1987-06-02

[Stage Direction]
36 Elizabeth II

[Stage Direction]
ubrary of parum^t
[Stage Direction]
1988 o 8 1 o
1bbl0th£quedUPARB«£L
Published under authority of the Speaker of the House of Commons by the Queen's Printer for Canada
Available from Canadian Government Publishing Centre, Supply and Services Canada, Ottawa, Canada K1A 0S9.
*iBMAhHA'l IQ O A vf4 ->
o >
a o ospr
5iS5ffW3UaMTaM
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, June 2, 1987
[Stage Direction]
Prayers


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 84(1), I have the honour to lay upon the table copies of a ways and means motion to amend the Income Tax Act. Pursuant to Standing Order 84(2), I ask that an Order of the Day be designated for the consideration of the said motion.


PETITIONS
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and privilege to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 106 from petitioners of Edmonton, Alberta; Denman Island, British Columbia; Pitt Meadows, British Columbia; Lillooet, British Columbia; Salmon Arm, British Columbia; Sooke, British Columbia; and Vancouver, British Columbia.
They are concerned that the increasing number of chemicals used as herbicides and insecticides are being proven to have deleterious effects on human health and believe that these chemicals also produce short and long-term harmful effects on non-target organisms in soil and water. They indicate that these same chemicals in past years have been registered and approved as safe for their various uses.
They call upon the House of Commons to initiate a full public inquiry into the safety, testing, registration, regulation and use of pesticides and the examination of alternative ways of controlling pests such as biological control and plant derived pesticides.


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 106(4). This petition is presented on behalf of residents of Ontario and Quebec. It concerns the subject of the Meech Lake Accord.
These citizens believe in a strong Canada where all Canadians are treated equally, fairly, and enjoy the same rights and protections regardless of the province in which they live. They believe that the provisions of the Meech Lake Accord threaten our freedoms under the Charter of Rights and place in jeopardy future national programs which may benefit Canadians from coast to coast.
They call upon Parliament to present to the people of Canada the true implications of the Meech Lake Accord and provide all Canadians with a formal opportunity to respond to the constitutional changes proposed by the Meech Lake Accord.
[ Translation]


Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker, I also have the privilege of presenting several petitions signed by hundreds of residents of the province of New Brunswick who call upon the House to turn down Canada Post's new corporate plan that creates two classes of citizens by installing superboxes on a permanent basis in rural as well as urban areas, and by closing rural post offices and thus depriving Canadians of the sole federal presence and reducing vital postal services in rural communities.
Thus your petitioners humbly pray that Parliament reject Canada Post's plan and urge the Corporation to deliver the mail to all Canadian taxpayers, without exception.


Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of presenting a petition signed by 200 residents of a section of the City of Montreal, located in the existing federal ridings of Saint-Jacques and Laurier and bounded to the north by Mount Royal, to the east by Saint-Laurent, to the south by Sherbrooke and to the west by Park. The petitions refer to the report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission, and state that although they agree with the principle of the change proposed by the Commission, in the past there has been no interaction between the undersigned residents and the residents of the proposed federal riding of Saint-Henri-Westmount.

June 2, 1987
Introduction of Bills
Thus your petitioners humbly play that Parliament agree to include this section in the new riding of Laurier-Sainte-Marie, and not in the riding of Saint-Henri-Westmount as proposed by the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the Province of Quebec.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions from people of the Province of Manitoba who are presently represented in the House by Conservative Members of Parliament. They are from the communities of Fannystelle, Brandon, Thornhill, Darlingford, Pine River, Morden and a number of other communities in the southern part of Manitoba.
They express their concern with the federal Government's intention to change the Patent Act. They believe it will unfairly hurt those Canadians whose health needs require the purchase of prescription drugs on a regular basis. They also believe this is just another example of the Canadian Government making concessions to the United States at the expense of average Canadians in the Government's free trade negotiations with that country.
[DOT] (i 110)
The petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject these proposals which will increase prescription drug prices for Canadians.



SENATE AND HOUSE OF COMMONS ACT


Mr. Bill Gottselig (Moose Jaw):: moved for leave to introduce Bill C-257, an Act to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act (independence of Parliament).


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the Hon. Member have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


William (Bill) Gottselig: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this Bill is to clarify the conflict of interests rules of the Senate and House of Commons Act by making express provisions for the right of Members of Parliament, who are members of a class such as farmers to participate in Government assistance programs on an equal basis with other members of that class who may qualify for such assistance.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to. Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall all questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. Speaker:: Mr. Mazankowski, seconded by Mr. Jelinek,
moves:
That all the provisional and permanent Standing Orders of the House in force on the date of notice of this motion, be amended as follows and be adopted as amended as the permanent Standing Orders of the House; provided-
Shall 1 dispense?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Speaker, since the Government wants to proceed unilaterally on amending these rules, we will insist that Standing Order 70(1) be applied today.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I also want to register the concern of the Party I represent, that since the Government has decided to use this unilateral and rather dictatorial approach to change the rules to its satisfaction only, ignoring the roles of the Official Opposition and the other Opposition Party, we too expect that the entire motion will be read in both official languages.


Mr. Speaker:: Mr. Mazankowski, seconded by Mr. Jelinek,
moves:
That all the provisional and permanent Standing Orders of the House in force on the date of notice of this motion, be amended as follows and be adopted as amended as the permanent Standing Orders of the House; provided
1.	that these permanent Standing Orders shall take effect on the first Monday sitting day following the adoption of this motion;
2.	that all provisional and permanent Standing Orders in force on the date of notice of this motion, except Standing Order 4, along with the sessional and special Orders related thereto, extended by special Order May 22, 1987 to June 5, 1987, become permanent on the first sitting Monday following the adoption of this motion;
3.	that Standing Order 4 remain provisional until December 31, 1987 and be amended by adding the following sub-paragraph (2): Notwithstanding Standing Order 4(1), a Minister of the Crown may set down on Notice a motion to provide for sittings of the House between June 30 and the Monday following Labour Day. No later than June 30, 1987, the said motion shall be proposed for debate during Routine Proceedings, and no later than two hours after the commencement of proceedings thereon, the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of the said motion; and
June 2, 1987

4.	that the Clerk of the House be authorized and instructed to print a revised edition of the Standing Orders of the House, renumbering as may be deemed necessary and making such technical and consequential changes as well as such changes to the Order Paper and Notices as may be required.
That paragraph (a) of Standing Order 2(5) be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"(a) Any Member who wishes to be considered for election to the Office of Speaker shall, not later than 6.00 o'clock p.m. on the day preceding the day on which the election of a Speaker is expected to take place, in writing, so inform the Clerk of the House who shall prepare a list of such Members' names and shall provide the same to the Member presiding prior to the taking of the first ballot;"
That sub-paragraph (5)(h)(i) of Standing Order 2 be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"(i) the Clerk of the House shall provide the Member presiding the names of the candidates for the next ballot, in alphabetical order, provided that the Clerk of the House shall first determine the number representing the least total number of votes cast and the Clerk shall exclude the names of all Members having received that total number of votes, together with the names of all Members having received five percent or less of the total votes cast, from the list of candidates so provided, and provided that in the event of every candidate receiving the same number of votes no names shall be excluded from the list so provided;"
That Standing Order 3(1) be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"3. (1) The House shall meet on Mondays, Tuesdays and Thursdays at
11.00	o'clock a.m., on Wednesdays at 2.00 o'clock p.m. and on Fridays at
10.00	o'clock a.m. unless otherwise provided by Standing or Special Order of this House."
That Standing Orders 9(1) and 9(2) be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"9. (1) At 6.00 o'clock p.m. on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays, and at 3.00 o'clock p.m. on Fridays, the Speaker shall adjourn the House until the next sitting day."
"(2) At 1.00 o'clock p.m. on any day except Friday on which a morning sitting is held, the Speaker shall leave the Chair until 2.00 o'clock p.m."
That paragraph (a) of Standing Order 9(4) be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"(4)(a) Except during Private Members' Business, when the Speaker is in the Chair, a Member may propose a motion, without notice, to continue a sitting through a lunch or dinner hour or beyond the ordinary hour of daily adjournment for the purpose of considering a specified item of business or a stage or stages thereof subject to the following conditions:
(i)	the motion must relate to the business then being considered provided that proceedings in any Committee of the Whole may be temporarily interrupted for the purpose of proposing a motion under the provisions of this Standing Order;
(ii)	the motion must be proposed in the hour preceding the time at which the business under consideration should be interrupted by a lunch or dinner hour, Private Members' Hour or the ordinary hour of daily adjournment;
(iii)	the motion shall not be subject to debate or amendment."
That Standing Order 11 be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"11. At the ordinary hour of daily adjournment of the House, at 11.00 o'clock a.m. on Fridays or at the mid-day interruption, unless otherwise provided, the proceeding then under consideration shall stand over until the next sitting day or later the same sitting day after the period provided pursuant to Standing Order 19(4), as the case may be, when it will be taken up at the same stage where its progress was interrupted."
That paragraph (a) of Standing Order 13(4) be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"(4)(a) When the Speaker has put the question on any debatable motion, except as provided pursuant to section (2) of this Standing Order, the bells to call in the Members shall be sounded for not more than thirty minutes;
Standing Orders
provided that, while the Members are being called in, either the Chief Government Whip or the Chief Opposition Whip may approach the Speaker to request that the division be deferred, in which case, the Speaker shall defer the said division until a specified time, but, in any case, not later than
6.00	o'clock p.m. on the next sitting day thereafter, when the bells to call in the Members shall be sounded for not more than fifteen minutes, except as provided for under section (5) of this Standing Order or Standing Order 49(2)."
That Standing Order 19(3) be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"(3)(a) At 11.00 o'clock a.m. on Mondays, Tuesdays, Thursdays, at 3.00 o'clock p.m. on Wednesdays, and at 12.00 o'clock noon on Fridays, the House shall proceed to the ordinary daily routine of business, which shall be as follows:
Tabling of Documents (pursuant to Standing Orders 67 or 99(2)) Statements by Ministers (pursuant to Standing Order 19(6))
Presenting Reports from Inter-parliamentary Delegations (pursuant to Standing Order 101)
Presenting Reports from Committees (pursuant to Standing Order 99)
Introduction of Government Bills
Introduction of Private Members' Bills
First Reading of Senate Public Bills
Motions
Presenting Petitions (pursuant to Standing Order 106(4))
Questions on Order Paper.
(b)(i) When proceedings under 'Introduction of Government Bills' are not completed on a Monday, Tuesday or Thursday prior to the mid-day interruption, the ordinary daily routine of business shall continue immediately after oral questions are taken up notwithstanding Standing Order 19(4) until the completion of all items under 'Introduction of Government Bills', suspending as much of Private Members' Business as necessary.
(ii) When proceedings under 'Introduction of Government Bills' are not completed before the ordinary hour of daily adjournment, the House shall continue to sit to complete the ordinary daily routine of business up to and including 'Introduction of Government Bills', whereupon the Speaker shall adjourn the House."
That paragraph (b) of Standing Order 19(6) be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"(b) A period of time corresponding to the time taken for the proceedings pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section shall be added to the time provided for government business as follows:
(i)	on Mondays, Tuesdays and Thursdays, such an extension shall commence at 1.00 o'clock p.m. on the same sitting day, notwithstanding Standing Order 9(2), and any period remaining at 2.00 o'clock p.m. shall be added to the time provided for government business thereafter on the same sitting day; and
(ii)	on Wednesdays and Fridays, the time provided for government business shall be extended by a period corresponding to the time taken for proceedings pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section.
Where the time provided for government business has been extended after
2.00	o'clock p.m. pursuant to this section, Private Members' Business, where applicable, and the ordinary hour of daily adjournment shall be delayed by a period of time corresponding to the period of extension after
2.00	o'clock p.m., notwithstanding Standing Orders 9(1), 19(7) and 66(1) or any order made pursuant to Standing Order 10(1)."
That Standing Order 19(7) be deleted and the following substituted therefor: "(7) Except as otherwise provided in these Standing Orders, the order of business shall be as follows:
(Monday, Tuesday and Thursday)
(After the daily routine of business)
Government Orders.
Private Members' Business-from 5.00 to 6.00 o'clock p.m.:

June 2, 1987
Standing Orders
Public Bills, Private Bills, Notices of Motions and Notices of Motions (Papers).
(Wednesday)
(After the daily routine of business)
Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers.
Government Orders.
(Friday)
(Before the daily routine of business)
Government Orders.
(After the daily routine of business)
Government Orders.
Private Members' Business-from 2.00 to 3.00 o'clock p.m.:
Public Bills, Private Bills, Notices of Motions and Notices of Motions (Papers)."
That Standing Order 24 be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"24. (1) After notice pursuant to Standing Order 68(1), a government notice of motion shall be put on the Order Paper as an order of the day under Government Orders.
(2)	Proposed motions under Government Orders for the House to go into a Committee of the Whole at the next sitting of the House when put from the Chair shall be decided without debate or amendment."
That section (1) of Standing Order 29 be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"29. (1) Leave to make a motion for the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration must be asked for after the ordinary daily routine of business as set out in Standing Order 19(3) is concluded."
That sections (8) and (9) of Standing Order 29 be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"(8) If the Speaker is satisfied that the matter is proper to be discussed, the motion shall stand over until 8.00 o'clock p.m. on that day, provided that the Speaker, at his or her discretion, may direct that the motion shall be set down for consideration on the following sitting day at an hour specified by the Speaker."
That Standing Order 29(11) be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"(10) When a request to make such a motion has been made on any Friday, and the Speaker directs that it be considered the same day, it shall be considered forthwith."
That Standing Order 29( 13) be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"(12) The proceedings on any motion being considered, pursuant to sections (8) or (10) of this Standing Order, may continue beyond the ordinary hour of daily adjournment but, when debate thereon is concluded prior to that hour in any sitting, it shall be deemed withdrawn. Subject to any motion adopted pursuant to Standing Order 9(4)(b), at 12.00 o'clock midnight on any sitting day except Friday, and at 4.00 o'clock p.m. on Friday, the Speaker shall declare the motion carried and forthwith adjourn the House until the next sitting day. In any other case, the Speaker, when satisfied that the debate has been concluded, shall declare the motion carried and forthwith adjourn the House until the next sitting day."
That Standing Order 32 be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"32. Notwithstanding Standing Order 31, the order of precedence shall not contain, at any time, more than twenty motions and public bills originating in the House of Commons at second reading, nor fewer than ten items, when there are sufficient items contained in the list which have not been given a position on the order of precedence."
That paragraph (l)(a) of Standing Order 36 be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"36. (I)(a) The Standing Committee on Private Members' Business shall meet within five sitting days of the order of precedence being established pursuant to Standing Order 31, and from time to time thereafter, and may select after consultation with, among others, the Members proposing the items,
not more than six items from among the twenty items in the order of precedence and an appropriate number from among any subsequent items for which the order of precedence is established and such selected items shall be designated as 'votable items'. In making its selection, the Committee shall not take into account the number of Members jointly seconding an item, but shall allow the merits of the items alone to determine the selection and shall report thereon, from time to time. At no time shall there be more than six selected items on the order of precedence."
That Standing Order 38 be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"38. The proceedings on Private Members' Business shall not be suspended except as provided for in Standing Orders 19(3)(b), 19(9), 29(1 1), 37 and 39(2) or as otherwise specified by Special Order of this House. No Private Members' Business shall be taken up on days appointed for the consideration of business pursuant to Standing Orders 69, 82(5) and 84(4)."
That the following new section be added after Standing Order 39(2):
"(3)(a) When a Member has given at least twenty-four hours' written notice that he or she is unable to be present to move his or her motion under Private Members' Business on the date required by the order of precedence, and if that item of business is not one which has been designated as 'votable' by the Standing Committee on Private Members' Business, the Speaker, with permission of the Members involved, may arrange for an exchange of positions in the order of precedence with a Member whose motion or bill in the order of precedence has not been so designated.
(b) In the event that the Speaker has been unable to arrange an exchange, the House shall continue with the business before it prior to 'Private Members' Hour', provided that there shall be no extension of the sitting pursuant to Standing Order 9(4)(a), and any division on a debatable motion shall be deferred until 6.00 o'clock p.m. on the next sitting day. For the purposes of this section, Standing Order 13(5) relating to deferred divisions on a Thursday shall apply."
That paragraph (c) of Standing Order 40(3) be deleted.
That Standing Order 41(1) be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"41. (1) The order for the first consideration of any subsequent stages of a bill already considered during Private Members' Business, of second reading of a private bill and of second reading of a private Member's public bill originating in the Senate shall be placed at the bottom of the order of precedence."
That Standing Order 48 be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"48. Except as otherwise provided in any Standing or Special Order of the House, and unless otherwise disposed of, at not later than 6.00 o'clock p.m. on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, or 3.00 o'clock p.m. on Friday, on the fifteenth sitting day following the date on which a notice of motion made pursuant to Standing Order 46(2) appeared on the Order Paper, the same shall be deemed to have been moved and adopted by the House."
That sections 2 and 3 of Standing Order 55 be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"(2) When second reading or third reading of a government bill is being considered, no Member except the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition shall speak for more than:
(a)	forty minutes if that Member is the first, second or third speaker;
(b)	twenty minutes following the first three speakers, if that Member begins to speak within the next eight hours of consideration when second reading is being considered or within the next four hours of consideration when third reading is being considered; and following the speech of each Member a period not exceeding ten minutes shall be made available, if required, to allow Members to ask questions and comment briefly on matters relevant to the speech and to allow responses thereto;
(c)	ten minutes if a Member speaks thereafter.
(3)	When the business of private Members is being considered, no Member shall speak for more than ten minutes, provided that the Member moving the item may speak for not more than twenty minutes."
That Standing Order 65(2) be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"(2) A Member who is not satisfied with the response to a question asked on any day at this stage, or a Member who has been told by the Speaker that the
June 2, 1987

question is not urgent, may give notice that he or she intends to raise the subject matter of the question on the adjournment of the House. The notice referred to herein, whether or not it is given orally during the oral question period provided pursuant to Standing Order 19(4), must be given in writing to the Speaker not later than one hour following that period the same day."
That Standing Order 68(1) be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"68. (1) Forty-eight hours' notice shall be given of a motion for leave to present a bill, resolution or address, for the appointment of any committee, for placing a question on the Order Paper or for the consideration of any notice of motion made pursuant to Standing Order 46(2); but this rule shall not apply to bills after their introduction, or to private bills, or to the times of meeting or adjournment of the House. Such notice shall be laid on the Table before 6.00 o'clock p.m. (on a Friday before 3.00 o'clock p.m. or filed thereafter with the Clerk before 5.00 o'clock p.m.), and be printed in the Notice Paper of that day. Any notice filed with the Clerk pursuant to this section shall thereupon be deemed to have been laid on the Table in that sitting."
That Standing Order 70(2) be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"(2) When a debate on any motion made after the start of the sitting (after
11.00	o'clock a.m. on Fridays) and prior to the reading of an Order of the Day is adjourned or interrupted, the order for resumption of the debate shall be transferred to and considered under Government Orders."
That paragraph (a) of Standing Order 82(4) be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"(4)(a) Forty-eight hours' written notice shall be given of motions to concur in interim supply, main estimates, supplementary or final estimates, to restore or reinstate any item in the estimates. Twenty-four hours' written notice shall be given of an opposition motion on an allotted day or of a notice to oppose any item in the estimates, provided that for the supply period ending not later than June 30, forty-eight hours' written notice shall be given of a notice to oppose any item in the estimates."
That Standing Order 82(5) be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"(5) For the period ending not later than December 10, six sitting days shall be allotted to the business of supply. Nine additional days shall be allotted to the business of supply in the period ending not later than March 26. Ten additional days shall be allotted to the business of supply in the period ending not later than June 30. These twenty-five days are to be designated as allotted days."
That paragraphs (a) and (b) of Standing Order 82(15) be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"(a) Not later than the third sitting day prior to May 31, the Leader of the Opposition may give notice during the time specified in Standing Order 68(1) of a motion to extend consideration of the main estimates of a named department or agency and the said motion shall be deemed adopted when called on 'Motions' on the last sitting day prior to May 31;
(b) On the sitting day immediately preceding the final allotted day, but in any case not later than ten sitting days following the day on which any motion made pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section is adopted, at not later than 6.00 o'clock p.m. on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, or 3.00 o'clock p.m. on a Friday, the said committee shall report, or shall be deemed to have reported, the main estimates for the said department or agency; and"
That Standing Order 89(1) be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"89. (l)(a) At the commencement of the first session of each Parliament, a Striking Committee of seven Members, the membership of which shall continue from session to session, shall be appointed, whose duty it shall be to prepare and report to the House within the first ten sitting days after its appointment, and thereafter, within the first ten sitting days after the commencement of each session and within the first ten sitting days after the Monday following Labour Day, lists of Members to compose the standing committees of the House and to act for the House on standing joint committees.
(b) The Striking Committee shall not present a second report pursuant to this Standing Order between the Monday following Labour Day and the end of that calendar year."
That Standing Order 89(3) be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
Standing Orders
"(3) The Striking Committee shall also prepare and report lists of Members to act for the House on the following standing joint committees:
(a)	Official Languages, to consist of Fifteen members; and
(b)	Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments, to consist of eight members.
Provided that a sufficient number of members of the said joint committees shall be appointed so as to keep the same proportion in such committees as between the memberships of both Houses."
That the following new section be added after Standing Order 92(2):
"(3)(a) Notwithstanding Standing Order 96(1), no standing or standing joint committee shall sit at the same time as a legislative committee on a bill emanating from or principally affecting the same department or agency.
(b)	During periods coinciding with the hours of sittings of the House, priority shall be given to the meetings of legislative committees over those of standing, special and joint committees.
(c)	During periods when the House stands adjourned, priority shall be given to meetings of standing, special and joint committees, according to the schedule established from time to time by the Chief Government Whip, in consultation with representatives of the other parties."
That the following new paragraph be inserted immediately after paragraph (b) of Standing Order 92(4):
"(c) The Liaison Committee shall be empowered to report from time to time to the House."
That Standing Order 93(1) be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"93. (1) Without anticipating the decision of the House, within five sitting days after the commencement of debate on second reading of a bill which is to be referred to a legislative committee, the Striking Committee shall meet to prepare, and shall report not later than the following Thursday, a list of members of such a legislative committee, which shall consist of not more than thirty Members and which shall be organized only in the event that the House adopts the motion for second reading and reference to a legislative committee of the said bill. Upon the presentation of such a report of the Striking Committee, the same shall be deemed adopted."
That sections (4), (5), (6) and (7) of Standing Order 93 be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"(4) When the Chairman appointed pursuant to section (2) of this Standing Order is unable to act in that capacity at or during a meeting of the legislative committee, the Chairman shall designate a member of the committee to act as Chairman at or during the said meeting and such an acting Chairman shall be vested with all the powers of the Chairman at or during the said meeting."
That Standing Order 94(2) be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"(2) The membership of standing and joint committees shall be set out in the report of the Striking Committee, which shall prepare lists of Members in accordance with Standing Order 89. Once the report of the Striking Committee is concurred in, the membership shall continue from session to session within a Parliament, subject to such changes as may be effected from time to time."
That sections (4) and (5) of Standing Order 94 be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"(4) Changes in the membership of any legislative or special committee shall be effective immediately after notification thereof, signed by the Member acting as the Chief Whip of any recognized party, has been filed with the clerk of the committee."
That Standing Order 96(3)(c) be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"(c) Management and Members' Services shall include, among other matters, the review of and report, to the Speaker as well as the Board of Internal Economy, on the administration of the House and the provision of services and facilities to Members provided that all matters related thereto shall be deemed to have been permanently referred to the Committee upon its membership having been established; and the review of and report on the effectiveness, management and operation, together with the operational and expenditure plans of all operations which are under the joint administration

June 2, 1987
Standing Orders
and control of the two Houses and other related matters as the Committee deems fit;"
That Standing Order 96(4) be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"(4) So far as this House is concerned, the mandate of the Standing Joint Committee on:
(a)	Official Languages shall include, among other matters, the review of and report on official languages policies and programs including the annual report of the Commissioner of Official Languages, which shall be deemed, for the purposes of the House, permanently referred to the Committee immediately they are laid upon the Table; and
(b)	Regulations and other Statutory Instruments shall include, among other matters, the review and scrutiny of statutory instruments which are permanently referred to the Committee pursuant to the provisions of section 26 of the Statutory Instruments Act.
Provided that both Houses may, from time to time, refer any other matters to the joint committees."
That Standing Order 99(2) be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"(2) Within 150 days of the presentation of a report from a standing or special committee, the government shall, upon the request of the committee, table a comprehensive response thereto."
That Standing Order 101 be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"101. Within twenty sitting days of the return to Canada of an officially recognized inter-parliamentary delegation composed, in any part, of Members of the House, the head of the delegation, or a Member acting on behalf of him or her, shall present a report to the House on the activities of the delegation."
That the following new section be added immediately after Standing Order 104(3):
"(4) The office of the Minister who recommended the appointment shall provide the curriculum vitae of such an appointee or nominee to the committee upon written application from the clerk of the committee."
That the chapter title preceding Standing Order 106 be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"Public Petitions"
That Standing Order 106(2) be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"(2) In order to be certified, pursuant to section (1) of this Standing Order, every petition shall:
(a)	be addressed to the House of Commons or to the House of Commons in Parliament assembled;
(b)	contain a clear, proper and respectful prayer requesting that Parliament see fit to take some action within its authority;
(c)	be written, typewritten or printed on paper of usual size;
(d)	be free of erasures or interlineations;
(e)	have its subject matter indicated on every sheet, if it consists of more than one sheet of signatures and addresses;
(f)	contain only original signatures and addresses written directly onto the petition and not pasted thereon or otherwise transferred to it; and
(g)	contain at least twenty-five signatures, together with the addresses of the signatories, from persons other than Members of Parliament."
That Standing Order 116 be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"116. When a Minister of the Crown, from his or her place in the House, states that a majority of the representatives of the several parties have come to an agreement in respect of a proposed allotment of days or hours for the proceedings at any stage of the passing of a public bill, the Minister may propose a motion, without notice, during proceedings under Government Orders, setting forth the terms of the said proposed allocation; provided that for the purposes of this Standing Order an allocation may be proposed in one motion to cover the proceedings at both the report and the third reading stages of a bill if that motion is consistent with the provisions of Standing Order 114(13). During the consideration of any such motion no Member may speak more than once or longer than ten minutes. Not more than two hours after the commencement of proceedings thereon, the Speaker shall put every question
necessary to dispose of the said motion. Any proceeding interrupted pursuant to this Standing Order shall be deemed adjourned."
That Standing Order 117 be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"117. A Minister of the Crown who from his or her place in the House, at a previous sitting, has stated that an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 115 or 116 in respect of proceedings at the stage at which a public bill was then under consideration either in the House or in any committee, and has given notice of his or her intention so to do, may propose a motion, during proceedings under Government Orders, for the purpose of allotting a specified number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at that stage; provided that the time allotted for any stage is not to be less than one sitting day and provided that for the purposes of this Standing Order an allocation may be proposed in one motion to cover the proceedings at both the report and the third reading stages on a bill if that motion is consistent with the provisions of Standing Order 114(13). During the consideration of any such motion no Member may speak more than once or longer than ten minutes. Not more than two hours after the commencement of proceedings thereon, the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of the said motion. Any proceedings interrupted pursuant to this Standing Order shall be deemed adjourned."
That the following new Standing Order be inserted immediately before Standing Order 132:
"131.1 (1) A petition for a private bill may be presented by a Member at any time during the sitting of the House by filing the same with the Clerk of the House.
(2)	Members presenting petitions for private bills shall be answerable that such petitions do not contain impertinent or improper matter.
(3)	Every Member presenting a petition for a private bill shall sign his or her name on the back thereof.
(4)	Petitions for private bills may be either written or printed; provided always that when there are three or more petitioners the signatures of at least three petitioners shall be subscribed on the sheet containing the prayer of the petition.
(5)	On the next day following the presentation of a petition for a private bill, the Clerk of the House shall lay upon the Table the report of the Clerk of Petitions thereon and such report shall be printed in the Votes and Proceedings of that day. Every petition so reported upon, not containing matter in breach of the privileges of this House and which, according to the Standing Orders or practice of this House, can be received, shall then be deemed to be read and received.
(6)	No debate shall be permitted on the report but a petition referred to therein may be read by the Clerk of the House at the Table, if required."- The Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council.


