada know that this legislation is before the House of Commons and solicit their views on how the legislation can be strengthened, rather than weakened as proposed by the Conservative Member from British Columbia who, to be fair, I believe is speaking for himself.
It is important that this legislation be strengthened so that Canadians can work, travel and live in a healthy place. That is the purpose of this legislation.


Mr. Paul Gagnon (Calgary North):: Madam Speaker, I want to commend my hon. colleague, the Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald), for introducing this Bill in the House.
The Bill seeks, through a number of measures, to control smoking by Canadians and thereby improve and protect the health of Canadians. This is an objective that all Members of the House support, as the health hazards of smoking are very well documented.
Measures to control smoking in public places are receiving strong public support and have resulted in a number of government actions and proposed initiatives. They are initiatives to control or restrict smoking in public areas, in public transportation, and in the workplace. Public support will continue to increase, not only among non-smokers but among smokers as well. It is important to note the support of many smokers for these measures as it is a recognition by the smokers of their responsibility to avoid exposing non-smokers to tobacco smoke. This support must be encouraged and
January 23, 1987

sustained in order to avoid situations which could create confrontation and conflict.
Exposure of non-smokers to tobacco smoke varies greatly depending on the size of a room or other indoor areas, the number of smokers, the amount of ventilation and other factors which determine the concentration of tobacco smoke in a given location. There is, however, no doubt that exposure should and must be controlled.
In proceeding with control of smoking in the workplace there is a need to recognize that smoking is considered an addiction by smokers themselves; that smokers still constitute approximately 30 per cent of the workforce; and that the support of smokers is necessary to achieve the objective of controlling smoking in the workplace.
The approach used to achieve this objective must be carefully considered to ensure a successful voluntary compliance with such a policy on smoking in the workplace. Recognized authorities in health, education and psychology all agree that voluntary compliance based on the full co-operation of all concerned is the assured method of achieving the successful application of any new practice, behaviour or policy.
The Department of National Health and Welfare and Labour Canada support this approach and the recent U.S. Surgeon General's report states that creating a smoke-free workplace is successfully achieved when such a policy is jointly developed by management, employees and employee organizations; is instituted in phases and is accompanied by support and assistance for smokers to quit smoking.
It is apparent that the only two ways to meet the intent of the proposed legislation are, first, to totally ban smoking everywhere federal employees are located or, second, to provide a separately ventilated smoking room at each federal worksite. Let us review each option in turn. As defined in the proposed legislation, a totally smoke-free environment would have to be provided in worksites which include federal buildings, airports, railway stations, rented or shared accommodation with employers not under federal jurisdiction and with members of the general public, penitentiaries, buildings and ships in which employees work and live 24 hours a day, and in a number of other varied work locations.
Notwithstanding these differences in worksites, work situations and employee populations, employers under federal jurisdiction would have to ensure a smoke-free environment in situations over which they have a minimum of control.
Let us now review the second option to establish separately ventilated smoking rooms in each federal worksite. Costs for establishing such rooms would vary greatly and would depend on the extent of the renovations required to each building's existing structure and ventilation systems. A recent survey indicated that public service departments are located in 30,000 worksites across Canada-I repeat, 30,000 worksites. There
Non-Smokers' Health Act
are tens of thousands of other worksites under federal jurisdiction to which this legislation would also apply. The establishment of a separately ventilated room in each of these thousands of worksites, plus the ongoing expense of maintaining or renting the space required for these rooms, would result in astronomical costs to the Canadian taxpayer.
Apart from cost considerations, establishing these rooms would encourage the continuation of a habit which is recognized as harmful by all and which society is increasingly trying to discourage. The Vancouver by-law on smoking in the workplace, which is viewed by many as a most progressive approach, allows for more flexibility in establishing smoking areas. These areas can be established where agreed upon by all employees and are not limited to separately ventilated smoking rooms.
It is apparent that there are problems with these two options. Other measures must, therefore, be considered which will resolve the general issue of smoking in the workplace in a fair and responsible manner. The Government is aware of and is closely monitoring the rapidly evolving changes which are taking place in employee and public attitudes and in other employer practices and experiences on smoking in the workplace. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Cadieux) has recently issued interim guidelines to assist Labour Canada safety officers in their investigations and response to complaints regarding smoking in worksites under federal jurisdictions. These Labour Canada safety officers are responsible for the application of occupational safety and health regulations to prevent accidents and injury to health arising out of, linked with or occurring in the course of employment.
Changes are also occurring rapidly with respect to smoking in the Public Service. In 1985, the Treasury Board issued guidelines on minimizing the effects of tobacco smoke. These guidelines were jointly developed and approved by the Public Service Unions represented in the National Joint Council. It was agreed that these guidelines were an important first step in addressing the issue of smoking in the workplace and it was also agreed they would be upgraded to a more stringent standard by 1988.
In early 1986, a survey of Public Service Departments indicated that over half of the departments surveyed had developed departmental policies on smoking. The Department of National Health and Welfare, Statistics Canada and the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion were the first to implement smoking bans in the workplace. These measures have resulted in many employees quitting smoking.
In less than two years since the issuance of the Treasury Board guidelines on smoking, there has been much progress made in controlling smoking and continued progress is anticipated. I believe that such initiative should be encouraged.
I further believe that introducing legislation which imposes behavioural changes on employers and employees, without due consideration of the special and varied circumstances, and situations of which people in the workplace are aware, should