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, 1 am pleased to introduce this motion after it was clearly and articulately read in both official languages. Perhaps our viewers out there will get a clear impression of what we are trying to do here in entrenching a system of rules and procedures into our permanent Standing Orders.
The motion I have presented to the House has as its principal objective the enshrinement of the parliamentary reform process which has been experimental and provisional for the past two years. The adoption of this motion will make all of those reforms permanent Standing Orders. In so doing this motion confirms the Government's commitment to meaningful and very thorough parliamentary reform.
It is fair to say that Members on all sides of the House have expressed their desire to see these changes continue. I think
June 2, 1987

there is also general agreement that the reforms have succeeded in making the House more workable and in enhancing the role of Members in policy formation and examination. We believe, therefore, that now is the time to enshrine these provisional orders into the permanent Standing Orders.
Today's debate is very important, indeed, historic. Moreover, it is very positive for the future of parliamentary democracy as it has evolved in this country. The election of the Speaker by all of us in this House by ballot is made permanent by the motion, with two changes. The 5 per cent of vote minimum requirement for each candidate as proposed by the committee is adopted with a change to require Members wishing to be a candidate for the speakership to write in their candidacy rather than, as was the case last September, to write that they are not candidates.
Here again, as with any system of parliamentary order and rules, we learn through practice, and establish our rules and regulations by precedent and by the application and interpretation of those rules.
As well, the legislative committees are made permanent with no change in their powers and mechanisms except for the priority and queuing process which all Parties agreed to last September after many Members, particularly those in the opposition caucuses, realized that the system was becoming overloaded. We are satisfying this concern of the committee's April 7 report which examined the reforms. I think we all recognize that the government caucus could have placed an impossible burden on the opposition caucuses by having a dozen legislative committee meetings all at the same time. We recognize that that would have ultimately been damaging to the institution, so we have agreed to the queuing procedure.
Then there are the major reforms provisionally in place since the spring of 1986 which we propose to make permanent with minor changes which, I submit, will lead to improved workability. The standing committees would remain, with all the new powers the House gave them, but with some minor changes dealing with when they are struck and how membership can be changed. Committee scrutiny of Order in Council appointees and nominees would be made permanent with a clear mechanism for obtaining curricula vitae for committees calling such people before them. The review of delegated legislation, which members have used only once, will become permanent as well. Later this year we will revise wording to suit the Standing Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments.
I want to touch on the types of so-called procedural reforms proposed by the McGrath committee in Chapter 7 of its final 1985 report. These were largely, but only provisionally, implemented in our current rules. We are making a change to only one of them and that is Routine Proceedings, and I will come back to that later because, unfortunately and regrettably, the Opposition have not been able to agree with this element of the motion before us today.
Standing Orders
We propose no change to the new process for Private Members' Business except for two improvements. One is to double the time for the speech by the Hon. Member moving any item to 20 minutes from 10 minutes. Second is the provision of a mechanism to allow private Bills, those from petitioners in the country, to be debated and, as the House wishes, enacted. The committee requested this, too. The special order agreed to by the House last December respecting how non-votable items may be relocated in the precedence list when a Member cannot be present has worked well and it, too, will become a permanent order.
The opposition House Leaders could not agree on behalf of their caucuses on either doing Private Members' Business at the end of each opposition or allotted day or somehow blending it into the day, so this is one proposal of the committee which we cannot accept. We will keep the status quo and not conduct Private Members' Business on those days.
The purpose was quite clear. Private Members' Business is not conducted on the 25 allotted days and the procedural committee and we, in our discussions, tried to find a way in which Private Members' Business could be conducted on days allocated for opposition debate. Unfortunately, I regret and I am sure many Private Members regret that we were unable to work out a solution which would accommodate that worthy objective.
As well, the motion proposes to remove any appeal to the House on a Member's request for an emergency debate. There is a provision where an appeal can be made if a Speaker finds a prima facie case of emergency under Standing Order 29. We sense that that was somewhat repugnant in as far as it applies to the stature of the Speaker, and any challenge would constitute a challenge to the Speaker. Therefore, we have removed that.
If the Speaker rules and finds an emergency under Standing Order 29, the debate will proceed on the basis of his or her assessment. It is made clear that once the decision is made and the Speaker rules on it, the debate is on.
If there is a debate on Lriday, it will continue for up to four hours as on other days and will remain open to an extension by Standing Order 9(4), as provided for in the current provisional rules.
We have agreed to loosen up the format requirements for the presentation of petitions, again as the procedure committee requested.
With respect to the business of supply, my opposition colleagues agreed with us that it would be appropriate to move some of the spring opposition days to the fall and winter supply periods in order to give more balance to the timing of those debates. I believe we all have recognized what we have gone through in the last month or so, with 13 opposition days compressed into a very short period. We tried to work out a more suitable arrangement to even out those days.

June 2, 1987
Standing Orders
Therefore, included in this motion, is a provision to provide six allotted days in the fall, the supply period ending December 10; nine days during the winter months, the supply period ending March 26; and 10 days rather than 13 days in the spring supply period which ends June 23, for a total of the 25 allotted days as currently exists.
With respect to comprehensive responses to committee reports, I want to thank the Opposition for agreeing to the extension of 30 days for the time allowed for a comprehensive reply by the Government to a committee report. Currently, the time allowed for a comprehensive reply is 120 days. The Government requested 180 days and we negotiated a compromise of 150 days. I want to thank the Opposition House Leaders for their support and co-operation in that regard.
The motion also sets out the mechanism to give effect to the substantive, consequential changes to our current rules. As one can appreciate, this requires a lot of work and I want to thank, on behalf of all of us, the Clerk's Office, the people at the table and our own respective staff for their precise assistance in putting together the details of the motion.
These minor changes to the parliamentary reforms have been arrived at after some 15 months of experience and considerable consultation with all Members, particularly Members opposite. Members in various quarters of the House will know that we have extended, by special order, the expiry of these rules from December, 1986 to April 15, 1987, then again to May 29, and finally to June 5.
My hon. friend, the House Leader of the New Democratic Party, will know especially that the increasingly smaller extensions were made at his request and supported by my friend, the Liberal House Leader and myself, to in effect force us into doing the work and making the decisions to enable us to "fish or cut bait", as the expression goes. We believe that the time is appropriate to move, and I think there is a genuine desire to see that these provisional rules become formalized, fine-tuned, and modified to take into account the experience that we have gained over the last 15 months.
It must be pointed out that throughout there has been an extended and thorough consultative process. After the December extension last year, the House Leaders agreed that at the end of January our staffs would meet to review the rules, operations, and any changes that might be considered or proposed from various quarters. We also wanted to survey our caucus concerns and wait for the review and the report of the procedural committee which came down on April 7. By midMarch, we agreed to have an exchange of documents or positions, and they were examined and dealt with by April 1. On April 2, our staff met and proposals from our side were identified.
We then extended the reform rules expiry date from April 15 to May 29. By early May, I undertook to have all the Government's proposals shared for discussion among the three Parties' leadership and caucuses. The Opposition received the
full written proposals on May 15 and the House Leaders' staffs were to meet to exchange and develop positions.
By the end of May, House Leaders were scheduling more frequent meetings to explore possibilities or concerns growing out of the Government's proposals. The time expired and we made a one-week extension from May 29 to June 5 to allow all caucuses to be fully apprised.
Last week we had meetings almost daily, and sometimes twice a day, in which there was a good deal of negotiation. I say to my colleagues that I believe everyone acted in good faith and that in those areas of disagreement, naturally the concerns are genuinely felt.
There were several areas in which agreement could not be reached in the original package that was presented to the opposition Parties for their consideration. However, many of those proposals were dropped. On the other hand, there were areas where we believe changes are necessary, notwithstanding the absence of agreement.
The motion before the House today provides for moving time allocation on Bills during Government Orders rather than under the routine proceeding called Motions. There was not full agreement worked out among the Parties of the House on this change, but we believe it is necessary in order to encourage the orderly disposition of the business of the House.
The proposal in today's motion to move the presentation of petitions down the sequence list daily, and to split Introduction of Bills into two separate routine proceedings-the first for Government Bills and the second for Private Members' Bills- and to provide that the first category will all be called each sitting day, is the best way we envisage overcoming the possibility of another procedural impasse of the sort we worked our way through last November on Bill C-22.
The Chair's rulings at that time, while a guide to the House, are not able to prevent a recurrence, given the way the routine proceedings work and the limited time we have for them each day.
As the Speaker and his predecessors have said, the rights of the Opposition to be able to delay by use of procedure, but chiefly by length of debate rather than repeated dilatory tactics, have to be balanced by the fundamental right of a government to be able to propose its business to the House.
If a government, despite its numbers in the House, is not able to introduce a Bill, subject to due notice period and subject to two possible recorded votes, before the clock runs out every day for Routine Proceedings, I submit that all Members will have abdicated their side of the balanced responsibility which is at the heart of the parliamentary system.
I quote the Speaker's own words in the ruling of April 14 on an impasse on the same difficult Bill:
June 2, 1987

Our procedures are being used for purposes for which they were never originally intended, and the public could be pardoned for believing that our rules have no logical basis at all.
The Chair continues:
Routine proceedings are an essential part of House business and if they are not protected the interests of the House and the public it serves are likely to suffer severely.
Furthermore, the Speaker said:
No procedures should be sanctioned which permit the House to be brought to a total standstill for an indefinite period. Division bells are no substitute for debate.
Finally, the Chair made a request of the House which I think goes to the substance of what we are trying to do here, and it was summarized as follows:
I would hope that the difficulties of the Speaker in this situation will encourage Hon. Members to reconsider the present rules with a view to making changes which would secure the sanctity of Routine Proceedings.
That is precisely what we have tried to do in this proposal. Our view is that for any Member to oppose the motion before us today would be for such a Member to sanction such questionable parliamentary conduct and the Chair has set out the choice just that starkly.
Our proposal will not restrict dilatory motions; quite the opposite. Such motions can still be used as a legitimate procedural tool to delay introduction of a Bill. However, the Bill will be introduced before that day is concluded. The debate may then begin, which is what we are all here to do.
These changes, I submit, are consistent with the spirit of parliamentary reform to make the House a more orderly, workable and effective institution. There are many Members of this House, on all sides, who have dedicated themselves to that purpose. I know the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie), the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) and the House Leaders of the two respective Opposition Parties, as well as Members on this side, have on many occasions cast aside their partisan or political differences in order to work towards improving the rules and procedures of this institution because it is an institution of which we are all proud. It is an institution which brings us all together and really reflects all the dimensions of Canada.
We believe the rules which are proposed in the contents of this resolution maintain a good balance between the Government's ability to get its legislation through the House and the Opposition's ability to oppose it. The motion before us today in its timing and content attempts in a fair manner to pull as many things together as are important at this time and in these circumstances.
My hon. friend, the House Leader of the New Democratic Party, has kept pressing for a deadline to make the reforms permanent and today's motion does that. It makes the reform of Parliament permanent, the opposite of which will be the case if such a motion is not disposed of.
The motion implies we will defer until later this year a number of minor improvement changes recommended by sources in the House and sources supporting the House. Many
Standing Orders
of these proposals are under study by the procedural committee which has been preoccupied with other items and tasks with respect to redistribution and has not been able to devote the kind of attention to these proposals that it will once that business is disposed of. I expect those proposals will be made permanent as well when they come forward.
Other administrative issues are still before the Board of Internal Economy. The House Leaders have had many clerical improvements identified in their talks. We do not see them as difficulties but we did agree to hold off going ahead with them until the procedural committee has worked them all out.
Therefore, adoption of this motion is not the end of reform, but the guarantee of a solid permanent base with more to come. To reject this motion this week or later would be to jettison very many good, hard-earned things. I can strongly recommend this motion to the House. We are all ready to live by its terms as quickly as it calls for.
Notwithstanding the fact that there are some difficulties and differences of opinion, I am pleased to indicate to you, Madam Speaker, and to the House, that since this debate started, there have been discussions among all Parties to see during the course of the debate today whether in fact some of the outstanding issues may be resolved and worked out in such a manner that we could move this motion ahead on a positive and more unanimous basis. There are some outstanding issues which we are still prepared to negotiate. I understand there is the establishment of a bit of a ad hoc committee composed of representatives of all the Parties which will be meeting at one o'clock, and perhaps later on this day, to see whether in fact we can work out some of the difficulties and overcome some of the disagreements which may be inherent in this motion.
W'e stand willing as always to work in that sort of conciliatory, co-operative fashion. I hope that throughout the course of the day these particular problems might be resolved and that we can move this motion ahead with the unanimity and support which I believe the motion clearly deserves.


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Madam Speaker, when the Government House Leader began his speech, he said that the principle objective of the motion before us was the enshrinement, the making permanent, of the interim rules under which we are currently operating. If this were the case, we would not be having this debate. Unfortunately, this is not the case. There is a lot more in the motion before us than simply making permanent those portions of our rules which are here on an interim basis.
The Government wants permanent changes in the rules which were not in the interim rules and wants permanent changes which were not in the McGrath Report. It wants permanent changes which were not in the report of the committee on procedure which was tabled in this House only a few weeks ago.
The Government House Leader has described at some length changes in the rules described in his motion arrived at by consensus, by agreement, among the House Leaders of the

June 2, 1987
Standing Orders
Parties in this House. It shows that the Opposition Parties have not simply been negative when it comes to further changes in the rules. They have not been obstructive when it comes to further changes in the rules, including changes to which the Government was favourable. However, the current Parliamentary Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure only reported in April, and it was only after that that we learned with certainty exactly what the Government wanted to achieve to suit its purposes on matters such as Routine Proceedings and time allocation and other issues as well.
The Government House Leader finally admitted in the concluding minutes of his speech that the Government is acting in the way it is with respect to Routine Proceedings and time allocation because of its unhappiness over the time taken by the House in the consideration of only one Bill out of many, Bill C-22, the Bill on prescription drugs. The time in question was certainly not excessive in view of the importance of the Bill to millions of Canadians. The time was certainly not excessive in view of the fact that the Bill is now law.
The Government is now in a position to move on to other elements of its legislative program, but it is not doing that. Instead it is taking the time of the House with this motion that flies in the face of our tradition of bringing about changes in our rules, a tradition that this is done by consensus and not by the Government attempting to force rules changes on the House with its majority.
Beginning in 1982 successive committees have had our rules and procedures under active consideration. As a result, both recommendations, as well as constructive non-partisan consultations by the House Leaders of all three Parties, a great deal of progress has been made toward making the House of Commons more modern and more effective as a democratic institution.
When I say "effective" I do not mean merely efficient. We have all come to accept that the House deals with the business that the government places before it. We in opposition may disagree with government measures. We may seek to alter or delay their proposals. But we recognize that the House, in the fullness of time, does deal with these measures, though this does not mean that we must ultimately, as opposition Parties, approve them.
In fact the record of this Parliament clearly demonstrates that we have been willing to deal with government legislation such as it is. We have opposed, generally vigorously, that legislation which we have considered bad. But the legislative record of this Parliament, in terms of its quantity at least, has not been, by comparison, bad.
Although we differ in our interpretation of the benefits to our country of the amount of legislation proposed by the Government, the governing Party, the Conservative Party, has already trumpeted exactly this fact in its own propaganda, its
own information that it conveys to its supporters and to the country.
We do not believe that this Government has presented much in the way of good legislation. But it has been able to get a large quantity of its legislation-good, bad or indifferent- through the House. Therefore it can be said with certainty that this has not been an obstructive Parliament.
I referred to the need of the House to be an effective democratic institution because it is not here merely to serve as a mill for government legislation. Parliament is here to study, to present improvements and, at times, to oppose government legislation. But also one of the most important roles of Parliament, a role just as important as legislating, is to hold the Government to account. To accomplish this we have developed in Parliament an adversarial system. The principal responsibility to hold government to account is given to the Official Opposition. Obviously, that is the role of other opposition Parties as well.
Governments are in office because they hold a majority in the House. By virtue of that majority they can, and in the long run do, control most of the legislative business of Parliament. There are rules to assure this outcome. As I have already said, these rules have worked effectively to this end during this Parliament.
We must bear in mind that the rules are already overwhelmingly stacked in the Government's favour. The Government controls the agenda of Parliament. The Government has the power to limit debate. This Government especially does not shrink from doing so.
Also the Government-in the final analysis when it comes to information it has to be said-controls much of the information with which Parliament must attempt to work. However, along the way, in order to fulfil its function of holding the government majority to account, the opposing minority must have ample opportunity to criticize and to alert the public to government measures or actions that it deems to be hostile, contrary to the public interest.
This requires debate. Sometimes it requires delay. The rules of the House have been purposefully designed to this end. They are not devices for playful or blind partisanship. They exist to hold governments to account and to permit the public to have an ongoing say as to how it is governed.
In this Parliament we in the Opposition have used the instruments that the rules give us to enable the public to have time to become aware of and to have its say about government legislation. We have sometimes been more active in this than on other occasions. However, every time we have used the rules it has been for the democratic purposes for which they were designed. We may have, on occasion, vexed the Government and its supporters, but I suggest that has happened only when there have been either serious differences of opinion as to what is the best course for the country, or all too often on those occasions when the Government has breached or crossed the fine line from use to abuse of power.
June 2, 1987

I do not apologize for using the rules to express legitimate dissent when it comes to government legislation, policy, conduct, or to seek correction, generally of government misbehaviour, or to get time to say what is wrong with government legislation or to give to the public the time it needs to understand the implications of government proposals and to have its say about them. But what we have not done in this Parliament is simply to obstruct.
That is why I do not understand why the Government has chosen this time to act in a unilateral and arbitrary manner in an attempt to curtail even more the already severely limited devices by which the Opposition may act to hold the Government to account, to have some checks and balances in a system already strongly tilted toward the government of the day.
Early in this Parliament a special committee under the able chairmanship of the Hon. James McGrath took a long and, if 1 may say so, idealistic look at the way Parliament operates. The result was a comprehensive report recommending sweeping changes in our procedures. Some of us were skeptical about the value of every element, every part of the report. I confess that I was among the skeptics. Nevertheless, in what can only be described as a true leap of faith, we undertook to experiment with a new set of Standing Orders based on the report of the committee.
By and large those of us who were skeptics have really had our skepticism alleviated and softened because the rules, with some fine tuning here and there have, generally speaking, worked. We have now reached the stage where it makes sense to conclude the experiment and to give a final seal of approval to a generally sound system. Without question there is room for more fine tuning. But, I ask, is it not time to make these provisional Standing Orders permanent?
Insofar as fine tuning is concerned, the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure has taken a good look at the rules. As I have said, it made a useful, in fact an excellent, report in April on issues of some importance. I understand it is to make another report later this month on lesser issues.
I want to say that in this report the members of the committee did not find it necessary to recommend the changes the Government is trying to force through the House, in the motion before us, to Routine Proceedings or Government Notices of Motion. I submit that is the Government's real objective in the motion which we are debating today.
It was with a view to making the experimental rules permanent that the House Leaders of all Parties have been meeting for the last several weeks. We have discussed the rules in much detail and have reached the consensus, as the Government House Leader has reported, on a number of useful matters of a fine-tuning nature.
We agreed on some lesser changes about such things as the method of electing the Speaker, the taking of divisions, certain arrangements concerning Private Members' Business and
Standing Orders
committees, the system of dealing with the business of supply, the form of petitions and other matters that have come to our attention either through the Standing Committee report or by becoming obvious in the day-to-day operation of the House.
When I left for my constituency late last Friday afternoon I felt reasonably confident that we had almost worked out, by consensus, arrangements satisfactory to all Parties whereby the experimental rules could be made permanent with more fine tuning to be done in the future. It was, therefore, a considerable surprise to me to learn that the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) had given notice late on Friday of the motion we now have before us. We in the official Opposition cannot support this motion as it now reads. We believe that changes to our rules ought to be made in a spirit of consensus and, therefore, ought not include matters to which one or more of the Parties cannot reconcile themselves.
It may be argued by government speakers that there have been exceptions to this, but I submit that they have been very rare and have dealt with situations which have accumulated over months and years and not because of the Government's pique or irritation about not having its way as quickly as it wanted with one Bill.
We certainly cannot support the Government's unilateral, inexplicable and indefensible encroachment upon one of the principles of parliamentary reform since 1982, that being the fixed parliamentary calendar. The Government has made no case at all for any departure from our practice of adjourning on fixed dates including the adjournment at the end of June until after Labour Day. It was this Government that decided last August to end the parliamentary session and take an extra month off, the month of September. We in the Official Opposition objected to that action at that time. Since then the Government has set the parliamentary agenda and cannot, on the basis of the record of legislation dealt with, make a case of Opposition obstruction.
If the Government has mismanaged-and it has-its own agenda, it should not attempt to blame the rules or the Opposition in an effort to repair self-inflicted damage. We do not see before us any legislation that is so pressing that the rules of the House have to be altered. We certainly oppose this part of the proposal.
We are not talking about a routine step which existed before the rule changes in 1982 whereby at the end of every period of the year, especially before adjournments in the summer and at Christmas, we negotiated on whether or not we were to sit for longer periods. The change the Government wants to make to enable the House, at the Government's will, to sit after the end of June is as much a change in the rules as is any other part of the motion.
If the Government can force through a change in the foundation of the rules with regard to the parliamentary calendar through this motion, what will be next? Will it be Question Period? Will it be having three readings on Bills? Is the Government really signaling to us that it wants to tear