January 23, 1987
Non-Smokers' Health Act
be avoided at this time. Such actions would be premature and disruptive to the harmonious resolution of this issue which is already underway.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, I would like to comment briefly on the Bill before the House today, Bill C-204 presented by Ms. McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood), the purpose of which is to control smoking in the workplace-I will run through this fairly quickly-to add tobacco and tobacco products to the list of products under Part 2 of the schedule to the Hazardous Products Act, and also to ban smoking from the workplace and from public transportation.
First of all, Madam Speaker, I have to say that I am a reformed smoker. Those are probably the worst, but the fact remains it has been nearly seven or eight years since I touched the noxious weed, and I certainly feel a lot happier and I think a lot healthier. I stopped smoking for the simple reason I thought it was a filthy and unhealthy habit. It made me take more trips to the cleaners than I would have liked and made me cough occasionally, and since I had been an asthma sufferer for years, I finally decided that enough was enough. I quit just like that, and it wasn't too hard. I would encourage all Hon. Members in this House who persist in this unfortunate habit to try and make the effort. It is possible, it isn't so hard and it is better for your health and your bank account.
I wanted to say that what makes this Bill particularly interesting is that even when I was a smoker, I did not like being in a closed space like a plane or an office and have to put up with cigarette and tobacco smoke. I smoked very rarely in such places, and I found it annoying when others did. So that doesn't make me one of your hard-core smokers, but in any case, I realized that I was getting sinus trouble and all kinds of health problems and that it was not exactly a healthy habit.
There are a number of experiences in life that have a lasting impact, and one of the things that surprised me in my political career was the reaction of Canadians to the urea formaldehyde issue. Members will recall when insulation was the thing to save energy and keep our homes warm. The Government had been campaining vigorously for home insulation, and there was one product called urea formaldehyde that was very popular for this purpose. A few years later, it was found that urea formaldehyde produced dangerous gases. Then everybody wanted to get rid of it.
Madam Speaker, I was told that smoking a single cigarette in a house is as bad as all the gases produced by urea formaldehyde. That made me stop and think, and 1 said to myself: If urea formaldehyde is bad, and just one cigarette is as bad as urea formaldehyde, we must be crazy to go on smoking while we are spending millions of dollars on getting rid of urea formaldehyde, as we did at the time. But why do we continue to smoke in enclosed spaces? This really struck me because I was then Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Urban Affairs and I had to try to sell the idea of home insulation while telling people: Listen, urea formaldehyde is hazardous. But at the same time people had forgotten that smoking was hazardous as well.
I think the consideration of this Bill has been a rewarding experience and that, at least in principle, it is a constructive measure to restrict smoking in enclosed spaces. I am told-and 1 have no reason to doubt it-that it is impossible to recycle all the air aboard aircraft. Although there are places or areas, seats reserved for smokers, non-smokers eventually have to breathe the same air since the same atmosphere and same poisons are recycled. And that is bad.
Not long ago I read a newspaper article about the fact that in the United States it is illegal to smoke aboard carriers of fewer than 30 passengers. Well, if it is illegal to smoke aboard a public carrier of fewer than 30 passengers-and that is the American law-for heaven's sake, why do we not have this kind of legislation in Canada and adopt restrictive measures concerning smoking in enclosed spaces?
I also want to say that the example given by adults to children is cause for concern. I know that children like to identify with some of the things done by adults, not necessarily good things, and with respect to current television programming one might be led to think that smoking a cigarette projects a macho image and looks nice, but this is wrong.
The same applies to the publicity for beer and alcohol. Advertisers should not try to appeal to young people by telling them that it is "in" to smoke and to drink, that it will make life more enjoyable for them. It is simply not true.
I know that smoking has increased recently among young people. I can sincerely tell you that this worries me.
I also believe that the Government is contradicting itself on the whole tobacco issue. I have here a release of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, which represents over 150,000 public servants the Government to use its power, asking to ban smoking in the workplace.
On the other hand, last October 27, the Federal Court of Appeal, in the case of Peter Wilson, which dealt with hazardous substances such as tobacco, gave a majority ruling which I find hard to understand. According to this ruling, the regulations on hazardous substances did not apply to tobacco smoke in the workplace. This reflects a lack of consistency in the Government policy on smoking in the workplace.
The Treasury Board has appealed this ruling, but I wanted to raise this issue because I know quite well that, in certain Government agencies, such as the Department of Health and the Public Service Commission, which I visited recently, there are areas reserved for smokers. I have been told that it is difficult to extend this to the whole Public Service and to set aside special areas for those who want to smoke. All sorts of reasons are given including the so-called smokers' rights. But 1 have the right to breathe clean air. Economic points are also raised. Well, I will tell the Government and all those who come up with this argument that according to my information, it costs $6 billion in health care to fight the effects of smoking, while the tobacco industry brings in only $3 billion in revenues. Therefore, in monetary terms the disavantages of tobacco smoking outweigh the avantages on a 2 to 1 ratio. Madam Speaker, I feel this simply does not make sense from an economic point of view.
January 23, 1987