June 2, 1987
down the essential concept of serious and deliberate parliamentary consideration of legislation? Is it really signaling to us that it wants to sweep away the embarrassment it faces daily through that fundamental check and balance in our system, the daily Question Period?
We also oppose the Government's proposal to alter radically the method by which the House deals with its routine business. The Government seeks to justify this attack on one of the limited methods by which the Opposition may call public attention to the Government's legislation which it believes is harmful to the public interest, or to the Government's misbehaviour. It is doing so on the basis of one isolated incident regarding Bill C-22.
I recall that when the governing Party was in Opposition it used the same procedure involving Routine Proceedings when it was unhappy with the Bill of the Government of the day to change the system of freight rates, which we called the Crow Rate. In spite of that the Bill eventually passed, but the Government of the day did not rush into the House and attempt to change the rules on Routine Proceedings out of annoyance with the way the then Opposition, the Conservative Party which is now the Government, used the rules to get more time to consider and make the public understand the implications of the Crow Rate legislation.
The Government has given no explanation of why it has to operate differently all of a sudden. Perhaps the perspective of being temporarily on the Government side has a wonderful effect on judgment, but it certainly has not improved the judgment of the Conservative Government.
As I have said, the incident with regard to Bill C-22 was resolved in the Government's favour and has not been repeated. The usages which the Government seeks to end by modifying Routine Proceedings have been so rare that no one can justly refer to them as abuses. Similarly, I am astonished to see the proposed limitation of the length of the first speech in opposition to the third reading of a Bill. This, too, is a device which, while having been used on occasion, has not been abused. It is a particularly important device for registering differences of opinion on legislation, and, most important, because of the existence of the time allocation rules it cannot in itself derail a government program.
Indeed, this is of such insignificant bother to the Government, or should be, that the Deputy Prime Minister never once raised it in our House Leaders' discussions. We learned of the point for the first time when we read the motion which the Government tabled without giving notice late last Friday afternoon.
As I said earlier, the current rules of the House are stacked in favour of the Government. Even the most determined Opposition cannot, when the day is done, totally stop the Government from obtaining passage of its legislation unless, of course, public opinion is raised against it to such an extent that the Government itself cannot ignore it, as happened when the Government tried to cut the old age pension.
We can and on occasion must make the passage of legislation we deem to be objectionable in the public interest a difficult process, but in doing so we are carrying out a role essential in a democracy. We are ensuring that the views of the public are heard and, hopefully, considered by the Government. Similarly, when we perceive that the Government is acting contrary to the public interest we must have devices by which we can put pressure on the Government, or at least demonstrate to the public the Government's misconduct or lack of concern and consideration for the public interest.
May I call it one o'clock, Madam Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I was just about to ask the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) whether he wished to continue for a few minutes or wished to have the floor again at three o'clock.
It being one o'clock, I do now leave the Chair until two o'clock.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, the Brundtland Report on the Environment and Development says that energy is necessary for daily survival. Future development crucially depends upon its long-term availability in increasing quantities from sources which are dependable, safe, and environmentally sound. At present, no single source or mix of sources is at hand to meet this future need.
Choices must be made, but in the certain knowledge that choosing an energy strategy inevitably means choosing an environmental strategy.
Patterns and changes in energy used today are already dictating patterns well into the next century. The key elements of sustainability which must be reconciled are sufficient growth of energy supplies to meet demand needs; energy efficiency and conservation measures, such that waste of primary resources is minimized; public health, recognizing the problems of risks to safety inherent in energy sources; and protection of the biosphere and prevention of more localized forms of pollution.
June 2, 1987



RIGHT TO LIFE


William (Bill) Gottselig: Mr. Speaker, after many weeks of waiting I understand that the Private Member's Motion of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Grey-Simcoe (Mr. Mitges), will be voted upon this afternoon. This is a truly historical occasion, as Members of the House have not had the opportunity to vote on an item concerning the rights of the unborn child for many years.
Hundreds of thousands of pro-life Canadians will be watching the actions of all Hon. Members this afternoon. Voters have made their views known over the last several months by letters, telephone calls, petitions, and personal visits to Members of Parliament. There used to be a myth that standing up for the rights of the unborn child might be committing political suicide. The vote this afternoon will dispel that myth once and for all. Support for this motion from many areas of the country has been overwhelming.
Passage of the motion will allow the House to continue discussions on the legal rights of the unborn child. I urge all Hon. Members to be in the House this afternoon and to vote in favour of Motion M-37. It is literally time to stand up and be counted.



STANDING ORDERS-PROPOSED AMENDMENTS

Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, as everyone knows, the Government has put down a motion in respect of changing the Standing Orders of the House. If no agreement regarding the motion can be arrived at sometime today, the motion will be passed unilaterally.
I bring to the attention of the House and the public that the last time the Standing Orders were changed unilaterally was in 1969 when the Liberal Government brought in the current time allocation provisions by the use of the old closure motion. I think the time before that when the Standing Orders were changed unilaterally was back to 1913 or something like that.
If this unilateral motion goes ahead, we will be looking at a very serious set-back for both the spirit and substance of parliamentary reform. I have been part and parcel of that reform process since the setting up of the Lefebvre committee in 1982. In the last five years we have seen a great deal of progress in Parliament. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has been very good since 1984 in encouraging that process.
I would certainly hope that the Government will think twice-and I know that it is thinking twice-and will be open to suggestions, negotiation, and improvement, so that we will not be forced to spoil the spirit of parliamentary reform which
has existed in this place in recent years by having a unilateral change in the Standing Orders imposed upon Parliament.



HISTORIC EVENTS


Mr. Bob Pennock (Etobicoke North):: Mr. Speaker, today, June 2, is National Day in Italy. This special holiday commemorates the day in 1946 when the Italian people voted in a national referendum to replace the monarchy with a republic.
Since the Second World War, Canada and Italy have grown progressively closer in many respects and today enjoy a truly special relationship. This special relationship is largely the result of the many thousands of Italians who chose to make Canada their home.
Italian Canadians embody all the best that Canada has to offer. While maintaining and promoting their Italian heritage, they are fiercely Canadian and embrace with a vengeance all the country has to offer.
The Italian population in Canada have added greatly to the diversity and development of our country. Their entrepreneurial spirit is much the same as the first pioneers who settled Canada. Their continued drive and determination to succeed has benefited us all.
In April I had the opportunity to participate in bilateral discussions with Canadian and Italian representatives, which culminated in the signing of the Second Cultural Agreement.
I know all Canadians will join with me in celebrating Italy's National Day.



AWARDS AND DECORATIONS


Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Last week in Toronto, Mr. Speaker, eight Canadian and Quebec authors were honoured by Madam Jeanne Sauve. The 1987 Governor General Award was presented by Madam Sauve to Northrop Frye, Regine Robin, Alice Munro, A1 Purdy, Sharon Pollock, Cecile Cloutier, Anne Legault and Yvon Rivard.
On behalf of all my colleagues, I extend to them our sincere congratulations. Among these seven award winners, Mrs. Legault and Mrs. Regine Robin are Montrealers, and Mr. Yvon Rivard lives in the City of Outremont. He is well-known in Montreal and Quebec literary circles and was singled out for this award for his third novel, Les silences du corbeau. His readers, both men and women, have come to acknowledge that his vast talents are reflected in his style, the poetry of his

June 2, 1987
5. 0.21
language and his skillful use of the French language. Les silences du corbeau attests as well to the depth of the sentiments and ties which seem to bind the author and his main character.
Mr. Rivard and the other award winners do Canadians and Quebecers proud. They epitomize the quality of our culture. Again I congratulate them, especially Mr. Rivard who hails from the magnificent riding of Outremont.



THE ENVIRONMENT


Mr. Marcel R. Tremblay (Quebec East):: Mr. Speaker, to promote the quality of the environment through information, education and research, the Government has designated the first week of June as "Environment Week" throughout Canada.
Mr. Speaker, let me single out the major contribution of two leading industries located in my riding of Quebec East which did not skimp and invested millions of dollars to improve the quality of our environment. 1 am referring to Reed Company which, since 1981, has spent in excess of $40 million for water and atmospheric treatment by acquiring, among other things, a water purifier designed to clean sewage and eliminate toxic waste.
Thanks to a grant of $800,000 from the Conservative Government, the Quebec Urban Community has invested more than $3 million over the past three years to improve air quality and fight pollution.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I think it is fitting to mention the efforts made by my Government to reach a mutually satisfying acid rain agreement with the Americans who, of course, are doing irreparable damage to our agriculture and forests.



STANDING ORDERS-PROPOSED AMENDMENTS

Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, as was mentioned by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg- Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie), today is the first time that the Government of this country has tried to change the Standing Orders since 1969 without the co-operation of the two opposition Parties.
In that previous debate one of the more eloquent Conservative speakers said it would be the rape of Parliament if the Government changed the Standing Orders of this place without the consultation and co-operation of the two opposition Parties.
We in both opposition Parties are negotiating, trying to have a package deal with the Government so that the Government's right to proceed is matched by the public's right to be informed on the legislation and to be involved in the discussions and debate of that legislation through the committee process. If we do not get that co-operation from the Government it sends a signal to the whole population of Canada that it is not part of the process and that parliamentary reform is dead.



TERRORISM


Mr. John Oostrom (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, last Thursday officials from Canada and the seven most industrialized countries, the United States, Britain, Italy, Japan, West Germany, France, as well as officials from Denmark and Belgium, met in Paris to discuss international terrorism. This was the first ever anti-terrorism summit to formalize cooperation between Governments in the fight against individuals who have no regard for human life.
If terrorism is to be eradicated from the face of this planet all nations must ensure that all available information on groups bent on overthrowing or undermining democratic countries or getting attention for some cause, be accessible.
Co-operation in Europe has already produced concrete results. France has managed to curtail Middle East terrorism while Italy has broken up the Red Brigades. Last week the French, acting on Italian intelligence, helped break up a network of the Red Brigades in Paris.
Now for the first time Canada, the United States and Japan will be part of this link to curtail terrorism. This is the only way to assure our citizens that individuals such as Francesco Piperno, a convicted Red Brigade terrorist seeking refugee asylum in Canada, will be immediately returned.



MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS


Mr. George Henderson (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, this week the Federation of Canadian Municipalities is holding its annual convention in Ottawa. In a recent statement the Federation said that "municipal infrastructure in Canada is in
June 2, 1987

crisis" and cited the need for greater intergovernmental cooperation to repair and maintain the roads, sewers and bridges in towns and cities across Canada. Elowever, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) has chosen to ignore the Federation's recommendations.
This is a national problem, from coast to coast. For instance, in the community of East Royalty, P.E.I., the sewer system is in a disgraceful condition and threatens to become a serious health hazard. A proposal was made by the community council to repair the sewers by using the UI Job Creation Program. At least 40 jobs would have been created. However, the Department of Employment and Immigration rejected this proposal.
Despite his supposedly tough stand on waste disposal, the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) seems unconcerned by the dangerous situation in this community, which, indeed, is in his own riding. The people of East Royalty have been betrayed three times by the Conservative Government.
I urge the Ministers to reconsider their shameful disregard for public health and safety and to help these municipalities immediately.
* *
*



MINES AND MINING


Mr. Guy St. Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, on May 20,
1987, the Minister of State for Forestry and Mines (Mr. Merrithew) released a comprehensive policy designed by the Government of Canada to coordinate all federal measures dealing with metals and minerals.
The aim of this new policy, which provides for a flexible form of Government intervention to support the minerals and metals sector, is to promote the development of this industry as a basis for regional economic development and to assist workers and communities that have been affected by industrial restructuring.
While pursuing these objectives, the Government of Canada recognizes and respects the primacy of the provinces in managing their natural resources. Recognition of the need to work in co-operation with the provincial Governments is a fundamental principle of federal activity in the minerals and metals sector.
Mr. Speaker, that is what this Conservative Government is doing for Canada, for Quebec and for Abitibi and Temis-camingue.



STANDING ORDERS-PROPOSED AMENDMENTS

Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, the Speaker of the House of Commons and the institution of Parliament are to serve all Members of Parliament. The rules and regulations of Parliament are designed to serve all Members of all Parties and are not designed to serve only the Government and Progressive Conservative Party members. This is why opposition Members of the House of Commons are outraged today at the fact that the Government has decided to change the rules of Parliament unilaterally to suit its plans.
Parliament must not be made subservient to the Progressive Conservative Government. Parliament must continue to be responsible to the people of Canada. That is the parliamentary tradition we have grown to treasure, and we must defend it today by stopping the Government's unilateral and quite frankly dictatorial approach which is to ram changes to the rules of Parliament through Parliament by using its 210-Member majority.
The Government cannot blame its failures and its inadequacies on the rules of Parliament. The Government has clearly proven to the people of Canada that it cannot govern adequately and that it cannot conduct the business of government within the traditional parliamentary calendar. It therefore seeks to blame parliamentary rules for its abysmal failure.
The Government, with the largest parliamentary majority in Canadian history, cannot conduct the business of the House of Commons by following the time-proven practices of Parliament and therefore has been forced to stoop to the bully-boy tactic of forcing its will through Parliament. This is certainly a very dark day for the parliamentary traditions of Canada.
* *
*



ENVIRONMENT WEEK


Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, we are in the midst of Environment Week and it must not be spent merely dusting off our nature books and counting four-leaf clovers. Environment Week should signify the need for action by all Canadians. Preserving our fragile environment must become our national sport.
As Chairman of the federal Special Committee on Acid Rain, I am attending the Canada-U.S. Interparliamentary Union Conference in Vancouver this weekend. It will afford a valuable opportunity to buttonhole American Congressmen to express Canada's dissatisfaction with transboundary pollution in North America.

June 2, 1987
Oral Questions
While we in Canada are not without fault in polluting our own backyard, the U.S. should be made aware that we are in fact working hard toward acid rain abatement in our own country. It is up to this generation to fix the errors of its forefathers, so ensuing generations may enjoy life unencumbered by the ravages of sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxide.
In this, the eleventh hour, we are learning that acid rain is threatening human health as it has already claimed many subspecies. Let us not become the lemmings of the 20th century. It is crucial that there be 52 environment weeks every year.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, are Canadians softening to the sweet talk of Mikhail Gorbachev? Remember the Helsinki Final Act of 1975 in which all adhering states, including Canada and the Soviets, pledged "to respect human rights and fundamental freedoms ... "? Four years later the Soviet Communists invaded Afghanistan, ruthlessly killed women and men, and as the Canadian Ambassador told the United Nations "used butterfly-shaped bombs to kill children".
No thoughtful Canadian wants war and certainly not a nuclear war. But remember the people of Afghanistan did not want war either and the Hungarian people only wanted freedom when Communist tanks rolled in.
Unilateral disarmament does not work. It will be time enough to stop Cruise testing in Canada and to reduce our Army, Navy and Air Force after the Communists withdraw completely from Afghanistan and get out of Ukraine, Hungary and Poland.
It will be time enough to let down our defences and disarm NATO after Gorbachev denounces the Communist objective to rule the world. Until then let us keep our powder dry.



AIR CANADA


Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Mr. Speaker, the Parliament of Canada was effective in pressing the chartered banks into reducing interest rates on credit card transactions. It is now time for the Government of Canada, particularly the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie), to look at Crown corporations and their interest charges on credit transactions.
Air Canada, through its En Route credit card, has been charging 19 per cent and more for credit card transactions. First, it does not incur the expenses of financial institutions on credit card transactions, and second, it gets special consideration from the Government of Canada with respect to the use of the En Route card.
It is time for Parliament and the Government of Canada to make Crown corporations practise what the Government of Canada has been preaching. I call upon the Minister of Transport to investigate Air Canada, determine what interest rate it is charging, and put an end to onerous interest rates.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister, in the absence of the Prime Minister. I carefully read the answers given by the Deputy Prime Minister yesterday on the subject of the procedure to be followed by Parliament once an agreement is concluded between the Prime Minister of Canada and his provincial counterparts.
The Deputy Prime Minister admitted that in 1982, amendments to the Constitution had been proposed by Parliament, but he did not say whether the Government would allow any amendments to the agreement expected to result from today's meeting. I therefore want to ask him very specifically: Will the existing precedents on constitutional matters be followed? Will it be possible to amend the accord or will the Government use its overwhelming majority in the House to block constructive amendments that would reflect the concerns of many Canadians?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to discuss details on something that is being negotiated at this very hour. Surely the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition would accept that.
My answer is the same today as it was yesterday. We are hopeful an agreement will be concluded this afternoon. If that is the case, I will be prepared to sit down with the Right Hon. Member's seat-mate, his House Leader, and the NDP House Leader, to work out a satisfactory arrangement so this matter can be debated by Parliament in such a manner that all Members would have an opportunity to deal with this very important issue.


PRIME MINISTER'S STATEMENT
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister is confusing what is happening behind closed doors between the Prime Minister
June 2, 1987

and the Premiers. We are not asking about how it is going or what the substance is. We are asking him about the procedure to be followed if an agreement is reached. I want to refer to what the Prime Minister told the House of Commons on May 4 as reported at page 5689 of Hansard. When asked about parliamentary amendments to the Meech Lake Accord the Prime Minister said:
-by and large, this is what we are going to bring forward into the House of
Commons and this is what will be ratified by provincial Legislatures.
Which is the correct position? Does the Government have an open mind about amendments, as the Deputy Prime Minister seems to have suggested yesterday? Or does the Government have a closed mind and will use its huge majority to block any amendments to the Accord which may be presented in the House of Commons?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, if there is any attempt to confuse the issue, it is coming from the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition. That does not surprise me, given the signals that are coming from that Party. We are not sure where they really stand on the issue of constitutional reform or on this particular Accord.
I am glad that he quoted the Prime Minister. As I said yesterday, and as the Prime Minister has indicated from day one, this is a very important issue. We are open to full parliamentary debate on the issue. I am prepared to sit down with the House Leaders to work out a satisfactory resolution to that. I am sure it will be done in the interests of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition and of all other Hon. Members of the House of Commons.


NATURE OF DEBATE IN PARLIAMENT
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, we are asking the Deputy Prime Minister a very clear question not only in his capacity as Deputy Prime Minister of this country but as Government House Leader.
We are not talking about the substance, we are simply asking the Deputy Prime Minister about the procedure. Constitutionally, this Parliament has the right to amend any accord. Politically, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Prime Minister, with their massive majority in the House of Commons, have the opportunity to block any reasonable amendment to the Meech Lake Accord.
Will we have a meaningful debate on the Accord, if it is successful, or is this going to be a charade? He can answer that question, if he has the authority to do so.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, that clear question has had a clear answer. I have responded to it before.
This issue was reported to the House on May 1. On May 11 we had a debate. We were prepared to extend the hours of debate and engage in a lengthy debate on the Monday when
Oral Questions
this matter was introduced. We were prepared to extend it for two or three days. Hon. Members opposite were really not interested and really wanted to limit it to one speaker per Party.
We invited them to participate because we wanted their views and their comments to be taken into consideration prior to the final drafting. We asked for their advice at that time, and I am sure we will do so again. The fact is that the process has not been clearly established, but I have expressed a clear willingness to work with my counterparts to establish a satisfactory process that would be in the interests of all Hon. Members of the House.


REQUEST FOR COMMITTEE HEARINGS
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, we are asking about parliamentary debate, but we are also asking about committee hearings which give an opportunity to Canadian people to speak through the committees of Parliament.
Yesterday the Deputy Prime Minister refused to indicate whether or not there would be committee hearings. On May 26 in the Senate, Senator MacEachen asked the Government House Leader:
Can I conclude from what the Leader of the Government has said that, in any event, there will be committee study, whether undertaken separately in each House or jointly?
The reply by the Senate Government Leader was:
Yes, honourable senators.
Was the Government Leader in the Senate speaking for the Government when he said there would be committee hearings? Will there be committee hearings?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, 1 must say that I find it strange that everyone is negotiating on behalf of the House Leader of the Liberal Party while he sits idly in his seat. I am not sure whether his job is under attack or whether he feels threatened, but one must wonder what is going on over there.
As I said before, I am sure the distinguished House Leader of the Liberal Party will be prepared to sit down with me, as will the Hon. House Leader of the New Democratic Party, to work out a satisfactory resolution. I certainly do not want to close off any option at this particular time.


POSSIBLE PASSAGE OF RESOLUTION BEFORE SUMMER RECESS
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I hope one option will be closed off. It is the option in the statement made by the Government Leader in the other place who said, on the same day:
Let me state it as my personal opinion that I hope and believe that it will be possible for all legislatures to have passed these resolutions in their respective legislatures before the summer recess.

June 2, 1987
Oral Questions
Does the Government seriously intend that this important change in Canada's Constitution be settled and concluded before the summer recess? Surely not.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member wants to make representations to his House Leader, as part and parcel of the negotiations that will take place, I suggest that he do it either in his caucus or through some other format rather than on the floor of the House of Commons.


MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. Can the Minister explain why his Government rejected so quickly the proposal by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities for upgrading public works such as sewer and water facilities in our cities-to be funded in its proposal by the three levels of government-especially in cities such as Halifax and Dartmouth in the Minister's own Atlantic region where 80 per cent of wastes are simply dumped into the surrounding harbour?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, the previous Government abolished the program which led to infrastructure spending in provincial jurisdiction. We are not resuscitating that program. I think the Hon. Member knows that the debt equity ratio of municipalities is about one-third of the federal Government's debt compared to its revenues. We are just not in a position to move further unless there is a particular federal purpose which makes sense.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment suggested to the municipalities that they finance this by increasing their water bills. The President of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities pointed out this would cost $1,000 annually in water rates. In its submission to the Government, the FCM based its proposal on a study done by Informetrica, that any federal contribution would be recovered through increased taxation, lower unemployment insurance and social assistance costs on the 280,000 person-years of work which would be created. Why does the Government not pay some attention to that proposal by Informetrica?


Hon. Tom McMillan (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I find it passing strange that the municipalities say they do not have the money to invest in water works at a time when they are charging their consumers one-half of what the Americans charge their consumers for water, and at a time
when the Europeans are charging their consumers four times what Canadian municipalities are charging consumers for water. If the municipalities need revenues to invest in municipal works within their jurisdiction, not within federal jurisdiction, they might well be advised to seek revenue from that source.


COSTS OF UPGRADING
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Minister would advise me how to answer a letter I received from the Mayor of Moncton, New Brunswick, who, to my knowledge, is not a New Democrat. He states, and I quote:
Municipal infrastructure is the foundation upon which all economic activity is
built. If our transportation, water and sewer systems fail, so also our economy
will fail.
He points out that the proposal would only cost the federal Government $1 billion a year and would bring tremendous benefits by way of employment and improving the environment.


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, the amount the Federation of Canadian Municipalities attaches to the total cost of waterworks within provincial jurisdiction is $12 billion, not $1 billion. That is $12 billion which the federal Government does not have, nor do we have the jurisdiction. It is provincial jurisdiction, not federal jurisdiction. If the provinces want us to pay for works within their jurisdiction, are they going to offer to pay for works within our jurisdiction, for example, airports, national defence and other obligations we must meet with a deficit of about $30 billion left over from the previous Government?


THE CONSTITUTION
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. In 1982 we recognized certain aboriginal rights in Section 25 and Section 35 of the Constitution and provided for three federal-provincial conferences to consider the entrenchment of Indian self-government. Would the Deputy Prime Minister assure us that nothing agreed upon today would derogate from those aboriginal rights in the Constitution and that aboriginal rights will be on the list of those matters to be considered in the second round? Would he assure the House of that?
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member would share the view that this Government has worked very hard and very vigorously in trying to resolve that particular issue. With one member of the Canadian family left out of the constitutional framework, it has been very difficult
June 2, 1987

Oral Questions EMPLOYMENT
to deal with that issue. Naturally, we hope that the success of today will pave the way for success in considering the other very important matter which the Hon. Member has raised. I can assure the Hon. Member that we are as determined to address that issue today as we have been over the last two years.


CREATION OF NEW PROVINCES
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East):: Mr. Speaker, that is hopeful. We will be giving close attention to whatever happens today.
The Northwest Territories and Yukon have asked that the unanimity rule for amendments not apply to the creation of new provinces. Surely the federal Government and the provinces can accept that request. Will the Minister confirm that? It is a simple enough matter.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, 1 think the Hon. Member is aware of the fact that Yukon and the Northwest Territories have chosen to take legal action in this regard. I think it would be inappropriate for me to comment as a result of the action which is being taken.
* V *


CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-EFFECT ON AMHERSTBURG
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade. The largest employer in Amherstburg, a small town in my constituency, General Chemical Company of Canada has released a position paper on free trade in which it states: "-the tariffs on (its products) are vital to its survival". It warns that over 1,600 jobs will be lost by its "probable" need to close under free trade. This would be a human tragedy for a small town of 8,500 people. Is the Minister prepared to meet with company and town representatives and to listen to their very strong representations about how free trade would hurt the town of Amherstburg?


Hon. Pat Carney (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly take the Hon. Member's suggestion into account. But 1 must point out that the whole history of Canada has shown that as tariff barriers come down jobs grow and Canadian companies thrive. It is only when the barriers are erected that Canadian companies have trouble.
I think that the Hon. Member's constituents should be reassured by the performance of Canadians generally and Canadian companies which are world-class competitors among the world's largest trading nations.


COMMUNITY FUTURES PROGRAM
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, the details of this case are documented in black and white in a company document which makes it clear that its survival as a company and the 1,600 jobs involved are very much at stake.
I ask the Minister of Employment and Immigration to immediately start negotiations, discussions, with town and company officials to make Amherstburg eligible for the Community Futures Program of his Ministry so that this immense human problem can be avoided.


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, since the New Democratic Party has not really looked upon the Jobs Strategy as a valid one, I am surprised that the Hon. Member is suggesting this way of including that industry in the program. However, our criteria are fair and equitable, and since we look at all the applications we receive across the country, if the community in question meets those criteria, its application will be taken into consideration.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Again today the Deputy Prime Minister has refused to answer a very basic question with regard to the constitutional Accord. When the Leader of the Opposition asked him whether the House will have the fundamental right to amend the legal text the Minister's answer was, and I repeat: "We are ready to negotiate this with House Leaders of Parties".
The following question begs to be asked. Will the Government now say clearly that Parliament will enjoy its traditional right, or will it admit that what it wants to do is use its huge majority to steamroll the text of the Accord through the House as a fait accompli? What is it that the Government wants to do?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is simply whistling in the dark. The answer to his question is the same as it was earlier today and the same as it was yesterday.


AMENDING CONSTITUTIONAL TEXT-CITIZENS' RIGHTS- GOVERNMENT POSITION
Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, I'll say where we stand, we of the Opposition. We are not

June 2, 1987
Oral Questions
about to negotiate the rights of citizens to come and be heard before a committee. That is an inalienable right. We are not about to negotiate the right of Canadians to amend the text that is tabled in the House through their Members. That is a fundamental right.
Where does the Government stand on the issue? Will the rights of Canadians be protected? Or does the Government want to use steamroller tactics and get this agreement through the House as is, at any cost? It has a choice, and now I want to know what that choice is.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, while the Hon. Member may not have confidence in the ability of his House Leader to negotiate something that is fair, reasonable, and protective of the rights of members of the Liberal Party, 1 can assure him that I have confidence in his ability to do that. Why does the Hon. Member not allow his House Leader to take up that challenge? I am sure he will be pleasantly surprised when he sees the final result.


VISIBLE MINORITIES
Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for multiculturalism. The Minister is responsible for the redress Japanese-Canadians were promised by the Prime Minister in June of 1984. However, as offered in a number of meetings, it is no more than a community fund of $12 million, ignoring non-monetary items. Does the Minister believe that compensation equal to 48 cents per Canadian citizen can possibly represent a fair compensation to Japanese-Canadians whose lives were disrupted and who lost all their property during and after the Second World War?


Hon. David Crombie (Secretary of State of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, the Government's position on this matter was, of course, outlined in a letter to the National Association of Japanese Canadians. The Hon. Member has a copy of that letter.
I have since met with the association. We have agreed that we will continue to meet over the next couple of weeks. At that time we will discuss all the issues to see if there is any common ground.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, has the Minister considered the precedent of the federal Government's UFFI compensation program under which 53,091 individuals received some $225 million to rectify a mistake the
Government made in its insulation program before ruling out individual compensation as part of the Japanese-Canadian redress package?


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, throughout the 20 to 25 meetings I have held over the last months on this issue there have been a number of historical analogies raised with respect to injustices experienced by other Canadians at other times. The Hon. Member raises for the first time an analogy with respect to urea formaldehyde foam insulation. I suppose, off the top of my head, I would have to say that it is probably inappropriate. If he would like to write me a letter on the matter, I am willing to give it further consideration.


ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF INJUSTICES-AMENDMENT OF WAR MEASURES ACT
Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is a supplementary one to the Minister responsible for multiculturalism. Will the Minister advise the House and the Canadian people if, notwithstanding the lack of a settlement with respect to the question of compensation to Japanese Canadians, he and the Government will proceed with an apology to Japanese Canadians and with changes to the War Measures Act?


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, that is a good question and it was raised the other day in my meeting with the National Association. We have agreed upon non-monetary items, the most important two of which are the acknowledgment of the injustice and the changing of the War Measures Act in order that the injustices will not recur. I was willing to proceed with those. We are proceeding with regard to the War Measures Act because there are other Ministries concerned with changes to the War Measures Act.
With regard to the acknowledgment of the injustices, or the apology as the Hon. Member refers to it, I have indicated that I was willing to proceed with that but I have been asked by the National Association of Japanese Canadians not to proceed with the apology or acknowledgment.


GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister and pertains to the Prime Minister's buddy and campaign coworker, Roger Nantel, who has been receiving approximately $4,250 a day for each of the 1,000 days since the last election or, if you prefer, $4.25 million in advertising contracts without public tender.
Does the Deputy Prime Minister not agree with me that this is a very expensive price to pay for putting the friends of the
June 2, 1987

Prime Minister at the public trough, even if they were good campaign workers? Is this another case of a friend in greed being a friend indeed?


Hon. Monique Vezina (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, I should like first of all to clarify the situation. Roger Nantel and Nantel Communications are not registered with our Department of Supply and Services, therefore, they have never been awarded advertising contracts. We have awarded contracts to Media Canada Inc., which is a firm devoted to placing ads in various media. Mr. Speaker, could anybody blame the Government for following the normal process and obtaining the best value for its dollars? That is what we got from Media Canada Inc.


AWARDING OF ADVERTISING CONTRACTS-HOLDING OF PUBLIC HEARINGS BY PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have a whole file of contracts awarded to Mr. Nantel and his companies. It is clear that being a friend of the Prime Minister can be a rewarding experience. Is the Prime Minister or the Deputy Prime Minister prepared to authorize immediately the holding of public hearings by a Parliamentary committee to bring about a more equitable distribution of advertising contracts instead of having them awarded to "pals" of the party in power?


Monique Vézina: Mr. Speaker, I have just explained that Media Canada Inc. is not an advertising agency but a firm devoted to placing ads in various media. The Liberal Government had such arrangements itself. Media Canada Inc. is a decentralized organization, and we get the job done at a lower cost than with the agency chosen by the previous administration. Can anybody blame us for carrying out a decentralization and getting the best value for our money?


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Approximately 2,000 Canadians of Sri Lankan origin demonstrated outside this building earlier today. Will the Minister tell us what information he has obtained from Colombo and whether Canada will be prepared to perform a mediation role if invited to do so?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, we have not been invited to perform a mediation role. It would be inappropriate for me to comment
Oral Questions
on an invitation we have not received. We are deeply troubled by the continuing violence in Sri Lanka, and in particular by the killing of some 29 Buddhist priests. We hope both parties will agree to return to negotiations that have been disrupted and which were based on proposals made on December 19.
I expect that the Hon. Member, who has taken an interest in these questions for a long time, had an opportunity to meet with interested Canadians and others who were demonstrating today. I would welcome hearing from him directly any recommendations he may want to bring to my attention.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for the Post Office.
I am sure he is aware that in places like Winnipeg, Manitoba; London, Ontario; and Hamilton, Ontario the Post Office is cutting back on service to the business community. Instead of delivering mail, as it has up until now, twice a day in the downtown business districts, delivery has been reduced to once a day.
Is the Minister prepared to intervene to restore this service, or is this just a natural consequence of his orders to the Post Office to eliminate its deficit and not be involved in any revenue-generating activities?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, when the Canada Post Corporation was formed as a Crown corporation in 1981 with the agreement of all Parties in the House it was for the purpose of eliminating political interference so that we would not have situations of Ministers interfering to do this or that according to the political exigencies of the day. I think that is a good policy and it is a policy that I am following.
My recollection of the conclusions of the Marchment Committee Report is that the most important thing that people wanted was assurance that the mail would be delivered on time. The Post Office is working toward that goal and is making some progress. As I have pointed out in the House before, independent auditors will report to this House and the country once every three months on how well the Post Office is succeeding.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Minister recognizes the difference between political interference and his responsibility to provide policy direction for the Post Office.


BUSINESS COMMUNITY PETITIONS
Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, the Minister should know that not only do people want their mail delivered on time, they want good service. We have begun to receive petitions which indicate quite clearly that the

June 2, 1987
Oral Questions
business community is fed up. People living in Winnipeg and Hamilton want service. They are fed up with the cost of postage going up at the same time as mail service is declining.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated, the information I have is that postal service is in fact getting better. We will have independent third-party auditors. I do not know what system the Hon. Member would prefer to that. Independent third-party auditors will report to the House on a quarterly basis on the level of service. Wild accusations about what is happening serve no useful purpose, as I believe the Hon. Member knows.


Mr. Lawrence I. O'Neil (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. The Minister is aware of the interest in Nova Scotia in the new highways agreement between the Government of Canada and the Province of Nova Scotia. Can the Minister give us a status report on the negotiations with the Province of Nova Scotia?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, there have been such negotiations. I believe I will be in a position to announce something in that direction before too many suns go down. I know of the Hon. Member's intense interest in this subject and in particular in the roads in his own area. He has made my life, in that connection, a nightmare during the last several months.



OFFICIAL LANGUAGES ACT


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for official languages. I wonder if. . . Perhaps the Deputy Prime Minister could reply. The tabling of amendments to the Official Languages Act has been delayed once more. We have been waiting for them for two and a half years. According to Senator Lowell Murray, the introduction of the Bill has been deferred until next fall. Mr. Murray has told us that this delay
is the result of the fear the Government has of a backlash from Western Canada following the Meech Lake Constitutional Accord.
Could the Minister or Ministers involved indicate to us why the Government fears such an adverse reaction from Western Canada about our official languages?


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, the process of consultation and revision with regard to the Official Languages Act continues. I met last Sunday with Alliance Quebec. I am meeting in the coming week in Thunder Bay with the Federation francophone du Quebec. That process will continue. The Government is very interested in and concerned about bringing the Bill in. As I said, the process continues.



ALLEGATIONS CONCERNING ACT-GOVERNMENT POSITION

Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, we have been waiting for three years already. I believe that the Bill is ready to be introduced. I am concerned about the backlash from Western Canada, because newspapers have been referring to the linguistic plan of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources as a "program for apartheid". What is worse, the Hon. Member for Calgary has been referring to it as "outright discrimination". The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources himself has been described as the "Canadian Peter Botha", emphasizing "racist programs" and so on. I ask the Government, which is doing nothing to deny these allegations, to stand up and say where it stands, to defend the Official Languages Act and to introduce this Bill in the House for us to study. Who is right, the Hon. Member for Calgary or the Government, which is doing nothing?


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, there is no backlash which I have experienced at all. 1 think the Hon. Member should be a little careful before he raises those kinds of questions in the House.
I might say, as well, that I spoke with Alliance Quebec and all its representatives last weekend. The Anglophones in Quebec are very supportive of the Bill. This is also true with the Francophone communities outside Quebec.
I can tell the Hon. Member and all Members who have an interest in this matter that we will proceed with the appropriate consultation and do it right. I agree with him that we have been waiting for three years. We have been waiting longer than that. It was this Government which at least had the gumption to take on the task.
June 2, 1987



HARBOURS AND PORTS


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Last week the Minister announced that there would be $270,000 spent to extend the breakwater at Torbay, Newfoundland. There is no doubt that the work was needed, because small craft harbours are a disgrace all across Canada, and particularly in Newfoundland.
Since the Minister seems to be having more success in getting money for small craft harbours than the Minister of Fisheries, will he add his support to getting the funding proposal for small craft harbours through Cabinet where it has been stalled for at least three months?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, this will be bad news for the hon. gentleman, but the small craft harbours proposal has been dealt with in a very positive manner. At the appropriate time and place it will be announced. It will be announced in more than one place. It will be announced in place upon place, harbour upon harbour. Across this great Dominion there will be announcements about the small craft harbours program.
As a matter of fact, tomorrow I intend to announce that $900,000 will be spent to repair the main breakwater at St. Bride's, Newfoundland, in the district of St. John's West, which was badly damaged by storms during the past winter. It is just the first of many such announcements.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, we appreciate those announcements. I hope the Government does not have to spend more money on public relations than it is to spend on the harbours themselves.



AMOUNT OF FUNDING

James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, departmental officials have said that unless the funding is upgraded from $48.5 million, which it is now, to $120 million per year, 150 small craft harbours will be closed across Canada in the next five years, 47 of them in Newfoundland alone.
Can the Minister assure the House and communities across Canada that there will be adequate funding so that all small craft harbours will be maintained and the communities will not lose their harbour facilities?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to have the opportunity to thank and to congratulate my colleague, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, who is not here today and who is too shy and unassuming to take any credit for the tremendous work he
Oral Questions
has done on behalf of fishermen, ports, harbours, and facilities in the country.
I can promise the hon. gentleman that, without any assistance from him whatsoever, there will be a fine program of improving harbours and fishery facilities across the country.
The hon. gentleman is no better informed than his candidate in St. John's East who appeared before a Senate committee the other day and did not know that $40 million was to be spent on drug research at Memorial University in Newfoundland when our new legislation passes the House. He is just as well informed as his candidate who is going down to ignominious defeat in that district.



REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. On March 31, 1987, the Canadian Government and the Quebec Government made a $220 million loan, interest-free over thirty years, to General Motors Corporation. That $600 million gift over 30 years was made under the proviso there would be no loss of jobs at GM in Quebec. This morning, it was announced that GM Corporation will close its truck centre in Montreal, a loss of 131 jobs in Montreal. What is the Government prepared to do to prevent the shutdown of that GM truck centre in Montreal and to protect the 131 jobs that have been there for 25 years as well as the families of the employees involved?


Hon. Michel Cote (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is fully aware no doubt that some industries, especially the automotive industry, are facing difficulties of international competition, for which reason rationalization decisions must be taken such as in the case unfortunately of GM in Sainte-Therese. I have assured the Corporation and I would like to assure the Hon. Member of our concern in this matter and our intention to look carefully at how the Government can help again those workers. Again I would like to stress, Mr. Speaker, that since September 1984 this Government created numerous opportunities, and I think our overall assistance to General Motors in Sainte-Therese points to this Government's concern not only for maintaining jobs but also for creating new opportunities, not only in Quebec but across Canada.



INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONS-GOVERNMENT POLICY

Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, certainly with those $220 million, interest-free loans

June 2, 1987
Oral Questions
over 30 years the small business sector would have created more jobs than that.
Elere is my question, and I would like to know if the Minister can give a yes or no answer. Is the shutdown of that truck centre caused by the opening of a Volvo-GM Heavy Truck Company plant in the United States? Are our Canadian jobs going down to the United States? Is that this Government's free trade policy?


Michel Côté: Absolutely not, Mr. Speaker. I think indeed that our effort in the case of GM's Sainte-Therese plant, a $110 million assistance, not only as I said maintained existing jobs but also helped increase certain jobs in Quebec, in Ontario and in each of the regions especially in the regions involved, at GM in Sainte-Therese. There again one of the regions where Government help was needed to build the industrial base that is essential to their economic welfare.



HUMAN RIGHTS


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Last Thursday, according to telephone reports, in El Salvador the United Workers of El Salvador were demonstrating peacefully for the release of hundreds of political prisoners illegally held in Mariona Prison, when the military opened fire on them, seriously wounding Julio Portillo, the Secretary-General of the union, in the back.
I would ask the Minister whether he will request the Duarte Government to account for this violence and for the growing attacks during the last few months by the Duarte Government against trade unionists.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, once again the Hon. Member has brought to my attention on the floor of the House information I did not previously have. I will look into the matter and will report back to him.
I can report to him, with regard to the question he raised the other day, that my officials here had no information in Ottawa in respect of Antonio Hernandez. We have requested our Embassy in San Jose to make inquiries. I will advise the Hon. Member of the results of those inquiries as soon as I receive them.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: I thank the Minister for the information on the previous request. The request I have just given was sent
yesterday to the Minister's office, but perhaps it has not arrived yet.


An Hon. Member:: Did you send it through the Post Office?


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: No, it was sent from my office to the Minister's office, not by way of Alberta or any of the loons out there.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker-


An Hon. Member:: That is good for the NDP!


Harvie Andre: Ray Martin says thank you.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member.


An Hon. Member:: He was referring to Tory MPs.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, my reference was only to members of Alberta who are present in this House.


Some Hon. Members:: Too late.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: I would like to ask the Minister further-


An Hon. Member:: Keep it up; you are doing well.


Ms. Copps:: What about the NDP MLAs in Alberta?


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the Hon. Member could get straight to the question.



BOMBING OF OSCAR ROMERO COMMITTEE OFFICE

Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister inquire about the bombing on the same day last Thursday of the office of the Oscar Romero Committee of Mothers for the Detained and Disappeared with the wounding of two mothers, the destruction of all their files, and the threat made the next day by the Minister of National Defence to break up their weekly peaceful marches asking for news of their husbands, brothers and sons who have disappeared?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I will make that inquiry and I would hope that the Hon. Member will demonstrate in this House some of the moderation that his Party sometimes proposes to others of us.
I should say to him, just as I will pursue those inquiries so will I ensure that his reference to myself and the other residents of Alberta are not lost upon the electorate and the public of Alberta.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
June 2, 1987



NATIONAL PARKS


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment. We are disappointed that the release today of the report by the Task Force on Park Establishment was not accompanied by a statement in the House by the Minister, considering that the establishment of future national parks is a matter of great importance because of the potential that if offers to future generations of Canadians, especially as this is Environment Week.
Briefly, since the Minister received this report in November last year, does he now have a long-term plan for expanding the national parks system for the benefit and the enjoyment of future generations of Canadians?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I think it is something akin to a disgrace if not a scandal that over the years when the Liberal Party was in power this great country of ours, which borders on three oceans, did not have a single marine park. For the first time in our history, thanks to the present Government, we have a national marine park policy, which I released last summer.
Concerning terrestrial parks, we are working very hard, for example, with the Government of B.C. on the establishment of a national park on the Queen Charlotte Islands at South Moresby. We are accelerating negotiations with Saskatchewan for a Grasslands national park, and our other priorities include the establishment of a national park in the Bruce Peninsula in Ontario. Those are among our priorities in the context of our total commitment to complete as best we can, within our own mandate, the entire national parks system, which is only half completed.


Mr. Caccia:: Mr. Speaker, the Minister is rewriting history on marine parks because, if he knew his facts properly, he would know that the foundations for a national marine park system were laid by the previous Liberal Government.



FUNDS FOR ESTABLISHING NEW PARKS

['1 suppose the only helpful thing the Chair can say is that it shows some good sense to want to correct the record rather than to leave it as it is.\nWith respect to the practice to which the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) referred, it has not been unusual in the past for an Hon. Member to rise the next day to make the correction, but the Hon. Member for York South- Weston, of course, is completely right. All Hon. Members, if they have the opportunity and if they are able to check the "blues", would be able to make those corrections before the next day and, as a consequence, not take the time of the House. I thank Hon. Members for interventions.\nJune 2, 1987']
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: The question I would like to pursue, Mr. Speaker, is one that relates to a recommendation in this report, namely, that Canadians be asked to reach deep into their pockets, in addition to paying taxes, and make donations to the Government of Canada to acquire future parks. Considering the fact his colleagues are willing to dole out $5 billion for nuclear submarines, why can the Government of Canada not fund the future network of parks by drawing that money from present revenues, namely, general revenue, that the Government of Canada receives from the average taxpayer?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, this Government, for example, established with the Government of the Northwest Territories the framework for a
Privilege-Ms. Copps
national park at Ellesmere Island. That park was funded, and will be funded, entirely from the general revenues of the Crown. We intend to do the same thing with the Bruce, with Grasslands and with the other priorities that I have identified.


Mr. Speaker:: I should advise Hon. Members that I have a question of privilege from the Hon. Member for Hamilton East.



Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of privilege arising from Question Period. You no doubt heard the comments of the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) which are a denigration of the postal workers in Alberta. Certainly as Members of Parliament on this side of the House we do not dump on people who are delivering the mail by calling them goons. In fact we believe the Member should withdraw, should apologize to this House and should also apologize to the postal workers in Alberta, and to all Albertans.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, under the circumstances, considering the hearing difficulties of the Hon. Member who has just spoken, I am glad to have a chance to clear up what was said.
Having received an interruption from one of the Hon. Members from Alberta distracting the question away from El Salvador to Nicaragua, I said that I had not sent the information by any "loons"-not goons, "loons"-from Alberta and then explained that I was referring to those Albertans who are in this House.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: There was no reference to postal workers, and I wish the Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) would wash her ears.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am sure the "blues" will show whether the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) referred to Albertans as loons or goons. In any event, regardless of what phrase was used by the Hon. Member, it was used in an extremely derogatory fashion. One would expect, whether Albertans were called loons or goons, that an apology should be forthcoming.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, as a Member of Parliament for Alberta, I would say that we have had some strange defenders before-

June 2, 1987
Point of Order-Mr. Crosbie


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: -but I am prepared to let the record stand, because we have an indication of the view of the people of Alberta by a spokesman of the New Democratic Party.


Mr. Alex Kindy (Calgary East):: Mr. Speaker, sitting quite close to the Member from the New Democratic Party I could hear exactly what he said. He called the people of Alberta "loons". I have a point of privilege here. It is not appropriate for a Member of the NDP to describe the people of Alberta in that way.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, as someone who was born-


John Carnell Crosbie: Thank God for that.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: If we all try very hard we may be able to improve this exchange. The Hon. Member.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I hope there was no question about that fact, Mr. Speaker.
As an Albertan by birth, I want to make it perfectly clear that in spite of some of the fun that some Members have had in terms of whether certain unparliamentary words were used to refer to a single Member in the House who was interjecting and interrupting during Question Period-


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I want to make it perfectly clear that the Hon.
Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) was referring to a single Member of Parliament-


Mr. McDermid:: Sneaky.


Nelson Andrew Riis: -who was not behaving in a particularly parliamentary fashion by doing what everybody in the Conservative Party is now doing, that is, yelling and screaming, to interrupt the person speaking at the moment.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I will admit that I did not realize what would flow from this. Certainly I did not think that any question would be raised as to whether the Hon. Member for Kamloops (Mr. Riis) was born or brought by another kind of bird than the one I mentioned.
Therefore, I request the permission of yourself and the House to withdraw entirely the reference to loons from anywhere whatever.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Member and other Hon. Members. I am sure no offence was meant against any particular species of bird.