Let us not forget that there are benefits to non-smoking. Non-smokers pay lower life insurance premiums because they are less likely to shorten their life expectancy.
Madam Speaker, I do not want to overlook the major consideration that the cost per capita to the Canadian community is enormous. In the United States, for instance, a smoker costs his or her employer $5,000 a year from losses due to absenteeism, morbidity, insurance costs, reduced productivity, maintenance, furniture and equipment depreciation, as well as employee morale. Not to mention risks of fire: the Hon. Member for Hull-Aylmer (Mr. Isabelle) reminds me that smoking is a fire hazard. These data can be found in a letter from Ottawa resident Michel Ouimet which was published in the daily newspaper Le Droit on June 9, 1986. I thank Mr. Ouimet for his information on the high cost of smoking which is indeed a fact.
Madam Speaker, you are indicating to me that my time is running out. I am sorry because I would have liked to have provided other examples to convince the House to adopt this Bill at second reading. All we want is to refer this Bill to a committee for a detailed item by item study, as well as an indepth consideration of a Bill which deserves to be adopted while contributing to the education of the Canadian people in general by pointing out the dangers of tobacco smoking.


Mr. Bill Tupper (Nepean-Carleton):: Madam Speaker, I am delighted on behalf of my constituents in Nepean- Carleton to rise and address Bill C-204, a Bill to regulate smoking in the federal workplace and on common carriers, and to amend the Hazardous Products Act. It is a Bill introduced by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald).
Madam Speaker, and colleagues, the human and economic dimensions of the cost of smoking are horrendous. When we think about the damage to health, the loss of time in the workplace, the anguish of the families who are involved, and about the cost of medical expenses in the course of time that may be in place, it is a horrendus cost for Canadians and for mankind in general.
Every year cigarette smoking results in over 30,000 premature deaths. It is the single most important cause of preventable illness and death. Thirty per cent of cancer deaths, 30 per cent of heart disease, and 90 per cent of chronic obstructive lung disease deaths are caused by tobacco and its effluents.
Mounting awareness of the health hazards associated with smoking and "passive" smoking keeps the question of smoking in the workplace in the centre of controversy. Research has shown that side-stream smoke, or smoke in the atmosphere, in
Non-Smokers' Health Act
some ways is as dangerous as smoke inhaled by the smoker. Smoke from the burning end of a cigarette has high concentrations of many noxious compounds. Results of some international studies indicate that non-smokers, who were exposed to cigarette smoke in the workplace, had as much lung function impairment as if they had smoked up to 10 cigarettes per day. Colleagues, think about that. At least 500 non-smokers die each year in Canada from lung cancer that may have been caused by tobacco smoke in the workplace.
Maternal smoking can result in fetal injury, spontaneous abortion, and low birth weight. Parental smoking is a major contributor to respiratory illness in children. Involuntary exposure to cigarette smoke is particularly a problem for those who are regularly exposed to smoke at work.
Increasingly, public institutions and private companies are moving toward the creation of a smoke-free work environment. More and more private businesses are introducing no smoking policies in the workplace, and municipalities are enacting bylaws to prohibit or cut down on smoking in public places.
We have excellent examples of this in the City of Ottawa, the City of Kanata, and the City of Nepean. Municipalities across the land are recognizing this, as has the federal Government to a certain extent.
Treasury Board has issued guidelines to government departments and agencies outlining measures which should be taken in order to minimize the effects of tobacco smoke in the workplace. The guidelines are as follows. Managers should consult with their employees in order to designate, where desirable and possible, non-smoking areas in the workplace. Areas where smoking is permitted should, if possible, be located near air vents. The following should be designated as non-smoking areas-elevators, stairwells, change rooms, computer rooms, clinics, health units, service wickets, service counters, and any other location where the public is involved. In addition, Departments may also designate as non-smoking areas all or part of cafeterias, waiting-rooms, lounges, hospitals, and theatres. Smoking should not be permitted during meetings unless there is a consensus among all who are present. Persons who occupy private offices or have shared workplaces may designate their offices or workplaces as nonsmoking areas.
This initiative is to be complimented. However, many of my constituents share with me the concern that these guidelines are not being adhered to, that managers in the Public Service are not identifying and designating non-smoking areas in the workplace as it was thought they would. Thus, other initiatives will have to follow to bring this about.