POINT OF ORDER
John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would just like to correct the record for yesterday. As reported in Hansard at page 6592, I answered a question. It is not the fault of the Hansard reporter, but it is an important answer so I just want to correct it. The sentence reads:
The power of nations, their circumference, nothing matters to us-we will see
that the law is administered to them-
There should be a full stop after the word "them". Then it should read: "In the disputed area we have to abide by international custom, by international law". The answer does not make sense as it now stands. Since I always make sense, I want to have the record attest to the fact that what I said was sensible.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I seek some direction from the Chair. The Hon. Member would have had an opportunity yesterday, upon receipt of his "blues", to send the "blues" back to the Hansard people to correct the record. I would suggest that it is inappropriate for him to raise the matter today in order to try to clarify the record. To allow that to happen would set a dangerous precedent for lazy Members who do not read their "blues" and do not send their "blues" back for corrections. I would ask the Hon. Member from Newfoundland to start reading his "blues" and acting a little more responsibly.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, with your permission, may I make a comment on this point of order? The House would want to seek your guidance on the approach taken by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie). I understood him to say that he wished to rise to correct the record of Hansard because the answer he gave did not make any sense. I would like to ask you if it is appropriate to correct answers in Hansard if, as an afterthought, the Hon. Member who used the words decides that the words in question do not make any sense. This may be very useful for the Minister of Transport in particular, but I wonder if this is an appropriate reason to correct Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: 1 suppose the only helpful thing the Chair can say is that it shows some good sense to want to correct the record rather than to leave it as it is.
With respect to the practice to which the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) referred, it has not been unusual in the past for an Hon. Member to rise the next day to make the correction, but the Hon. Member for York South- Weston, of course, is completely right. All Hon. Members, if they have the opportunity and if they are able to check the "blues", would be able to make those corrections before the next day and, as a consequence, not take the time of the House. I thank Hon. Members for interventions.
June 2, 1987



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Mazankowski:
That all the provisional and permanent Standing Orders of the House in force on the date of notice of this motion, be amended as follows and be adopted as amended as the permanent Standing Orders of the House; provided
1.	that these permanent Standing Orders shall take effect on the first Monday sitting day following the adoption of this motion;
2.	that all provisional and permanent Standing Orders in force on the date of notice of this motion, except Standing Order 4, along with the sessional and special Orders related thereto, extended by special Order May 22, 1987 to June 5, 1987, become permanent on the first sitting Monday following the adoption of this motion;
3.	that Standing Order 4 remain provisional until December 31, 1987 and be amended by adding the following sub-paragraph (2): Notwithstanding Standing Order 4(1), a Minister of the Crown may set down on Notice a motion to provide for sittings of the House between June 30 and the Monday following Labour Day. No later than June 30, 1987, the said motion shall be proposed for debate during Routine Proceedings, and no later than two hours after the commencement of proceedings thereon, the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of the said motion; and
4.	that the Clerk of the House be authorized and instructed to print a revised edition of the Standing Orders of the House, renumbering as may be deemed necessary and making such technical and consequential changes as well as such changes to the Order Paper and Notices as may be required.
That paragraph (a) of Standing Order 2(5) be deleted and the following
substituted therefor:
"(a) Any Member who wishes to be considered for election to the Office of Speaker shall, not later than 6.00 o'clock p.m. on the day preceding the day on which the election of a Speaker is expected to take place, in writing, so inform the Clerk of the House who shall prepare a list of such Members' names and shall provide the same to the Member presiding prior to the taking of the first ballot;"
That sub-paragraph (5)(h)(i) of Standing Order 2 be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
''(i) the Clerk of the House shall provide the Member presiding the names of the candidates for the next ballot, in alphabetical order, provided that the Clerk of the House shall first determine the number representing the least total number of votes cast and the Clerk shall exclude the names of all Members having received that total number of votes, together with the names of all Members having received five percent or less of the total votes cast, from the list of candidates so provided, and provided that in the event of every candidate receiving the same number of votes no names shall be excluded from the list so provided;"
That Standing Order 3(1) be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
''3. (1) The House shall meet on Mondays, Tuesdays and Thursdays at
11.00	o'clock a.m., on Wednesdays at 2.00 o'clock p.m. and on Fridays at
10.00	o'clock a.m. unless otherwise provided by Standing or Special Order of this House."
That Standing Orders 9(1) and 9(2) be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
''9. (1) At 6.00 o'clock p.m. on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays, and at 3.00 o'clock p.m. on Fridays, the Speaker shall adjourn the House until the next sitting day."
''(2) At 1.00 o'clock p.m. on any day except Friday on which a morning sitting is held, the Speaker shall leave the Chair until 2.00 o'clock p.m."
That paragraph (a) of Standing Order 9(4) be deleted and the following
substituted therefor:
Standing Orders
"(4)(a) Except during Private Members' Business, when the Speaker is in the Chair, a Member may propose a motion, without notice, to continue a sitting through a lunch or dinner hour or beyond the ordinary hour of daily adjournment for the purpose of considering a specified item of business or a stage or stages thereof subject to the following conditions:
(i)	the motion must relate to the business then being considered provided that proceedings in any Committee of the Whole may be temporarily interrupted for the purpose of proposing a motion under the provisions of this Standing Order;
(ii)	the motion must be proposed in the hour preceding the time at which the business under consideration should be interrupted by a lunch or dinner hour, Private Members' Hour or the ordinary hour of daily adjournment;
(iii)	the motion shall not be subject to debate or amendment."
That Standing Order 11 be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"11. At the ordinary hour of daily adjournment of the House, at 11.00 o'clock a.m. on Fridays or at the mid-day interruption, unless otherwise provided, the proceeding then under consideration shall stand over until the next sitting day or later the same sitting day after the period provided pursuant to Standing Order 19(4), as the case may be, when it will be taken up at the same stage where its progress was interrupted."
That paragraph (a) of Standing Order 13(4) be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"(4)(a) When the Speaker has put the question on any debatable motion, except as provided pursuant to section (2) of this Standing Order, the bells to call in the Members shall be sounded for not more than thirty minutes; provided that, while the Members are being called in, either the Chief Government Whip or the Chief Opposition Whip may approach the Speaker to request that the division be deferred, in which case, the Speaker shall defer the said division until a specified time, but, in any case, not later than
6.00	o'clock p.m. on the next sitting day thereafter, when the bells to call in the Members shall be sounded for not more than fifteen minutes, except as provided for under section (5) of this Standing Order or Standing Order 49(2)."
That Standing Order 19(3) be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"(3)(a) At 11.00 o'clock a.m. on Mondays, Tuesdays, Thursdays, at 3.00 o'clock p.m. on Wednesdays, and at 12.00 o'clock noon on Fridays, the House shall proceed to the ordinary daily routine of business, which shall be as follows:
Tabling of Documents (pursuant to Standing Orders 67 or 99(2)) Statements by Ministers (pursuant to Standing Order 19(6))
Presenting Reports from Inter-parliamentary Delegations (pursuant to Standing Order 101)
Presenting Reports from Committees (pursuant to Standing Order 99)
Introduction of Government Bills
Introduction of Private Members' Bills
First Reading of Senate Public Bills
Motions
Presenting Petitions (pursuant to Standing Order 106(4))
Questions on Order Paper.
(b)(i) When proceedings under 'Introduction of Government Bills' are not completed on a Monday, Tuesday or Thursday prior to the mid-day interruption, the ordinary daily routine of business shall continue immediately after oral questions are taken up notwithstanding Standing Order 19(4) until the completion of all items under 'Introduction of Government Bills', suspending as much of Private Members' Business as necessary.
(ii) When proceedings under 'Introduction of Government Bills' are not completed before the ordinary hour of daily adjournment, the House shall continue to sit to complete the ordinary daily routine of business up to and including 'Introduction of Government Bills', whereupon the Speaker shall adjourn the House."
[Stage Direction]
June 2, 1987
Standing Orders
That paragraph (b) of Standing Order 19(6) be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"(b) A period of time corresponding to the time taken for the proceedings pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section shall be added to the time provided for government business as follows:
(i)	on Mondays, Tuesdays and Thursdays, such an extension shall commence at 1.00 o'clock p.m. on the same sitting day, notwithstanding Standing Order 9(2), and any period remaining at 2.00 o'clock p.m. shall be added to the time provided for government business thereafter on the same sitting day; and
(ii)	on Wednesdays and Fridays, the time provided for government business shall be extended by a period corresponding to the time taken for proceedings pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section.
Where the time provided for government business has been extended after
2.00	o'clock p.m. pursuant to this section, Private Members' Business, where applicable, and the ordinary hour of daily adjournment shall be delayed by a period of time corresponding to the period of extension after
2.00	o'clock p.m., notwithstanding Standing Orders 9(1), 19(7) and 66(1) or any order made pursuant to Standing Order 10( 1).''
That Standing Order 19(7) be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"(7) Except as otherwise provided in these Standing Orders, the order of business shall be as follows:
(Monday, Tuesday and Thursday)
(After the daily routine of business)
Government Orders.
Private Members' Business-from 5.00 to 6.00 o'clock p.m.:
Public Bills, Private Bills, Notices of Motions and Notices of Motions (Papers).
(Wednesday)
(After the daily routine of business)
Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers.
Government Orders.
(Friday)
(Before the daily routine of business)
Government Orders.
(After the daily routine of business)
Government Orders.
Private Members' Business-from 2.00 to 3.00 o'clock p.m.:
Public Bills, Private Bills, Notices of Motions and Notices of Motions (Papers)."
That Standing Order 24 be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"24. (1) After notice pursuant to Standing Order 68(1), a government notice of motion shall be put on the Order Paper as an order of the day under Government Orders.
(2)	Proposed motions under Government Orders for the House to go into a Committee of the Whole at the next sitting of the House when put from the Chair shall be decided without debate or amendment."
That section (1) of Standing Order 29 be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"29. (1) Leave to make a motion for the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration must be asked for after the ordinary daily routine of business as set out in Standing Order 19(3) is concluded."
That sections (8) and (9) of Standing Order 29 be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"(8) If the Speaker is satisfied that the matter is proper to be discussed, the motion shall stand over until 8.00 o'clock p.m. on that day, provided that the Speaker, at his or her discretion, may direct that the motion shall be set down for consideration on the following sitting day at an hour specified by the Speaker."
That Standing Order 29(11) be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"(10) When a request to make such a motion has been made on any Friday, and the Speaker directs that it be considered the same day, it shall be considered forthwith."
That Standing Order 29(13) be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"(12) The proceedings on any motion being considered, pursuant to sections (8) or (10) of this Standing Order, may continue beyond the ordinary hour of daily adjournment but, when debate thereon is concluded prior to that hour in any sitting, it shall be deemed withdrawn. Subject to any motion adopted pursuant to Standing Order 9(4)(b), at 12.00 o'clock midnight on any sitting day except Friday, and at 4.00 o'clock p.m. on Friday, the Speaker shall declare the motion carried and forthwith adjourn the House until the next sitting day. In any other case, the Speaker, when satisfied that the debate has been concluded, shall declare the motion carried and forthwith adjourn the House until the next sitting day."
That Standing Order 32 be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"32. Notwithstanding Standing Order 31, the order of precedence shall not contain, at any time, more than twenty motions and public bills originating in the House of Commons at second reading, nor fewer than ten items, when there are sufficient items contained in the list which have not been given a position on the order of precedence."
That paragraph (l)(a) of Standing Order 36 be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"36. (l)(a) The Standing Committee on Private Members' Business shall meet within five sitting days of the order of precedence being established pursuant to Standing Order 31, and from time to time thereafter, and may select after consultation with, among others, the Members proposing the items, not more than six items from among the twenty items in the order of precedence and an appropriate number from among any subsequent items for which the order of precedence is established and such selected items shall be designated as 'votable items'. In making its selection, the Committee shall not take into account the number of Members jointly seconding an item, but shall allow the merits of the items alone to determine the selection and shall report thereon, from time to time. At no time shall there be more than six selected items on the order of precedence."
That Standing Order 38 be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"38. The proceedings on Private Members' Business shall not be suspended except as provided for in Standing Orders 19(3)(b), 19(9), 29(11), 37 and 39(2) or as otherwise specified by Special Order of this House. No Private Members' Business shall be taken up on days appointed for the consideration of business pursuant to Standing Orders 69, 82(5) and 84(4)."
That the following new section be added after Standing Order 39(2):
"(3)(a) When a Member has given at least twenty-four hours' written notice that he or she is unable to be present to move his or her motion under Private Members' Business on the date required by the order of precedence, and if that item of business is not one which has been designated as 'votable' by the Standing Committee on Private Members' Business, the Speaker, with permission of the Members involved, may arrange for an exchange of positions in the order of precedence with a Member whose motion or bill in the order of precedence has not been so designated.
(b) In the event that the Speaker has been unable to arrange an exchange, the House shall continue with the business before it prior to 'Private Members' Hour', provided that there shall be no extension of the sitting pursuant to Standing Order 9(4)(a), and any division on a debatable motion shall be deferred until 6.00 o'clock p.m. on the next sitting day. For the purposes of this section, Standing Order 13(5) relating to deferred divisions on a Thursday shall apply."
That paragraph (c) of Standing Order 40(3) be deleted.
That Standing Order 41(1) be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"41. (1) The order for the first consideration of any subsequent stages of a bill already considered during Private Members' Business, of second reading of a private bill and of second reading of a private Member's public bill originating in the Senate shall be placed at the bottom of the order of precedence."
That Standing Order 48 be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
June 2, 1987
[Stage Direction]
"48. Except as otherwise provided in any Standing or Special Order of the House, and unless otherwise disposed of, at not later than 6.00 o'clock p.m. on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, or 3.00 o'clock p.m. on Friday, on the fifteenth sitting day following the date on which a notice of motion made pursuant to Standing Order 46(2) appeared on the Order Paper, the same shall be deemed to have been moved and adopted by the House."
That sections 2 and 3 of Standing Order 55 be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"(2) When second reading or third reading of a government bill is being considered, no Member except the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition shall speak for more than:
(a)	forty minutes if that Member is the first, second or third speaker;
(b)	twenty minutes following the First three speakers, if that Member begins to speak within the next eight hours of consideration when second reading is being considered or within the next four hours of consideration when third reading is being considered; and following the speech of each Member a period not exceeding ten minutes shall be made available, if required, to allow Members to ask questions and comment briefly on matters relevant to the speech and to allow responses thereto;
(c)	ten minutes if a Member speaks thereafter.
(3)	When the business of private Members is being considered, no Member shall speak for more than ten minutes, provided that the Member moving the item may speak for not more than twenty minutes."
That Standing Order 65(2) be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"(2) A Member who is not satisfied with the response to a question asked on any day at this stage, or a Member who has been told by the Speaker that the question is not urgent, may give notice that he or she intends to raise the subject matter of the question on the adjournment of the House. The notice referred to herein, whether or not it is given orally during the oral question period provided pursuant to Standing Order 19(4), must be given in writing to the Speaker not later than one hour following that period the same day."
That Standing Order 68(1) be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"68. (1) Forty-eight hours' notice shall be given of a motion for leave to present a bill, resolution or address, for the appointment of any committee, for placing a question on the Order Paper or for the consideration of any notice of motion made pursuant to Standing Order 46(2); but this rule shall not apply to bills after their introduction, or to private bills, or to the times of meeting or adjournment of the House. Such notice shall be laid on the Table before 6.00 o'clock p.m. (on a Friday before 3.00 o'clock p.m. or filed thereafter with the Clerk before 5.00 o'clock p.m.), and be printed in the Notice Paper of that day. Any notice filed with the Clerk pursuant to this section shall thereupon be deemed to have been laid on the Table in that sitting."
That Standing Order 70(2) be deleted and the following substituted therefor: "(2) When a debate on any motion made after the start of the sitting (after
11.00	o'clock a.m. on Fridays) and prior to the reading of an Order of the Day is adjourned or interrupted, the order for resumption of the debate shall be transferred to and considered under Government Orders."
That paragraph (a) of Standing Order 82(4) be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"(4)(a) Forty-eight hours' written notice shall be given of motions to concur in interim supply, main estimates, supplementary or final estimates, to restore or reinstate any item in the estimates. Twenty-four hours' written notice shall be given of an opposition motion on an allotted day or of a notice to oppose any item in the estimates, provided that for the supply period ending not later than June 30, forty-eight hours' written notice shall be given of a notice to oppose any item in the estimates."
That Standing Order 82(5) be deleted and the following substituted therefor: "(5) For the period ending not later than December 10, six sitting days shall be allotted to the business of supply. Nine additional days shall be allotted to the business of supply in the period ending not later than March 26. Ten additional days shall be allotted to the business of supply in the period ending not later than June 30. These twenty-five days are to be designated as allotted days."
That paragraphs (a) and (b) of Standing Order 82(15) be deleted and the
following substituted therefor:
Standing Orders
"(a) Not later than the third sitting day prior to May 31, the Leader of the Opposition may give notice during the time specified in Standing Order 68(1) of a motion to extend consideration of the main estimates of a named department or agency and the said motion shall be deemed adopted when called on 'Motions' on the last sitting day prior to May 31;
(b) On the sitting day immediately preceding the final allotted day, but in any case not later than ten sitting days following the day on which any motion made pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section is adopted, at not later than 6.00 o'clock p.m. on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, or 3.00 o'clock p.m. on a Friday, the said committee shall report, or shall be deemed to have reported, the main estimates for the said department or agency; and"
That Standing Order 89(1) be deleted and the following substituted therefor: "89. (l)(a) At the commencement of the first session of each Parliament, a Striking Committee of seven Members, the membership of which shall continue from session to session, shall be appointed, whose duty it shall be to prepare and report to the House within the first ten sitting days after its appointment, and thereafter, within the first ten sitting days after the commencement of each session and within the first ten sitting days after the Monday following Labour Day, lists of Members to compose the standing committees of the House and to act for the House on standing joint committees.
(b) The Striking Committee shall not present a second report pursuant to this Standing Order between the Monday following Labour Day and the end of that calendar year."
That Standing Order 89(3) be deleted and the following substituted therefor: "(3) The Striking Committee shall also prepare and report lists of Members to act for the House on the following standing joint committees:
(a)	Official Languages, to consist of fifteen members; and
(b)	Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments, to consist of eight members.
Provided that a sufficient number of members of the said joint committees shall be appointed so as to keep the same proportion in such committees as between the memberships of both Houses."
That the following new section be added after Standing Order 92(2):
"(3)(a) Notwithstanding Standing Order 96(1), no standing or standing joint committee shall sit at the same time as a legislative committee on a bill emanating from or principally affecting the same department or agency.
(b)	During periods coinciding with the hours of sittings of the House, priority shall be given to the meetings of legislative committees over those of standing, special and joint committees.
(c)	During periods when the House stands adjourned, priority shall be given to meetings of standing, special and joint committees, according to the schedule established from time to time by the Chief Government Whip, in consultation with representatives of the other parties."
That the following new paragraph be inserted immediately after paragraph (b) of Standing Order 92(4):
"(c) The Liaison Committee shall be empowered to report from time to time to the House."
That Standing Order 93(1) be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"93. (1) Without anticipating the decision of the House, within five sitting days after the commencement of debate on second reading of a bill which is to be referred to a legislative committee, the Striking Committee shall meet to prepare, and shall report not later than the following Thursday, a list of members of such a legislative committee, which shall consist of not more than thirty Members and which shall be organized only in the event that the House adopts the motion for second reading and reference to a legislative committee of the said bill. Upon the presentation of such a report of the Striking Committee, the same shall be deemed adopted."
That sections (4), (5), (6) and (7) of Standing Order 93 be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"(4) When the Chairman appointed pursuant to section (2) of this Standing Order is unable to act in that capacity at or during a meeting of the legislative committee, the Chairman shall designate a member of the committee to act as
[Stage Direction]
June 2, 1987
Standing Orders
Chairman at or during the said meeting and such an acting Chairman shall be vested with all the powers of the Chairman at or during the said meeting."
That Standing Order 94(2) be deleted and the following substituted therefor: "(2) The membership of standing and joint committees shall be set out in the report of the Striking Committee, which shall prepare lists of Members in accordance with Standing Order 89. Once the report of the Striking Committee is concurred in, the membership shall continue from session to session within a Parliament, subject to such changes as may be effected from time to time."
That sections (4) and (5) of Standing Order 94 be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"(4) Changes in the membership of any legislative or special committee shall be effective immediately after notification thereof, signed by the Member acting as the Chief Whip of any recognized party, has been filed with the clerk of the committee."
That Standing Order 96(3)(c) be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"(c) Management and Members' Services shall include, among other matters, the review of and report, to the Speaker as well as the Board of Internal Economy, on the administration of the House and the provision of services and facilities to Members provided that all matters related thereto shall be deemed to have been permanently referred to the Committee upon its membership having been established; and the review of and report on the effectiveness, management and operation, together with the operational and expenditure plans of all operations which are under the joint administration and control of the two Houses and other related matters as the Committee deems fit;"
That Standing Order 96(4) be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"(4) So far as this House is concerned, the mandate of the Standing Joint Committee on:
(a)	Official Languages shall include, among other matters, the review of and report on official languages policies and programs including the annual report of the Commissioner of Official Languages, which shall be deemed, for the purposes of the House, permanently referred to the Committee immediately they are laid upon the Table; and
(b)	Regulations and other Statutory Instruments shall include, among other matters, the review and scrutiny of statutory instruments which are permanently referred to the Committee pursuant to the provisions of section 26 of the Statutory Instruments Act.
Provided that both Houses may, from time to time, refer any other matters to the joint committees."
That Standing Order 99(2) be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"(2) Within 150 days of the presentation of a report from a standing or special committee, the government shall, upon the request of the committee, table a comprehensive response thereto."
That Standing Order 101 be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"101. Within twenty sitting days of the return to Canada of an officially recognized inter-parliamentary delegation composed, in any part, of Members of the House, the head of the delegation, or a Member acting on behalf of him or her, shall present a report to the House on the activities of the delegation."
That the following new section be added immediately after Standing Order 104(3):
"(4) The office of the Minister who recommended the appointment shall provide the curriculum vitae of such an appointee or nominee to the committee upon written application from the clerk of the committee."
That the chapter title preceding Standing Order 106 be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"Public Petitions"
That Standing Order 106(2) be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"(2) In order to be certified, pursuant to section (1) of this Standing Order, every petition shall:
(a) be addressed to the House of Commons or to the House of Commons in Parliament assembled;
(b)	contain a clear, proper and respectful prayer requesting that Parliament see fit to take some action within its authority;
(c)	be written, typewritten or printed on paper of usual size;
(d)	be free of erasures or interlineations;
(e)	have its subject matter indicated on every sheet, if it consists of more than one sheet of signatures and addresses;
(f)	contain only original signatures and addresses written directly onto the petition and not pasted thereon or otherwise transferred to it; and
(g)	contain at least twenty-five signatures, together with the addresses of the signatories, from persons other than Members of Parliament."
That Standing Order 116 be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"116. When a Minister of the Crown, from his or her place in the House, states that a majority of the representatives of the several parties have come to an agreement in respect of a proposed allotment of days or hours for the proceedings at any stage of the passing of a public bill, the Minister may propose a motion, without notice, during proceedings under Government Orders, setting forth the terms of the said proposed allocation; provided that for the purposes of this Standing Order an allocation may be proposed in one motion to cover the proceedings at both the report and the third reading stages of a bill if that motion is consistent with the provisions of Standing Order 114(13). During the consideration of any such motion no Member may speak more than once or longer than ten minutes. Not more than two hours after the commencement of proceedings thereon, the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of the said motion. Any proceeding interrupted pursuant to this Standing Order shall be deemed adjourned."
That Standing Order 117 be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"117. A Minister of the Crown who from his or her place in the House, at a previous sitting, has stated that an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 115 or 116 in respect of proceedings at the stage at which a public bill was then under consideration either in the House or in any committee, and has given notice of his or her intention so to do, may propose a motion, during proceedings under Government Orders, for the purpose of allotting a specified number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at that stage; provided that the time allotted for any stage is not to be less than one sitting day and provided that for the purposes of this Standing Order an allocation may be proposed in one motion to cover the proceedings at both the report and the third reading stages on a bill if that motion is consistent with the provisions of Standing Order 114(13). During the consideration of any such motion no Member may speak more than once or longer than ten minutes. Not more than two hours after the commencement of proceedings thereon, the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of the said motion. Any proceedings interrupted pursuant to this Standing Order shall be deemed adjourned."
That the following new Standing Order be inserted immediately before Standing Order 132:
"131.1 (1) A petition for a private bill may be presented by a Member at any time during the sitting of the House by filing the same with the Clerk of the House.
(2)	Members presenting petitions for private bills shall be answerable that such petitions do not contain impertinent or improper matter.
(3)	Every Member presenting a petition for a private bill shall sign his or her name on the back thereof.
(4)	Petitions for private bills may be either written or printed; provided always that when there are three or more petitioners the signatures of at least three petitioners shall be subscribed on the sheet containing the prayer of the petition.
(5)	On the next day following the presentation of a petition for a private bill, the Clerk of the House shall lay upon the Table the report of the Clerk of Petitions thereon and such report shall be printed in the Votes and Proceedings of that day. Every petition so reported upon, not containing matter in breach of the privileges of this House and which, according to the Standing Orders or practice of this House, can be received, shall then be deemed to be read and received.
June 2, 1987
[Stage Direction]
(6)	No debate shall be permitted on the report but a petition referred to therein may be read by the Clerk of the House at the Table, if required."- The Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council.
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying when the House rose at one o'clock, the current rules of the House are stacked in favour of the Government. Even the most determined Opposition cannot, when day is done, totally stop the Government from obtaining passage of its legislation unless of course public opinion is raised against it to such an extent that the Government itself cannot ignore it. I was using as an example of that the way public opinion, together with the efforts of the opposition Parties, caused the Government to back down from its totally wrong attempt to cut the old age pension.
We can and on occasion must make the passage of legislation that we deem objectionable a difficult process. However, in doing so, we carry out a role essential in a democracy and we are also making sure that the views of the public are heard and hopefully are considered by the Government of the day. Similarly, when we perceive that the Government is acting contrary to the public interest, we must have devices by which we can put pressure on the Government or at least demonstrate to the public the Government's misconduct.
Never in this Parliament has this Opposition abused the extremely limited rules available to it for these purposes. Indeed, in agreeing to the provisional rules, we even gave up the device that, in the minds of many, had been abused by the Opposition before the last election, and I am talking about the tactic of bell ringing.
I also want to reiterate how important it is for all Members of the House that the rules of the House continue to say without change or derogation that this House operates on a fixed calendar. This was one of the great, important and fundamental reforms that came into effect in 1982, and I want to say again, contrary to what is one of the purposes of the motion before us, that fundamental aspect of our rules should not be swept aside just because a government has not been able to manage properly or effectively its legislative program and is therefore not able to get completed as much of that program as it would like within a particular legislative period. Those portions of the rules stipulating that we sit according to a fixed calendar are as much a part of our rules and Standing Orders as the provisions for a daily Question Period, as the provisions for three readings of Bills, and as the provisions for taking votes in connection with the making of decisions on Bills.
I submit that in the motion before us, the Government is making an unseemly, unjustified and unreasonable power grab which is not, in the long run, in the interests of either side of the House or, more importantly, in the interests of our country. We in the Official Opposition oppose this power grab and will do so with all our vigour.
The Government must realize that in spite of its current parliamentary majority, this is not a one-Party state. The parliamentary majority of the Government has not made this country into a one-Party state. The House has not become an
Standing Orders
appendage of the Government. It does not belong to the Government. The Government's majority has not turned this House into nothing more than an instrument of the Government's will. The House of Commons belongs to all the Members elected to it and to all the Parties represented in it. Therefore, it belongs ultimately not to the Government but to the Canadian people.
What the Government is trying to do with this motion is completely unacceptable to the Official Opposition, and it breaks the long tradition of changing the rules and procedures of this House on the basis of consensus. In the meantime, we do believe it would be wrong at this time to abandon the current experiment in parliamentary reform altogether. Regrettably, the Government's ill-advised initiative makes fine tuning of the interim rules difficult at this point in time, but with a view toward salvaging at least the progress made so far, I conclude by moving, seconded by the Member for Ottawa- Vanier (Mr. Gauthier):
That the motion be amended by deleting all of the words after the first semicolon and by substituting the following: "and
That the Clerk of the House be authorized and instructed to print a revised edition of the Standing Orders of the House, renumbering as may be deemed necessary and making such technical and consequential changes as may be required."


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: With permission from Hon. Members, the Chair would like to take under advisement the amendment that has just been tabled by the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray), and in the meantime, to pursue the debate by recognizing the Hon. Member from the third party. I recognize the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis).


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam
Speaker, this is a very dark day for parliamentary democracy. It is a very bleak day for Canada's Parliament. We are forced to debate a motion that the Government introduced in a roundabout way to change the rules of the House of Commons. It is a unilateral, dictatorial, we know best, big brother approach to Parliament. It says the Progressive Conservative Party forming the Government of Canada knows what is best for the country. It knows how a Government of Canada ought to proceed with changing the rules of the House of Commons.
It is very important to recognize, as you do from your chair, that you are a servant of this House, Madam Speaker. You are as much a servant of opposition Members as you are a servant of government Members. You serve all Members of the House on an equal, fair and just basis. So, too, do the rules and regulations and traditions and procedures of the House of Commons serve all Members. They are not in place to provide service to the Government only, to enable it only to facilitate its business.

June 2, 1987
Standing Orders
Parliament recognizes the role of the Official Opposition and other opposition Parties in the development of the business of the House of Commons. The tradition in Canada has always been that whenever the rules and regulations of the House of Commons are changed, it is only after considerable negotiation and discussion among all of the players. The government Party and the opposition Parties get together and spend weeks or months until they come to an agreement on changes which benefit this House. Those changes are then introduced as changes to the Standing Orders.
Today such is not the case. Today we see a Government which has decided what is best in the way of rules and regulations for the House of Commons and then acted unilaterally. It has done an end run around the negotiating process and imposed a set of regulations on the House of Commons.
I want to say how shocked I was, after spending many, many weeks with my colleagues on both sides of the House trying to negotiate and come to an understanding, to find when I opened up the Order Paper for Monday that the Government decided to introduce what it thought were appropriate changes to the Standing Orders. No agreement, no understanding, no consensus, no coming together. I very much regret that the Government decided to move in that fashion. I am pleased to say there is still some hope that a negotiated settlement can be achieved, but I think this motion illustrates how the Government really sees Parliament.
That ought not to come as a shock or surprise to the people of Canada. That is the very same political Party, the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, that stormed the Speaker's chair. I remember sitting in my seat when Members of that Party went up to the Chair and screamed at the top of their lungs at the Speaker in order to disrupt Parliament. They did not like a particular piece of legislation. However, that did not work so they decided to abandon the House of Commons and close it down for around 16 days. No business was conducted because the Progressive Conservatives decided that they knew best. They decided they could overrule the House of Commons. They could overrule the traditions and practices and rules and regulations of Parliament. I think it shocked Canadians to their souls to learn that the Progressive Conservatives, who often gave the impression of being staunch supporters of democratic traditions, were prepared to storm the Speaker's chair and close down Parliament for days.
I want to read some very important and appropriate words to the House of Commons:
We on this side of the House in more than one party believe that a fundamental issue is at stake-perhaps the fundamental issue.
I refer to the right of parliament to control itself and thereby to control the government. This question has arisen before and we know it is an issue over which passions can be aroused on both sides of the house. It is also, in the context of this country at this time, an issue which can become obscured and partisan and, indeed, the subject of passionate debate.
All hon. members know that legislatures do not today everywhere enjoy the high repute in which we would like to see legislatures held. There is now a popular impression in some quarters that legislatures are an obstacle to good
government. That impression offers to those who genuinely seek reform the natural temptation to change more than is needed and a temptation to change the purpose of parliament in the name of improving its procedures.
This impatience with legislature, therefore, requires special vigilance on the part of defenders and friends of parliament. I assume that all of us, being here, would support and defend the purposes of parliament.
It is not a simple task, in an age impressed by urgency and efficiency, to defend an institution whose purpose is to deter legislation that is bad, sometimes to delay, and sometimes indeed to oppose to the end bad legislation. It is not easy to make Canadians, who are accustomed to their freedoms, aware when these freedoms are under threat. I would hope that no one on either side of the house would use the weaknesses of legislatures in the public esteem to weaken parliament further.
The great majority of the members of this house know that if parliament becomes a rubber stamp it becomes useless.
That is the main reason for being here, and one weapon we possess is our ability on occasion to compel the government to reassess its measures and force it to change or even to halt a course of action which we believe to be inadequate or wrong. If that were not necessary parliament would not be necessary. But governments make mistakes, even governments with computers. A government which knows it must face an effective opposition will take more care than will a government which has the power under its rules to disarm the opposition.
Members of a government are subject to fault like the rest of us. The function of the opposition is by our probing to reveal and correct those faults, by our presence and by our powers to make the government more careful, to make the government more compassionate, to make the government more responsive to the needs of the people of this country.
There are some facts to establish about parliament and about parliamentary reform. The first is that the problems that frustrate Canada were not created here in parliament, and they will not be solved by a mere amendment of the rules of parliament. It was not the rules of parliament that caused inflation, created a crisis in housing, or slowed the sales of grain. It is not the reform of parliament which will produce a satisfactory foreign policy, bring growth to our economy, reduce unemployment, end the alienation of the young or reduce the strains within Confederation. Parliament is not the cause of these frustrations, and parliament ought not to be the victim or the scapegoat of them.
-there is no magic in procedure, no magic that will cause the government to draft more and better laws quickly, above all, no magic that will produce policies and solutions where there have been none produced to date.
If this government had no opposition at all to face it would still be behind. It would still face a backlog of things it should be doing and problems it has not been able to solve. That, after all, is the fate of governments in a changing and complex time, in a changing and complex country. We are not going to transform the capacity of this government simply by amending the rules of parliament. There is no magic wand, and there should be no attempt to suggest that these or any other changes to the rules will suddenly and as if by magic make the government efficient.
The third fact is that the purpose of parliamentary reform is not simply to serve efficiency, as the hon. member who introduced the motion seemed to believe, important though efficiency naturally is. The purpose, rather, is to work out a process of debate and legislation which is consistent with the democratic values of the Canadian people.
We do not simply need a procedure which passes laws. We need a procedure which also passes the demanding test of free and adequate debate. It is not enough to be concerned merely with the efficiency of the process. I would assume that the legislative process in the Soviet Union is very efficient. But we are a different kind of country and the rules of our parliamentary debate must reflect and protect that difference. We must not demean the importance of debate.
there must also be time for adequate discussion here. The right of discussion and debate, the associated right of inquiry and the consequent capacity to arouse and inform public opinion, is the single most important safeguard the country has against arbitrary, secret or unresponsive government. This is the place in Canada where grievances can be raised with most effect. To
June 2, 1987

arbitrarily limit the right of members to speak is to limit the capacity of the government to understand and respond to the problems of Canadians.
We believe that government has the right and responsibility to govern. The rules of parliament should help the Government to govern well. We support the reform of parliament. We support it enthusiastically and out of conviction. But we draw the line at certain fundamental and unnecessary changes which would deform parliament and make it ineffective.
We draw the line at proposals which would put parliament in the hands of the government because that, we believe, would reverse the appropriate relation. Parliament must not be made subservient to the government. Parliament must continue to be responsible to the people through parliament. That is a parliamentary tradition and we defend it today, not because it is an old tradition or even because it is a British tradition but because it is a good tradition and the best safeguard we have against arbitrary government. It is, in the final analysis, the only safeguard we have.
I could go on and read much more of this very important debate that occurred on December 10, 1968. It was a speech uttered by the Hon. Robert L. Stanfield, Leader of the Opposition at that time. Mr. Stanfield was concerned that the Liberals of the day were bringing in changes to the Standing Orders which he felt would facilitate the Government's plans at the expense of the role and effectiveness of the Opposition.
Nearly 20 years have elapsed and today we see a repeat performance by the Conservative Government of the day because it has been unable to complete its business in the traditional calendar time.
I point out that for decades Governments have been able to complete their business in the traditional calendar year. As my friend, the Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly), points out, the Government did not even recall Parliament until October of this year and as a result of an extra four weeks of summer recess and because of its hopelessness, abysmal record, inexperience and unwillingness to cooperate, the Government cannot complete its agenda within the prescribed calendar year and wants to extend the sitting into the summer.
I humbly suggest that if we sat for 12 months of the year, sat through Christmas and Easter, I suspect the same problem would exist. The Government would indicate that it is unable to deal effectively with the challenges and issues facing Canada. It simply cannot run the Government effectively and efficiently.
As the Hon. Robert Stanfield, the then Leader of the Opposition said in 1968, the rules of the House of Commons do not make a Government effective. It is the Government itself.
I also want to quote some words of the Hon. Stanley Knowles who said, during that debate: "If we are here to make a shambles of it, we can do it no matter how good the rules are. If we are here to do the business of the people of Canada, we can do that even if the rules are not as good as they might be. Nevertheless, we think there are reforms that must be made.
Standing Orders
Today, we reflect that precise view. After participating with other Parties in parliamentary reform for many weeks, months and years, and recognizing changes in society, it is obvious that changes in the House of Commons are appropriate and necessary. However, we must remind members of the Government that the rules are only as good as the players. A speed limit of 90 kilometres on one of our highways is only as effective as the willingness of the people to co-operate with the rules.
Let us consider the reason for these changes. The Government has indicated on a number of occasions that it wants to conduct the business of the House, referring to the so-called drug Bill, Bill C-22, when the Opposition stalled the passage of that Bill for some time. That is what we did, but it is our job. We did not stop the Bill or prohibit the Government from completing its agenda to change the patent laws for prescription drug companies. However, we wanted to focus the attention of Canadians on what we believe is a very Draconian and punitive piece of legislation. We believe we have accomplished that goal and that Canadians are aware that the Government introduced a drug Bill that will give a monopoly to a foreign drug company for ten years so that it can charge whatever it wants before any competition is permitted in Canada. That would obviously drive up the price of prescription drugs in the future, and we believe that is inappropriate. Therefore, we used the procedures of the House of Commons to focus attention on that particular issue.
The Government is wrong to suggest that it was prohibited from completing its agenda because, unfortunately, the Bill did pass through the House. The Government's arguments that the Opposition has been able to keep it from conducting its business are hollow.
While we have many concerns about reform, I believe this is not the place to negotiate changes to the Standing Orders or to the rules and procedures of the House of Commons. However, it is an opportunity to reflect on the procedure that has been used and on the process of parliamentary reform to improve the rules and regulations of the House.
Many of us were shocked and aghast at the fact that the Government decided to make an end run, circumvent the process and do what it felt best in terms of changing the rules of Parliament rather than complete the round of negotiations we had been undertaking for so many weeks and months.
While we are concerned about the process, we are still hopeful, since this motion has not passed, that there is still time for the three political Parties in Parliament to work together to attempt a negotiated settlement with which we can all live and in which there will be give and take on both sides. We remain optimistic and we are here to co-operate as an effective opposition in Parliament. We believe that part of our role is to keep the Government honest, to keep it on the straight and narrow, to focus attention and oppose whenever we believe it is appropriate.

June 2, 1987
Standing Orders
We hope the Government will see fit to negotiate a final conclusion to this particular stalemate in reforming the rules, regulations and traditions of the House of Commons.


Mr. Robinson:: Madam Speaker, I appreciated hearing my distinguished colleague's remarks with respect to the proposed changes to the Standing Orders. I have a couple of questions 1 would like to put to him and I would like to ask him to elaborate on a few of the points he made. Let us face it, Madam Speaker, those Canadians who are watching this particular debate with respect to the Standing Orders are not sitting on the edges of their seats gripped with excitement at the contents of the debate. Yet I think it is important that members of the public understand clearly the implications of these proposals by the Government on this important institution of Parliament.
With that in mind, I would ask the Hon. House Leader for my Party to tell us whether, to the best of his recollection, there has been any time since he was elected, and I believe he was elected in 1980, that any Government, whether the former Liberal Government, the former Conservative Government or this Government, has made any attempt to use this kind of heavy-handed process to impose changes to the Standing Orders on the House of Commons.
1 think it is important that Canadians understand clearly the history of this place and that these kinds of changes to the Standing Orders which govern this House are traditionally made by way of discussion, consensus, agreement and give and take. I would like the Hon. House Leader to indicate the history of this particular matter with respect to the imposition of changes in the Standing Orders of the House of Commons.
Perhaps the Hon. Member could also indicate why it was that this Parliament in fact moved to a fixed parliamentary calendar. He will recall, as I certainly do, the days not that long ago when Members of Parliament never knew from one day to the next or from one week to the next when the House would adjourn. He will know of the particular burdens that placed on Members of Parliament who were attempting to have some sense of their own personal agendas, which, obviously, is of some importance as well.
1 would ask the Hon. House Leader to amplify on those two particular concerns, first, with respect to the way in which the Government is seeking to change the Standing Orders of this House and, second, why he has placed, quite properly in my view, such importance on the changes with respect to the fixed parliamentary calendar.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I thank my hon. friend from Burnaby for those various questions. I will answer them in order as best I can. First, the decision to extend the hours of Parliament into the summer, in my opinion, is a reflection of the inability of the Government to do its business. It has the largest majority in the history of Canada. One would think that if there was any Government which could do its business in the time prescribed,
it ought to be this Government. Presumably that is not the case.
Any effective individual, family, business, farm, fisherman, and so on, who wants to conduct his or her affairs in the most positive way must do it with some ability to plan ahead. It was in that spirit that Members of the House of Commons from all Parties agreed that it was in the best interests of us all to know when the session ended and when it began. From that came a calendar year so that we could all plan our lives in order to be the most effective and efficient Members of Parliament possible. We might now see that changed.
The second question was with respect to the process. I have only been a Member of Parliament for seven plus years, but in that time I have seen the tremendous interest of all Members in parliamentary reform. The very prestigious McGrath committee spent a great amount of time, reflecting the views of all political Parties, on what it felt were appropriate changes to the parliamentary rules and regulations. We also had the appropriate standing committee headed by the distinguished Chairman, the Hon. Member for Peace River (Mr. Cooper). Working with his colleagues from all political Parties he came up with some extremely thoughtful recommendations in terms of what was felt should be changes to the rules and regulations of Parliament. All of us have felt comfortable with that process and supportive because we knew the quality of the members of the committee and of their commitment to parliamentary reform. When they made their recommendations, it was with very little debate that the House of Commons supported the principle of the changes they proposed.
It is for that reason that the frustration exists as it does today. After all of that work for all those years by so many Members of the House of Commons, we arrive at the point where we find on the Order Paper that the Government has taken unilateral action while negotiations, I might say, were in process. In fact, we were so close to completing the negotiations, that the House Leader for the Government even suggested we extend the deadline we set for ourselves twice so we could complete the negotiations. We all left last week feeling that we had finally reached the end. We felt satisfied that there had been give and take on both sides. That is why there is such a high level of frustration today.
I suspect that if Members of the House were reflecting their views as they actually feel them and reflecting their feelings as they actually see them, they too would feel a certain element of frustration that the process, I would say, nearly broke down, when there was still optimism and hope that the process would be completed to everyone's satisfaction.


Mr. Belsher:: Mr. Speaker, The Hon. Member has suggested that the process of Parliament has broken down. The process has not broken down at all, Madam Speaker, but is really functioning the way it is supposed to function. The Hon. Member also made much of the fact that the Government has an enormous number of members and in that way can force through any type of legislation. I think what he has failed to
June 2, 1987

realize is that the process of getting legislation through, the process of even getting some of the Bills on the Order Paper, has been at times frustrated by members of the Opposition, even at first reading.
Would the Member not agree that the motion before us would facilitate at least getting an orderly part of the Government's business onto the floor of the House of Commons in the way which is envisaged in the motion before us?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, what I do not want to be drawn into, and I appreciate the legitimacy of the intent behind the Hon. Member's question, is a discussion on what the House Leaders and various Members interested in parliamentary reform have been doing for many months and years, and are still doing today. All I can say in response to the Hon. Member's legitimate question is that just in the last little while we have passed many Bills. Many Bills have been introduced into this House. I am holding only a small portion. Every single one, with the exception of one, has been introduced with no difficulty whatsoever. With respect to one single Bill out of hundreds, there was a couple of days before the Government could introduce it.
In the tradition of Parliament, which recognizes the rule of an Opposition by its very definition of being "Parliament", and recognizing the role of the opposition Parties to focus attention on Bills they have deemed not to be in the best interests of Canada, to have focused their attention on one single Bill out of perhaps hundreds for a few days, is that inappropriate? By his question I suspect he is saying it is. As a parliamentarian, I say that it is not inappropriate.
If the Opposition had been holding up every single Bill, or the vast majority of Bills the Government was attempting to introduce, then I would say, yes, they have a point. However, one single Bill out of so many was, if you like, slowed down for a few days. It has been subsequently introduced, went through all stages and was passed. It is signed, sealed and delivered. That is the way Parliaments are supposed to function. I think what the Hon. Member is saying to me is that if he had his way there ought to be no Opposition, just a Government, so it can do things in the fastest and most efficient way possible. That might work for some countries, and they need not be named, countries which only believe in doing government work in the most efficient fashion and having no opposition whatsoever, certainly not an opposition with any power. That is a tradition, of course, that this country has never accepted, and I hope it never will.


Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Madam Speaker, I would like to start off by saying that the Hon. Member doth protest too much. With respect to the Hon. Member who just spoke, it is interesting to note that over the past two weeks there were continual meetings regarding the change in the rules. However, the Hon. Member was only here for one of those meetings.
Standing Orders


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am surprised at the insensitivity and the unparliamentary nature of the language of my hon. colleague. He well knows the traditions of Parliament. An Hon. Member does not refer to the absence of another Hon. Member. The implication is that Members of Parliament are always carrying out their responsibilities and duties in a responsible and honourable way. For the Hon. Member to attack someone on a personal level obviously indicates that the substance of his argument is extremely weak.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I am sure that the Hon. Member for Ontario (Mr. Fennell) will be a little more careful in his remarks.


Thomas Scott Fennell: Madam Speaker, I was not referring to the Hon. Member's location, to his absence from Ottawa or to what he was doing. I was not referring to that. I was only talking about meetings.
I would like to make a point with respect to the bell-ringing episode to which the Hon. Member referred so much in his speech. The Hon. Member will recall that this was a very important incident in parliamentary history. It had to do with an omnibus Bill being imposed upon Parliament, something that had never happened before. The bell-ringing episode, much and all as it was regrettable, brought a stop to that practice. So the bell-ringing is important because it allowed us to stop that omnibus Bill. It was eight weeks that we spent down in the basement of this building trying to work out the details of the broken up portion of the National Energy Program that, as Hon. Members know, and as the western group that got together in Vancouver was quoted in The Globe and Mail today as saying, it was one of the things that really hurt the West.


James Douglas Manly: That's not why they're getting together in 1987.


Abram Ernest Epp: What about Bill C-22 and its effects?


Thomas Scott Fennell: Bill C-22 happens to be very popular legislation in my riding. I have not heard one argument against it. I have heard many arguments for it. Members opposite can yell about it all they want, but in my riding it is very popular. At last there is some research going on in my riding that was not going on before. There are millions of dollars being spent. Lilly and Anca and two others are all spending millions of dollars on research. That helps Canadians. It stops the brain-drain from Canada.


James Douglas Manly: The price of drugs is going up!


Thomas Scott Fennell: This is something which is terribly important. However, we are not talking about Bill C-22. We are talking about the importance of administration in the House of Commons.

June 2, 1987
Standing Orders
We used dilatory motions. I will admit that we used some of the same tricks ourselves when I was in opposition, and I was ashamed.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: You wrote the book.


Thomas Scott Fennell: I was ashamed of some of the tricks.


James Douglas Manly: You should be ashamed of what you are doing now.


Thomas Scott Fennell: That is the reason we changed the rules. We changed the rules so that we could work and manage this House and manage the affairs of the nation effectively. That is precisely the reason we did it. It is important to Canada to have a responsible Government. We came in with a majority and we should use it. The people of Canada said that they want us to rule the country as it has never been ruled before. The economy has never been better. We promised the Canadian public that we would create jobs. We have created 800,000-plus jobs.


Svend Johannes Robinson: In Ontario!


Thomas Scott Fennell: We promised the Canadian public that we would lower interest rates. Interest rates went down.
What I am saying is that we are fighting for the Canadian public, not for the individuals who sit on the other side of this House.
One thing Members opposite have put more emphasis on than anything else is the fact that in this motion they might have to sit-might-into the month of July. The motion does not state that we will sit. It leaves the option-


James Douglas Manly: Where were you last September?


Thomas Scott Fennell: I was down here.
If there is an important piece of legislation, we can deal with it here during the summer months and not have the nation shut out from dealing with important legislation. It is only a stall on the part of Members opposite. If they really want to stall, they can stall themselves into July very easily.
With respect to the petitions that are presented day after
day-


James Douglas Manly: The right of the people!


Thomas Scott Fennell: They have to work hard to get that many petitions. One has to work extremely hard to get that many petitions, or else get one's workers to work very hard. One has to go around to canvass people from door to door.


James Douglas Manly: People have the right to be heard.


Thomas Scott Fennell: I am not against petitions. I am against the misuse of the time of the House of Commons.
Many things that have been agreed to in this motion are very important. The details with respect to Fridays are very
important. I do not recognize many of the people from the NDP who are ever here on Friday. Perhaps one Member from-


James Douglas Manly: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not think it is parliamentary for the Hon. Member to refer to the presence or absence of Members of any particular Party on any given day. It is absolutely certain that New Democrats are here on Fridays every bit as much as other Members are, while others are travelling to their ridings.


Thomas Scott Fennell: I am not arguing about members of the NDP, the Liberals or the Conservatives. I happen to have been a Member of the House for eight years and I have always sat on Fridays. That was my-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Duty day.


Thomas Scott Fennell: That was not my choice, that is what was imposed upon me. I got to enjoy Fridays. As my colleague, the Whip of the Official Opposition, understands, we used to have an interesting time on Fridays. We always had a chance for debate. It is a great day.
Let me refer to the shortening of the hours on Friday. The hours are not being reduced. They are being changed so that we would sit through lunch. We will still sit five hours. However, instead of sitting from 11 a.m. until 5 p.m. we will sit from 10 a.m. until 3 p.m. That is something that was approved by all Members of the House as a result of a petition carried out by one of my colleagues. So it is a good idea.


Abram Ernest Epp: No one objected to that.