January 23, 1987
Non-Smokers' Health Act
A survey to ascertain the views of federal Members of Parliament on the issue of smoking in the workplace was conducted by the Non-Smokers' Rights Association. It indicated that 85 per cent of the Members of Parliament who responded support or are sympathetic to non-smokers' rights in the workplace, 89 per cent of the respondents favour the establishment of non-smoking areas in the workplace, and 78 per cent of the Members of Parliament who responded believe that Treasury Board should order all Deputy Ministers to establish non-smoking work areas. In addition-and this is the interesting statistic which I hope in time will follow through to a material result-only 22 per cent of the Members of Parliament who responded were opposed to supporting a Private Member's Bill dealing with the problem of smoking in workplaces under federal jurisdiction.
As a non-smoker I am very sympathetic to the problem created by side-stream smoke in the workplace. As a Member of Parliament I believe that the health and rights of nonsmokers should be respected. Perhaps it is difficult for me to recognize and accept the problems of smokers, but I believe the rights of non-smokers are more important.
In other ways the federal Government is concerned about the devastating effects of smoking on Canadians. It has already put into place policies and programs which aim to reduce tobacco consumption in the country. The Government has been active in developing a policy on tobacco which is both comprehensive and health oriented. Accordingly, I support- and I believe the Government supports it-the essence and spirit of this Private Member's Bill which attempts to protect Canadians from the hazards of smoking.
I could outline many areas this afternoon which I think are important as far as some of the government initiatives are concerned. The Department of National Health and Welfare devotes thousands of dollars each year to carry out routine monitoring of tar, nicotine, and carbon monoxide levels of cigarettes and to perform tobacco smoke analysis and research. It also conducts epidemiological studies and behaviourial research on selected tobacco topics such as the effect of involuntary exposure to tobacco smoke. Surveys to monitor the rate of tobacco consumption among Canadians are also undertaken.
The entire program falls under the "Break Free for a New Generation of Non-Smokers" theme. To date the program has been spearheaded by a national advertising campaign targeted at youth aged 12 years to 19 years. The youth message has been produced in rock video style for television and radio featuring the break-free theme and challenging young people
to be themselves, to go their own way, and to break free from the pressures of smoking.
The federal Government has also met with representatives of the Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers Council with a view toward taking stronger action on tobacco advertising and promotion. There have been serious concerns expressed by many Canadians about the effectiveness of the Council's current voluntary code on tobacco advertising and promotion. Several options are being considered, and I hope legislative measures restricting tobacco advertising will become a real possibility.
Recently the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) proposed a new air regulation to ban smoking on Canadian aircraft for both domestic and transborder flights of less than two hours. The action is a positive step in ensuring that the travelling public is protected from involuntary exposure to tobacco smoke.
The federal Government plans to build upon these accomplishments in order to continue the decline in the rate of smoking. Surveys of public attitudes indicate that Canadians favour current initiatives in this direction. Enhancement of the federal Government tobacco policy must be directed toward improving the protection of Canadians against tobacco smoke.
I hope in the course of time that all Hon. Members of the House will see fit to support the type of legislation being debated this afternoon.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap).


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Madam Speaker, I would prefer, if other Members are agreeable, to call it five o'clock now, rather than speak for two minutes and leave it at that.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 36(2) this order shall be dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.
It being five o'clock, this House stands adjourned until next Monday at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 4.59 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Monday, January 26, 1987