Thomas Scott Fennell: We dealt with cleaning up situations with respect to Private Members' Bills. For instance, why should the mover of a Private Members' Bill not have the opportunity to talk for a longer period of time than everyone else? He is the man who wrote the Bill. This is just cleaning up some errors that were in the original rules. It will allow the mover of the motion or Bill to start with 20 minutes and everybody else to follow with 10. I think that is equitable.
I would now like to talk about Opposition Days. I know that it has been a hardship for members of the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party during the past month in which we have jammed in 13 Opposition Days all at once in this supply period. What we have tried to do is to allocate the days so that they are more evenly spread out over the year. Instead of 13 days there will be 10. I think that makes sense. It is hard when members of the Opposition have to prepare for Opposition Days day after day after day. It is hard to get speakers and to get the right material together and to be aware.
There is a change in the rules with respect to allowing the Whips to change the membership on legislative and special committees. I would like to talk about committees because I have very firm views on them. During the discussions I did not change my views with respect to this issue, and I think that the Opposition Whip will accept that. However, I feel that it is an
June 2, 1987

impossible situation right now to try to operate the committees on the basis on which they were set up, especially for a Government with a large number of Members. I think it is very difficult. There was a system in our committees which was a system I liked. It allowed me the freedom to get on to the committee. The system was that there would be x members and x alternates. I was originally put on one committee but I did not like that committee. The way I got on to other committees was by sitting on the committee until I finally became an alternate member. I sat on that committee for hours, days, months and years and finally became a regular member. It was a means to an end. In such a large group as we have it is difficult to move upward in a committee. I succeeded in that because one of the alternates did not appear as often as I did, then one of the regular members did not appear as regularly as I did or ask questions on the regular basis on which I did. In that way, I, as a hard-working Member of the House, was able to work myself up in the committee. That shows that seniority is not all that counts.
I think that is equitable and fair. I did not push it in these amendments because I have had co-operation from the Opposition Whip with regard to other changes in the rules. I think we can still run the committees to everyone's satisfaction through the changes we made in November.
We eliminated the Parliament Committee and included it with the Committee on Management and Members' Services. We decided to reduce the Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments because no one attended it. It is not of major interest to Members of the House of Commons. We have previously tried to work out the priorities among the legislative and standing committees and are now trying to refine that. We have tried to ensure that standing committees never sit when the House is in session. Legislative committees only will sit at that time.
There have been some difficulties with Bills which have previously been reviewed by the Finance Committee being referred to legislative committees. An excellent example of a case in which there was co-operation from all sides is that of Bills C-42 and C-56. The Finance Committee had already studied those Bills. It would be ridiculous to refer them to a legislative committee because, as the Whip, I would simply move the people from the Finance Committee to the legislative committee. That would really not mean anything.
I recall being the chairman of a legislative committee on a Bill. The entire Finance Committee was simply moved to the legislative committee. The committees have independent chairmen, but the problem in that case was that the original intent was that no witnesses would appear before the legislative committee. However, in this case the Minister had said that there would be an opportunity to call witnesses when the Bill was in committee, and that is when it went to a legislative committee rather than the standing committee.
Standing Orders
The major changes relate to Orders of the Day. We had to find a way to advance government motions. There were so many dilatory motions every day that we were never able to proceed with debate on Bills. I accept that this place should be democratic, but I do not believe that it should be controlled by the Opposition without any input from the Government. The problem is that dilatory motions continually slow down the proceedings of the House and we never have a chance to debate the Bills we want to debate, only the dilatory motions. That is not accomplishing anything in the governing of the nation.


Philip Derek Lewis: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to indicate to the House that the Government has absolutely no intention of extending the hours today between four and five o'clock. Debate should proceed on this motion until five o'clock with no such indication from any Member on the government side.


Thomas Scott Fennell: Madam Speaker, I thank the Parliamentary Secretary. However, I had a good crowd and was enjoying it and now I will lose my audience. I guess my hon. friend, the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Lewis), felt I may have been playing to the audience a bit.
It is important to debate Bills. There is a limit to the amount of time you can discuss a Bill. I recall a ridiculous situation which took place when we were in opposition before the rules were changed. I was told that I had to keep talking for an hour and a half but I had only had a few minutes to prepare my speech. That was silly, but we had to do it because it was our opportunity to get our points across. We have removed the right of speaking for an hour and a half and the maximum time allowed is now 20 minutes, which makes a lot of sense to me. As a matter of fact, I think that ten minutes would probably be adequate to get your points across. In order to speak for a full 20 minutes one must have done thorough research. I have done thorough research on a Bill many times and seen the Bill pass before I had an opportunity to speak on it. That can be a little discouraging.
I think the Opposition is making a big to do about nothing. When Members realize that we have tried to simplify the processes in the House they will understand the Government's strong wish to govern the country. We believe the Opposition is important and we do listen to it. However, as I indicated before, committees provide a better opportunity and more time to really study a Bill. We do not accomplish nearly as much as we could in the House and not nearly as much as is accomplished in committees. I think limiting debate in the House and providing more time for debate in committees would solve some of the frustrations of the Opposition.
When I was in opposition I found committees to be the place where I could express myself and work toward making changes which, little as they were, were important. I recall that there were 49 amendments moved to the National Energy Program. They were not major but some were of great importance to us.

June 2, 1987
Standing Orders
The intent of this motion is to permit the Government to govern and eliminate the time spent on dilatory motions. I think it is very important that we accept these changes. They are not moved with antagonism or animosity. There is no hidden agenda. The intent is simply to deal with legislation out in the open as we have been elected to do, but not to be controlled and directed by the Opposition for time immemorial.
1 notice that you are on the edge of your seat, Madam Speaker. I would like to express my sincere appreciation for the opportunity to speak on this motion today.


Ross Belsher: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Hon, Member for Ontario (Mr. Fennell). What times can he envision that Bills will be sent to a standing committee rather than to a legislative committee? Is that inherent in the motion before us, or do all Bills have to go to a legislative committee?
The reason I ask that question is that there is legislation which has been prepared from White Papers into which the standing committees have had a great deal of input. They have conducted hearings across the country, and during the hearing process they have often said that there will be another opportunity for people to make a presentation on what they feel should be done with legislation after the Bill has been brought before Parliament and goes to a committee.
If Bills are only to go to legislative committees, the composition of a legislative committee will not necessarily be a mirror of the people who are on the standing committee. I should like to hear the Hon. Member's comment on that point.


Thomas Scott Fennell: Madam Speaker, a very important discussion took place in that regard. There was much discussion that perhaps legislative committees were not really a necessity. However, it was decided by many that they serve their purpose in certain instances.
I refer to Bill C-42 and Bill C-56, two financial Bills which have already been studied by the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs. In effect they have gone back to that committee by agreement. This also transpired in the cases of Bills C-18 and C-19. The Hon. Member was on that committee. They went to the Standing Committee on Transport and they were important to that committee because it had already reviewed the National Transportation Act in advance. It had already heard the witnesses, so all it really had to do was go across the country to review it with certain witnesses to get input on the possibility of change or amendments to the two Acts.
I think it must be based upon agreement by all Parties. For instance, it is the people on the Finance Committee, from both the New Democratic Party and the Liberal Party, who have worked with the Conservatives to convince their House Leaders that it would be a good idea to refer it to a standing committee as opposed to a legislative committee. It is really an
agreement among all Parties, but it depends upon what has transpired-


Ross Belsher: Is that still there?


Thomas Scott Fennell: That is still there; the option is there. We can or cannot do it.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, I have a question for my friend the Hon. Member for Ontario (Mr. Fennell). A short while ago, the Parliamentary Secretary to the House Leader came to the House and said: I can promise you that we are not going to use Standing Order 9(4)(a). And in order for people to understand what it means, I would like him not only to elaborate on this, but also to answer a question. This Standing Order makes it possible for a Member, when the Speaker is in the Chair, to-
-propose a motion, without notice, to continue a sitting through a lunch or
dinner hour or beyond the ordinary hour of daily adjournment for the purpose
of considering a specified item of business or a stage or stages thereof-
Only if 25 or more Members then rise to oppose it is the motion deemed to have been withdrawn. During our negotiations with the Government... It is because I know the Conservative Whip is favourable to this idea that I direct my question to him.

In discussions with the Government, I, for one, proposed that to demand that the Opposition needs 25 people to oppose a motion under Standing Order 9(4)(a) to prolong a sitting of the House beyond the normal adjournment hour was unjust because it exceeded a quorum in the House by 5, the quorum being 20. It also requires that members of the Liberal Party and the NDP who have small numbers in the House be involved in a difficult and sometimes demanding race to this place because we have committees sitting or other things to do. We must all run in here between four o'clock and five o'clock to prevent the Government from extending the sitting past the adjournment hour.
I suggested-and I still propose it-that a new rule should be written where 10 per cent would be the factor involved-10 per cent of the Government or 10 per cent of the combined Opposition. That could stay on the books for years to come as an objective figure which would be used to decide whether or not we should have a motion under Standing Order 9(4)(a).
That would provide fairness and would provide members of my caucus and me with an element of justice in terms of representation. For example, the Government has 211 Members, and 10 per cent would mean that it must have 21 people in place to prevent the Opposition from moving a motion under Standing Order 9(4)(a) to extend debate beyond the normal adjournment hour. It would also give us, in terms of our numbers, the fairness of having 10 per cent, which would be seven, to prevent the Government from proceeding with a motion under Standing Order 9(4)(a).
June 2, 1987

Does the Whip on the government side not understand that logic? Would he not agree that at this stage where we are indeed rewriting the books that would be a fairer approach to House business, that it would be in keeping with the spirit of the McGrath committee, and that it would be a much more just and equitable position?


Thomas Scott Fennell: Madam Speaker, as the Hon. Opposition Whip indicated, we have had discussions on this matter. I am sympathetic. I believe that 25 is too high.
I would like to state what my opinion is right now, but he has put me in a somewhat embarrassing position because at the present time there are meetings going on right across the hall.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: They are watching you.


Thomas Scott Fennell: They are probably watching me to see what reaction I have to this question.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Inspire them.


Thomas Scott Fennell: They may expire me, that is, keep me in this job forever. If I stated that 10 per cent or 20 per cent was right, they may come charging out of that room and hit me over the head before I could finish answering the question.
Let me say that I am very sympathetic to my friend, the chief Opposition Whip. However, I am frightened of my own colleagues who might be tough on me-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: You are an honest man.


Thomas Scott Fennell: -if I come up with an answer in advance of the conclusion of that meeting.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: That is the best answer I have heard you give in the House of Commons.


Howard Edward Crosby: Madam Speaker, I should like to make a comment and also ask a question of the Hon. Member for Ontario (Mr. Fennell).
As I read the foreword to the Standing Orders of the House of Commons, it makes it clear that the House has been deliberating the Standing Orders since December, 1984, and that the rules of the House currently in effect have been adopted, changed, and in a sense are in a state of limbo because they are merely provisional rules.
I want to point out to Members of the House of Commons that the Standing Orders are more than just rules governing Members of the House of Commons in their day to day debates and deliberations. They in fact establish the internal procedure for the House of Commons, which is of interest to a much broader segment of the public and the community than merely Members of the House of Commons. There is a great and grave public interest in some stability and some permanency to the rules which govern the processes and procedures of the House of Commons.
Standing Orders
One can imagine the difficulties of a person or institution interested in a Bill before the House of Commons not knowing what are the lengths of debates, how long debate could be protracted, and a variety of other matters.
My question to the Hon. Member for Ontario is: Is it not generally in the interest of Canadians to have Standing Orders of the House of Commons which make it clear what are the rules of the House, what rules govern the processes and procedures? Does he not think that that interest goes beyond the membership of this Chamber and extends to other interested parties, so that the Government would be derelict in its duty if it did not intervene to create this permanence in relation to the Standing Orders of the House of Commons, and so that the deliberation which has gone on over three years will finally be put to an end and everybody will know what are the rules, processes, and procedures of the House of Commons?


Thomas Scott Fennell: I should like to say that the Hon. Member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby) probably has one of the greatest grasps of Parliament. He understands it. He understands the implications to the public. I really appreciate the Member asking that question. I failed to bring out the fact that we are trying to adjust provisional rules. As I said before, I spoke an hour and a half one day. I remember days when the Hon. Member for Halifax has spoken for an extended period of time, but that is not what the public wants. People want us to have fast and concise debate. They want to hear the arguments on both sides instead of the rambling of the past. The Member brought forward a very important point to Canadians who elected us to come here.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Earlier today, the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) proposed to move an amendment which reads as follows:
That the motion be amended by deleting all of the words after the first semicolon and by substituting the following: "and
That the Clerk of the House be authorized and instructed to print a revised edition of the Standing Orders of the House, renumbering as may be deemed necessary and making such technical and consequential changes as may be required."
The Chair has had the opportunity to review the Hon. Member's motion. Because of Citation 424(3) and (5) in Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, I have little choice but to rule it out of order. If the amendment were allowed and adopted, the effect would be to render the main motion unintelligible. The amendment, therefore, is not acceptable.
Resuming debate. The Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet).


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau):: Madam Speaker, I want to speak on the motion proposed by the Government and indicate at the outset that I am very disappointed by the action of the Government. I have listened carefully to what has been said by the Government House Leader and also by the Government

June 2, 1987
Standing Orders
Whip. They both tried to explain that they want to improve the procedural package concerning the House of Commons.
Quite clearly, when you scrutinize this resolution you see that the Government intends to substantially-radically, in fact-change the procedures of the House of Commons, not in keeping with the effort put forward in recent months by Members of Parliament on both sides of the House who have served on committees and reviewed the rules of the House of Commons. The Lefebvre committee, the McGrath committee and more recently the Cooper committee have done important work in consultation with representatives of both sides of the House. Indeed, we could say that the report of the Special Committee on Reform of the House of Commons, chaired by James McGrath, was a report arrived at through consensus, through diligent work by members of the three Parties represented in the House of Commons with a view to bringing forward a balanced package that favours not exclusively the Government but favours equally the Government and the Opposition, and, above all, favours parliamentarians. It was an effort to enhance the role of the private Member.
From the report of the Special Committee on Reform of the House of Commons let me cite what a new Member of Parliament, the Hon. Member for Calgary South (Mrs. Sparrow) said:
As a new Member of Parliament, 1 do not know the mechanics of this institution as well as some of my colleagues. I am absolutely amazed at how little input private Members have into the formulation of legislation, policies and/or regulations. It appears to me that most of the time we are told what a minister will be announcing in 48 hours and we do not have access, any means to study or contribute or change the finished product. But Members must go to their constituencies to explain and support the decision of the government. Sometimes this is extremely difficult.
These are the words of the Member for Calgary South, a member of the Government, who was expressing her view on entering Parliament and hoping for radical change in the way Parliament operates.
In the early stages, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), the Government House Leader and the Government sustained and supported the McGrath report and tried to implement it, although I have to say there are a number of important issues that have not yet been dealt with that have been referred to the new Board of Internal Economy, which issues until dealt with, will not make for a major change in our parliamentary procedures.
A significant step in the right direction has been taken so far, but there is another major step to be taken on which the Government is very hesitant. Not only is the Government not ready to go further in implementing the McGrath report, but it has just made an about-face with the motion introduced by the Government House Leader. In fact, these proposals, as we see them, coming as they appear to do in isolation from the philosophical framework which guides the reform process, reflect the need of the Government House Leader. They reflect exclusively the desire of the Government, frustrated in implementing some of its legislation, to take control of Parliament, to take control away from the back-benchers on
both sides of the House, to take it away from the Opposition and basically impose le baillon to prevent the Opposition from speaking out and speaking out legitimately against some of the measures which the Government is introducing. This is regrettable.
One may look at some of the changes the Government wants to make and one could sympathize with the desire of the Government to re-address some of the anomalies that exist in Routine Proceedings. One can see here obviously that the Government is feeling the frustrations of excessive dilatory tactics that have been used recently by the New Democratic Party. The Government is, therefore, anxious to assert its control of the House. Unfortunately, we have to ask ourselves if this control is coming at too high a price. Does this not come at a time when, in a spirit of reforming Parliament and giving more authority to the private Members, the Government is seizing the passage of permanent new rules to give itself some authority? That is to a certain degree frightening. I refer to the decisions of the Government without any consensus, without any appropriate consultation and agreement with the opposition Party, whether it be the Liberal Party or the New Democratic Party, to go ahead and change substantially some of the procedures to which we have been accustomed, in particular, our dealings with third reading stage. The decision of the Government to curtail debate on third reading in the way it wants to do it is unacceptable. The decision to amend Standing Order 117 is, to me, unacceptable. The decision to change unilaterally Standing Orders 13, 19 and 48 is also unacceptable.
I would like to remind Hon. Members and members of the Government in particular that the consensus arrived at in the McGrath report to do away with bell-ringing is a prime example of how Members on both sides of the House could put their partisan approach aside and try to work out procedures that would be in the best interests of good order in Parliament.
I accept without any hesitation that the Government has a legitimate point in trying to redo Routine Proceedings and in trying to find ways to implement certain timetables for legislation. However, to do so unilaterally and without proper consultation and appropriate consensus sets a very, very bad precedent. On one hand, the Government has every right to want its legislation passed, but it must accept on the other hand that the Opposition has the right to fight as much as possible under the rules of the House of Commons against legislation the Opposition thinks is unacceptable.
The way the Government is trying to curtail debate on second reading, at report stage and on third reading is, to me, too much. If these rules are accepted, there will be the possibility of a Minister rising in the House and, without any notice, deciding that his legislation, which he thinks is good although all members of the Opposition and a large segment of the population are against it, will pass. He will move a motion that will be debated for only two hours and will preclude the continuation of debate at report stage and at third reading of
June 2, 1987

the Bill. Therefore, a very drastic form of closure will be imposed on a piece of legislation simply because of the will of a Minister. I think that is unprecedented and very dangerous.
I am not saying that the Government should not find better ways of dealing with legislation. I am not saying that the Government should not have the right legitimately to expect that its legislation be accepted, but the way it is proceeding is, to me, frightening.
I also want to say that there is no quid pro quo in the proposals submitted by the Government. Time and time again, the Opposition Whip has asked a question which was nicely received by the Government Whip but was not answered. Under our current rules, we need only 20 Members to have a quorum. To ask the Opposition to have 25 Members present in the House of Commons in order to prevent the Government from prolonging the debate at the end of the day and making sure that the legislation that normally would not be accepted is passed is asking too much of the Opposition. There are 40 Members of the Loyal Opposition. This means that in order to prevent the Government from speeding up the process of passage of legislation, we would need to have 25 opposition Members present.
As you know, Madam Speaker, parliamentarians are asked to do many tasks. They are asked to be in here, to be in committee, to be in their constituencies and to represent the interests of their Parties at numerous meetings here and abroad. Therefore, it is impossible to ask an Opposition that is as small as we are to block the dictatorial will of 210 Members. Certainly the Government must come to its senses and use more appropriate numbers which would allow the Opposition to prevent unlimited debate on legislation.
1 would like to deal with the proposals for Private Members' Bills. I know that through the good auspices of the Clerk of the Table, it is now possible to allow a substitute for an Hon. Member who cannot debate his Bill. The Clerk is now in a position to ask for other Members of the House to substitute for the Member who cannot be present and a different Bill can be looked at at the end of the day. The reality is, however, that if this fails, the one hour goes back to the Government. It should not go back to the Government.
The Government has enough time to look at its own affairs, and I think it is unfair to give Private Members' time to the Government. I do hope that the rules in this regard will make it crystal clear that if for one reason or another a Member is unable to deal with his Private Member's initiative, the time that would normally be given to Private Members' hour will not be given back to the Government. This is not asking too much and I believe that in the interests of Private Members, it is very important.
I would like to say something about a recommendation that is not very controversial but one which I believe is important. Both the McGrath and the Lefebvre committees opposed any nomination process for the Chair. All Members except those
Standing Orders
who wish to withdraw from consideration should be eligible to receive ballots.
As was seen in the election of the present Speaker, campaigning is resented by most Hon. Members and is seen as inappropriate. The present system is intended to foster thought and discussion by MPs on the selection of the new Speaker. By having to declare themselves to be candidates, it is clear that the House could be deprived, as it almost was on the last occasion, of the candidature of a Member who is not willing to declare himself. The process should be more subtle than a declaration of candidacy. The character of the election does not lend itself to a horse race.
The Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure has also recommended that the election process be improved by removing low-ranking nominees who receive less than a certain percentage of the votes. I think this is reasonable and I am glad the Government is willing to accept it. However, by inviting declarations, the House might see persons running for reasons other than the desire to seek the speakership. I think this is a step backward. I suggest that this proposal be reviewed by the Government and not be put forward for implementation. I think it will not be helpful in the election of the Speaker.
The major thrust of the McGrath report was the theme of increasing the influence of Members of Parliament. I am not saying it was to increase the powers of Members of Parliament. The House of Commons does not govern. It is clear that Ministers of the Crown are responsible to the House for the Government of Canada. However, there has always been what Edward Blake called the great power of the House to advise. This is the area which may be of direct interest to persons who must deal regularly with Government and who may have ideas about how to do things better. Clearly, if we are to implement the rules the Government wants to implement, Ministers are going to become very, very powerful. They are going to dictate the agenda and there will be absolutely no possibility of Members of the House, Opposition or Government, intervening to improve the legislation.
The McGrath committee had in mind improving the rules of the House of Commons to give more power to Members in reviewing legislation and Estimates in committee. To a certain degree we are doing that, but to a larger degree we are short of implementing all of the McGrath report recommendations. I certainly regret that three recommendations, one for an electronic voting system, another for the establishment of an appropriate small secretariat to support the activity of the Board of Internal Economy, and one regarding televising the work of committees, were not accepted.
Although everything has not been accepted by the Government, I think the gist of the recommendations of the McGrath report which have been implemented temporarily should now be made permanent. The desire of the Government to do differently should not be entertained at this time. Therefore, I

June 2, 1987
Standing Orders
move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo):
That the motion be amended by deleting all of the words after the word
"That" and by substituting the following:
"all the provisional and permanent Standing Orders of the House in force on the date of notice of this motion be adopted as the permanent Standing Orders of the House; and
That the Clerk of the House be authorized and instructed to print a revised edition of the Standing Orders of the House, renumbering as may be deemed necessary and making such technical and consequential changes as may be required."


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Chair will reserve its decision on the motion and advise as soon as possible.
Questions and comments.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Madam Speaker, my comment relates to the issue of electing the Speaker as raised by the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet). I ask all Members to think seriously about what the Government has suggested in that regard. I hope that even as I speak an agreement is being worked out which will make some of my remarks redundant, but I want Members to think about this matter.
The Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure was asked as part of its general review of the Standing Orders to look at the question of the election of the Speaker. There were at least two problems we wanted to address. One was what I call decluttering the ballot. We needed a mechanism to get the names of people who were not getting very much or any support off the ballot more quickly than was the case in our first experience of that procedure. We also needed a procedure whereby we could avoid what happened to the former Member for Yukon. He was unable to get his name off the ballot because he was not here in person to do so.
We made two suggestions. One, that there be a 5 per cent threshold below which your name would come off the ballot. Second, that Members be able to take their name off the ballot either by phone, telegram or whatever, so they would not have to come all the way from Yukon or wherever they might be in order to do so. That would have solved both problems.
The Government accepted the 5 per cent recommendation and then went on to recommend a nominating procedure, that is to say, people would have to actively put their name in nomination for Speaker. That procedure was rejected by the Lefebvre committee in 1982-83. It was rejected by the McGrath committee in 1984-85. It was rejected by the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedures. All three groups unanimously agreed that it would be unseemly and take away from the process if people had to actively put their name in nomination for the speakership. It would lead to campaigning and various other things we do not want to see associated with the process by which a person becomes Speaker of the House of Commons.
It is important that the Government recognize that at the heart of the election of the Speaker is the idea that the House has control over its own processes. The election of the Speaker was both the symbol and substance of that reform. Therefore, it is most inappropriate for the Government to go against the unanimous recommendation of three committees of this House and decide by itself, as part and parcel of this unilateral motion, that it knows better and will implement an active nomination procedure.
I think the Government has become aware in the last little while about our concerns over this measure. Whether there is or is not an agreement, I hope the Government will see its way clear to change this particular aspect of the motion. Whether intended or not, and I do not think it was intended, this goes right to the heart and symbol of reform: Election of the speaker. If the Government can unilaterally change that procedure against the unanimous recommendations of three committees of this House, then parliamentary reform will indeed have suffered a setback. I ask the Hon. Member for Papineau to comment on that.
[Translation\


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, this is clearly disquieting because the Government, taking advantage of the deadline for Parliament to reach a conclusion on our interim rules and make them permanent, introduced a whole series of proposals that have nothing to do with the parliamentary process nor the proposals put forward by the McGrath Report. The Hon. Member is right in saying this move originates from the Government and is based neither on the McGrath Report nor the Lefebvre Report nor the Cooper Report.
The other proposal to unilaterally change the parliamentary calendar also is disquieting. Thanks to parliamentary reform, orders that were made in the past, Members for some years have been in a position to know there would be recesses on predetermined dates-Easter, during the summer, or Christmas. Now the Government is unilaterally moving to change a calendar that was approved unanimously by the three political parties in this House, that introduced a little more common sense, a little more dignity into our parliamentary work, that allows each and everyone of us with family responsibilities to know that at Easter, during the summer or at Christmas we, as any other individual working outside this House, can go home and fully enjoy the statutory holidays.
Again, the Government acting unilaterally, without consulting anybody, is about to change the parliamentary calendar that was agreed upon in the past. It is my hope it will come to reason rather than insisting on changing that parliamentary calendar that has proved itself and is absolutely essential in my view to the dignity of all Members in this House.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Chair, having reviewed the amendment put forward by the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet), finds it acceptable.
June 2, 1987

Resuming debate.


Mr. Benjamin:: Questions and comments.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The period for questions and comments is finished.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Not according to my reading of the clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Chair noted the time between 4.41 p.m. and 4.51 p.m. as the ten-minute period. The Hon. Member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby) has the floor.


Howard Edward Crosby: Madam Speaker, 1 listened intently to the remarks by the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) and others during this debate. While I want to make a positive presentation, I want to address myself particularly to the remarks of the Hon. Member for Papineau.
I will say that his presentation was well balanced and quite fair. I think he made some important criticisms of the rules that would be in effect if this motion before the House respecting the Standing Orders were passed.
However, he failed to deal with the realities of the situation. The rules currently in force are provisional rules. If action is not taken to make the Standing Orders permanent, that is to say the permanent rules for the process and procedure of the House, we will revert to the situation that existed in December, 1984. If Members of the House cannot agree upon a set of rules as the Standing Orders of the House of Commons, and no action is taken, we will go back to the situation that existed on December 7, 1984.
I believe the Member for Papineau and other Members have failed to address that situation. We are in a legislative limbo with respect to the Standing Orders of the House of Commons, and that is not a satisfactory situation.
No one would disagree with the proposition that the best way to obtain rules for governing any forum, particularly the House of Commons, is by the advice and consent of all Members. Unanimity is the desirable state. However, what is done when that state cannot be achieved? Do we abandon our obligations as a Government? Do we fail to put into force what the Government thinks ought to be the rules that prevail and govern the processes and procedures of the House of Commons? Clearly it is the duty and obligation of the Government to act in the absence of achievement of the consent that would be required for unanimity.
I do not see how any Member can seriously take the position that Members of the House are the sole custodians of the rules of the House, and must achieve unanimity to effect any change. If this was the Ottawa Lawn Tennis Club one could agree with that proposition. However, this is the legislative body for Canada. We owe an obligation not to
Standing Orders
ourselves simply as Members of the House of Commons, but to all Canadians who view this as the forum for public discussion of legislation and other parliamentary matters. It is essential that this House of Commons have permanent rules enshrined in Standing Orders of the House of Commons.
The obligation of the House is to provide Standing Orders of a permanent character. It is not our obligation, duty, or responsibility to await until we achieve that highly desirable state of unanimity, and keep everyone in a state of limbo with respect to the rules and processes of the House. That would be a totally selfish attitude.
I find it difficult to accept the position of Members of Parliament who state that unless they agree, unless they have the rules the way they want them to be, they will withhold consent and thereby prevent the unanimity with respect to the Standing Orders that we all desire.
The Government has not only the mandate to act, it has the responsibility to act. That responsibility is not just to Members of the House of Commons, but to all Canadians.
When we consider the changes that are brought about through this motion, I think any Member of the House of Commons-particularly the Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) who has pored over the rules of the House day after day, time after time-realize and recognize that the current rules do not form a perfect document. Change is necessary and desirable.
For example, I find fault with the current rules that relate to legislative committees. I think they are a misconception of the work and mandate of a legislative committee. I do not believe they provide anything positive in terms of the improvement in the processes and procedures in dealing with Public Bills before the House of Commons. I believe that change is essential.
I particularly have objection to the manner in which Private Members' Business is now carried out in the House of Commons. Anyone who suggests that it is not in the interests of all Members of the House and the Canadian public generally who are interested in parliamentary affairs to limit speeches in the House of Commons, to have sensible timing of debate so that debate cannot be protracted beyond all reasonable limits, is not taking his or her duties as a parliamentarian seriously.
I suggest that every poll that has been taken, every public opinion that has been expressed, has contained the complaint that the House of Commons delays and takes dilatory action with respect to matters before the House of Commons. That can be justified sometimes in order to attract public attention to a particular matter, but it has become the rule in the House of Commons to delay and use delaying tactics. The result is that the public suffers. Members of the House of Commons are paid to be here and the public awaits our action. It is the public that hopefully benefits from parliamentary action. Therefore, we do ourselves and the people of Canada no justice

June 2, 1987
Right to Life
when we employ dilatory tactics. Any rule that is intended to stop and desist from this practice must have some benefit.
During the last months we have seen the provisions with respect to petitions misused, if not abused. I do not mean to cast any aspersions on particular Members, because a Member is entitled to use the rules as they exist. They are entitled to the technicalities of the law, but at the same time the Government has the obligation to remove mischief in the rules if it is preventing the ordinary transaction of business in the House of Commons.
In summary, I believe that is the point of the motion. It brings to a head the matter that has been long delayed over a three and a half year period. The House has failed to achieve the desired unanimity and it is time for the Government to act.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member. It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS   THE CONSTITUTION ACT, 1982 RIGHT TO LIFE OF UNBORN HUMAN PERSONS
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, April 2, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mitges:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should consider the advisability of amending the Constitution Act, 1982, to include unborn human persons, and that the Governor General issue a Proclamation under the Great Seal of Canada to amend section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights so that it reads as follows;
7. Everyone including a human foetus or unborn being has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice."
And the amendment of Mr. Domm:
That the motion be amended in the paragraph numbered 7 in the English version, by adding immediately after the word "unborn" the word "human".
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: When the motion was last before the House, the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) had the floor, with one minute left. He is not present so I will recognize the Hon. Member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis).


Philip Derek Lewis: Madam Speaker, lam pleased to have this opportunity to speak on this very important motion. Protection for the unborn and the laws relating to abortion are issues on which fundamentally differing and opposing views are strongly and genuinely held by many Canadians. In view of the lack of consensus for major change in the abortion law, and because the existing law strikes an acceptable balance for Canadians who hold opposing
views, it is the Government's position that it would be inappropriate to bring forth such an amendment.
Section 7 of the Charter is the broadest and most general of the guarantees of legal rights. It guarantees to everyone the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. The Supreme Court of Canada has interpreted Section 7 as giving the courts authority to assess the substantive as well as the procedural content of our laws.
Not long after the Charter came into force, those provisions of the Criminal Code providing for abortions under certain circumstances were challenged in the Saskatchewan courts by Mr. Joe Borowski. After a very thorough analysis of the law, the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench ruled that Section 7 of the Charter did not provide protection for the unborn and that the term "everyone" in Section 7 did not include unborn human beings. Recently, the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal upheld this decision. Mr. Borowski may now appeal the decision to the Supreme Court of Canada.
From quite a different perspective, Section 7 of the Charter has been invoked by Dr. Henry Morgentaler in an attempt to assert that the Criminal Code provisions on abortion conflict with the mother's rights to life, liberty and security of the person. The issues raised in this case have been argued before the Supreme Court of Canada and we are awaiting its decision. As Members will observe, the effect of the Charter guarantees on the law in this area has not yet been determined by the Supreme Court of Canada. Therefore, quite apart from the substantive policy concerns, it would be inappropriate to move in this area without having had the benefit of the Supreme Court's final determination in this regard.
The motion put forward by the Hon. Member calls upon the Government to give consideration to amend the Constitution to provide protection for the unborn. Such an amendment would clearly affect the legislative powers of the provinces and the constitutional amending formula would therefore apply. The current constitutional amending formula provides that such an amendment would have to be authorized by resolutions of the Senate, the House of Commons and the legislative assemblies of two-thirds of the provinces having 50 per cent of the population of all the provinces.
Canada's First Ministers have agreed to a schedule of discussions for amendments to the Constitution. This issue has not been scheduled for consideration and it is unlikely that a consensus could be obtained either for the inclusion of this issue in the discussions or for its subsequent adoption.
In my opinion, this is not a proper way to initiate a constitutional amendment with far reaching and significant ramifications. Much work needs to be done before such an amendment could be considered. We would need to determine, first of all, what the implications are for a number of laws and practices which currently exist. The laws relating to abortion would perhaps be most directly affected, but we must also look at
June 2, 1987

other laws relating to children and the provision of medical care.
Second, we would need to approach the provinces and determine if there is support for such an amendment. The Constitution cannot be amended simply because the federal Government thinks it is desirable. Instead, the terms of any amendment must be worked out in close consultation with the Governments of the provinces.
I would interject here, Madam Speaker, that that is exactly what is going on as we speak today.
Those who support this motion must carefully consider the implications of such a resolution. The most immediate effect of the proposed amendment would be on the provisions of the Criminal Code relating to abortion, but it is unclear what the larger effect of such a Charter amendment would be. Presumably, if the Charter were to be amended, abortions could not be undertaken unless the principles of fundamental justice have been observed in relation to the interests of the unborn human being. Also, the principles of fundamental justice would have to be observed in relation to the interests of the mother since the current criterion for abortion is a demonstration of danger to the life or health of the mother.
What would the principles of fundamental justice include in such a case? According to the Supreme Court of Canada, Section 7 of the Charter provides a basis to review the substantive content of laws as well as the procedural aspects. If this amendment to the Charter is enacted, the substantive content of the Criminal Code provisions on abortion, and their impact on the life, liberty and security of the person of both the foetus and the mother, could very well be at issue. So would the procedures for determining if an abortion should be performed. The courts would be called upon to determine whether these procedures are consistent with the principles of fundamental justice for both the foetus and the mother.
There are also a number of questions about the effect of the proposed amendment on our therapeutic abortion laws which have not been answered. For example, are the current therapeutic abortion committees an appropriate procedural safeguard for constitutional purposes? Would we need a court? Would we need to provide a mechanism for independent representation of the foetus before such committees? If so, what would that be and how would a person represent the interests of the foetus? Given the serious time constraints, what procedures would be necessary to adequately protect the interests of the mother as well as the foetus?
I believe that these and many other unanswered questions must be considered prior to initiating any amendment to the Charter to give protection to the unborn. At the present time, the law seeks to draw a balance between the interests of the mother and the foetus. Would the balancing of interests continue, and if so, what sort of constitutional protection for the rights of the unborn would be best?
In addition to the effect that this amendment might have on the laws relating to abortion, there are a great variety of laws
Right to Life
relating to children and the health of mothers which might be affected. The resolution would provide a guarantee of security of the person for unborn human beings. Does this mean that those acting on behalf of the unborn child could prevent a pregnant mother from engaging in acts which might be harmful to the foetus such as smoking, drinking or eating improperly? How would such protections be enforced?
Before we could agree to amend Section 7, we would have to consider carefully the effect of such an amendment on our laws and practices. We would have to give the provinces the time to consider the implications of such an amendment.
In summary, I do not think that this is the time to approve such a motion. Much work remains to be done before we could consider a resolution to provide constitutional protection for the rights of the unborn. Even proponents of this objective have unresolved concerns. For example, the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops has not endorsed this motion as the most suitable means to implement the right to life of the foetus. Moreover, the interpretation of Section 7 of the Charter, as it relates to the rights of the unborn, is still before the courts. We should await the definitive word of the courts before considering changes to the Charter.
The legal implications of such an amendment require further consideration at both the federal and provincial levels. Were we to proceed, we would have to know the effect of such an amendment on existing laws and practices. This would enable us to put new laws in place and to frame the constitutional amendment in a way that would best achieve our objectives. There is an appropriate process for constitutional amendment. It relies upon close consultation with the provinces and their agreement with the amendment. That is our Canadian tradition, one which continues to serve us well.
The Hon. Member has proposed a very important matter for debate, something about which all Canadians have deep beliefs and strongly held convictions. Although the Government feels it is inappropriate to consider amendments to the laws dealing with therapeutic abortion now, the debate on this motion has been an important airing of views.


Ms. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Madam Speaker, may I say to the Hon. Member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis) that I think he brought out a great many of the complications that would arise legally and in respect of other Acts should this motion pass. I hope that all Hon. Members listened thoughtfully and carefully to the incredible number of complications which he showed would occur if this motion were to pass. I will address other aspects of the motion, but I wanted to mention first how important I think the contribution of the Hon. Member were.
As we all know, the real intent of the motion is to outlaw all therapeutic abortions and effectively return abortions to the back alleys. The foetus as an unborn human person is what the motion is all about. I agree with the Hon. Member who has

June 2, 1987
Right to Life
just spoken that it would be useful to see what the courts finally determine on this issue.
I would like to refer to the Reverend Tom Harpur who, as I think all Members will know, writes a regular column in The Toronto Star. I wish to refer to an article he wrote on April 26, 1987, in which he refers to "the oft-repeated slander that abortion is murder." He also states:
It is time to challenge directly the sloppy thinking that jumps from saying a fetus is a potential human being or a human-being-in-process to saying it is already a human being or a person.
Potentialities are indeed important, but they emphatically do not have the same value as actualities.
In our Western morality, people have an ultimate value. Fetuses have value but not an equal value with actual persons.
Specifically, they do not have the ultimate value of the pregnant woman.
Mr. Harpur then goes on to quote, surprisingly, a conservative fundamentalist scholar, W. A. Criswell, in this matter of emphasizing the relative value of the foetus as contrasted with the ultimate value of the woman. Professor Criswell wrote:
I have always felt that it was only after a child was born and had life separate from its mother that it became an individual person. And it has always, therefore, seemed to me that what is best for the mother and the future should be allowed.
Finally, Mr. Harpur's article points out that according to the Bible what makes us persons is:
-our God-like ability and responsibility to make hard choices, our capacity for relationships, and our powers of self-transcendence and self-awareness.
This description is applicable to the pregnant woman in a way and in a depth that is simply not true of the fetus.
There must be good reasons for terminating a pregnancy. But it is part of our freedom and responsibility as persons to make the ultimate decision about these ourselves.
To compel a woman to bear a child against her will or to force her to abide by what others define as adequate or inadequate reasons for an abortion, is a form of naked, authoritarian violence.
It is a denial of God's call to her to be a fully adult person taking responsibility for what is best for her own life and that of her family.
In practice, we are rapidly coming to a position of denying access to women to therapeutic abortions. It is shocking that in Prince Edward Island it is not possible to get a therapeutic abortion, and it is practically impossible in Newfoundland. In a letter received from a Dr. R. C. Gustafson of Kamloops, he points out that it is becoming clear that women in the whole of the southern interior of British Columbia are going to be denied equal access to safe therapeutic abortions. I only wish that there were time to read his full letter-


Mr. Scowen:: Go ahead.


Pauline Jewett: If Hon. Members will give me unanimous consent I will read the whole letter.
The main point he makes in his letter is that the attempts by hospital boards to abolish therapeutic abortion committees are actually contrary to the requirements of both the Criminal Code and the Canada Health Act. They are allowing the relevant section of the Criminal Code to be restricted by lesser
jurisdictions and the intent of the Canada Health Act to be flagrantly violated.
The Canada Health Act, as Hon. Members will recall since we passed it unanimously, forcefully promoted the principle of unimpeded and equitable access to health care free from constraints such as user fees or extra billing. Obliging a woman to go from the southern interior of British Columbia to Vancouver or to Washington State is the equivalent of user fees or extra billing, as Dr. Gustafson points out.
He ends his letter, a letter he sent to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp), with these words: "No less an issue than the humane and equitable provision of health care to women is at stake."
Ultimately, then, the matter is for a woman and her physician to determine. It is interesting that this was so fully recognized in a recent poll in British Columbia. Indeed, if one considers the poll carefully one will see that should this motion pass and should the Government take it up and should there be an attempt to amend the Constitution to abolish abortion, then I do not think the amendment will get very far in British Columbia.
The poll to which I refer is the first conducted in five years in B.C. by United Communications Research on Lower Mainland. The results of the poll were aired on B.C. TV on the evening of May 21, 1987. With respect to the question about the decision on abortion being up to a woman and her doctor, 87 per cent agreed while only 12 per cent disagreed. Some 87 per cent of British Columbians in the Lower Mainland said that abortion was a matter to be determined by a woman and her doctor. There was hardly any difference between the two major political Parties. Members of the Social Credit Party were 82 per cent agreed while 17 per cent disagreed. In the New Democratic Party 91 per cent agreed while 8 per cent disagreed.
I would like to conclude my comments by reading from a letter from the Vancouver branch of the YWCA which reflects not only the views of the Young Women's Christian Association in British Columbia but throughout Canada. The letter states in part:
The YWCA membership reflects our multicultural pluralistic society with its wide variety of accepted religions, political beliefs and life styles. Our purpose impels us to openness and understanding of the principles and values of others. As an organization we support the individual right to freedom of choice for women on a large range of issues affecting our lives.
This freedom of choice extends to our position on reproductive rights and the right of a women to self determination regarding unwanted pregnancies. We believe that the discussion of pregnancy and its continuation or cessation should be a private matter of individual conscience decided by a woman and her physician.
Let us not return to abortion on the back streets. Let us think again of Tom Harpur's words:
To compel a woman to bear a child against her will or to force her to abide by what others define as adequate or inadequate reasons for an abortion, is a form of naked, authoritarian violence.
June 2, 1987


Mrs. Lise Bourgault (Argenteuil-Papineau):: Madam Speaker, as a women and a parliamentarian, I am of course particularly interested in the motion by the Hon. Member for Grey-Simcoe (Mr. Mitges) concerning a proposal to amend Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as follows, and I quote:
-a human foetus or unborn unbeing has the right to life, liberty and security of the person;
Madam Speaker, 110 residents in my riding have sent me form letters in which they ask me to support this motion. I have taken a very careful look at the procedure used by the Hon. Member which, although in itself quite commendable, and the Hon. Member is indeed to be commended on his initiative, is indirectly an attempt to deal with the abortion issue.
Madam Speaker, in my humble opinion, the very principle of this motion contradicts the same Charter of Rights and Freedoms the Hon. Member would have amended. How could the Charter, thus amended to include fetal rights, be used before the courts who would have to deal with an issue of this nature? Are the rights of the pregnant mother less important than those of the unborn child, and vice versa? How, Madam Speaker, will we protect the rights of the unborn child? Will there be court injunctions on a woman's uterus? Another example, Madam Speaker. If we have two spouses, one of whom wants the pregnancy to come to term while the other does not, what happens? An injunction would have to be granted to one of the spouses, but how do we carry out the injunction? Would there be prisons for pregnant women?
Madam Speaker, this may seem rather ridiculous, but it is exactly the kind of situation this motion brings to mind. Madam Speaker, adopting this motion would make women the slaves of their reproductive organs and expose them to court actions by any group acting to protect the interests of the foetus.
Madam Speaker, should the courts or legislation that would arise from this amendment to the Charter order a mother not to smoke, not to drink, not to eat this or that, not to practise certain sports, not to do this or do that, if the neighbours happen to think the mother's habits are endangering the health of the foetus?
Let us be logical with ourselves, Madam Speaker. I beseech my colleagues in this House to vote against a motion which in effect is impractical, inapplicable, and unrealistic, a motion which in my humble opinion misses the real point. What our Parliament should be debating today is the situation of thousands of children who are presently being abused, who are deprived of the care they deserve, abandoned children, children who are hungry and cold. Those children, Madam Speaker, should be protected. Our time should be spent developing a true family policy, a policy concerned with the prevention and support that the State should be bringing to families or women pregnant with an unwanted child, in order to help those
Right to Life
women, through adequate action, keep their child until he or she is born instead of having an abortion.
In my opinion, Madam Speaker, this motion hits squarely at the autonomy, the dignity and the safety of women in Canada, and I shall therefore vote against that motion for all the reasons I have mentioned, while hoping that the Government and every concerned Canadian man and woman will strive together to develop a true family policy in Canada.


Mr. Paul Gagnon (Calgary North):: Madam Speaker, the Member for Grey-Simcoe (Mr. Mitges) should be congratulated for bringing this motion before the House. The Government should certainly be congratulated for having changed the rules to allow such a debate.
This is a very contentious issue. I sought input from my constituents and asked them the following question:
There are a number of questions; cost, use of medical talent and space, falling birth rates . . . and many others; but none addresses the central question-is the foetus a human life?
I received a number of replies, some of which I would like to read into the record. These are the "no" replies, if I may call them that. One reads:
What I do if I miss my period is my business and not the business of government-lawyers or clergy.
That is a very direct response. Another reads:
"Is a foetus a human life" is not the central question, it is the central excuse. Abortion has been going on for thousands of years and will continue to go on for thousands of years-nothing will stop it- "back alley butchers" will be sought out or self induced abortion methods will be used-more women and girls will die impaled on knitting needles or will poison themselves with Drano.
The last "no" response which I will read into the record
says:
Firstly, while you stated that your belief is that abortion is a moral issue, I contend that it is a religious one since the premise that abortion is murder depends on whether or not the fetus has a soul. If, for instance, I believe that the soul does not enter into the body until sometime after a viable birth, and you believe that it happens at the moment of conception, and neither of us .. . can present absolute proof, then, it must be accepted that this is a religious matter. Therefore for you ... to force your belief on me ... is a violation of my rights and therefore unconstitutional. In other words, it is not your right to stop me from having an abortion-it is not my right to make you have one!!!
This writer goes on to say:
It is no argument to point out that the fetus is a living organism therefore it is wrong to stop its growth .... Sperm and ovum are living cells but there is no need to confer citizenship on them .... I am also aware that our present birth rate is inadequate to support our economy and that immigration will become a necessity. If Canadians are not happy-with this alternative, then maybe we have to look at why women are choosing not to have children. To force them to have children is untenable-
Those were the "nos". I will read the responses of some of those who believe in this legislation. One response reads:
In vitro fertilization has given us irrefutable scientific evidence of the fact that life begins at conception.
Your life and mine can be commenced in a dish in a laboratory-is a human womb really necessary to bring a baby to a viable point? Yes, from conception onward, all that is added is oxygen and nutrition. Everything we are now, we were then. The only thing that has changed is the place of residence from the womb to the world.

June 2, 1987
Right to Life
Another "yes" response reads:
I also do not know whether a foetus is a human life. However this does not prevent me from forming a belief based on the available information. I strongly believe that human life begins at conception-for those who disagree I have a question-Can you afford to be wrong?
A third reply reads:
Women are screaming "I have a right to control my body". Let me say as a woman, that I have a "right" to say no before jumping in the sack with someone. That is my ultimate control over my body-when I choose-to engage in-intercourse and a child is conceived-there is where my rights end and the right of another life begins.
Of the correspondence which I received-and there were in excess of 1,700 letters-the most touching and heart-warming letter was one from a nurse. I should like to quote it:
As a nurse working with first and second trimester abortions, I would like to make you aware of some concerns I, and also my colleagues, have.
Abortions are legal here up to 20 weeks gestation. They are done by injecting the amniotic fluid with digoxin-to kill the baby, and prostaglandin-to induce labour. The woman then delivers a dead baby. Many of these foetuses are larger than those being cared for in intensive care-dates are very unsure sometimes and abortions are done past 20 weeks... On Wednesday, 17 December, someone at the lab got fed up and sent back a foetus which was over 500 grams (or viable weight) and it had to have a death certificate filled out. The weight on the lab report was 640 grams. The weight on the report for vital statistics read 560 grams.
Before extra billing was banned, we saw many foetuses larger than this-
The abortion committee approves all requests. The diagnosis is always given as depression ... For my one and a half years here I have seen only one abortion done because of foetal abnormalities and none done for medical reasons of the mother's.
Aside from these moral and legal questions, second trimester abortions are very dangerous. The woman's body is not ready for labour and she often experiences severe pain .. . The placenta rarely delivers spontaneously and the woman bleeds profusely

Another problem we have is that sometimes the doctor can't safely inject the woman so a procedure is done that results in a live birth. We are told to wrap this gasping, wriggling, crying infant, and leave it to die . . . One was born weighing one kilogram and was taken to intensive care but was left to die since it was an abortion.
This personal issue is a central issue to me. It deals with the sanctity of life. I cannot prove, nor can I disprove, whether or not a foetus has a soul.
I was amazed that my seat-mate from New Westminster- Coquitlam said that a mother had more rights than a child. Are we to wind up having first-class and second-class citizens? This bothers me.
I should like to draw an analogy. If I went hunting and saw a bush move, prudency would dictate that I should not start shooting into the bush in case it was not the animal I was hunting but another human being. That same sort of prudency dictates that we do not terminate foetuses unless we can absolutely, irreversibly prove that they are not human beings.
What we do in Government is to look after the disadvantaged. What can be more disadvantaged than a foetus?
As I read into the record earlier, let me repeat:
I strongly believe that human life begins at conception-for those who disagree I have a question-Can you afford to be wrong?
We cannot afford to be wrong. We do not know the answers. We have to say yes to this Bill.


Mr. Jean-Guy Hudon (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, first 1 want to thank you for recognizing me. I will try to shorten my remarks because I realize that although we have little time left a number of Members would like to speak to this motion.
Madam Speaker, there was a time when charity was a virtue, but these days it has become an organization. There was a time as well when education was dispensed by a system, by institutions, schools, families, and by the Church. Oftentimes nowadays they have lost sight of certain values, and the Parliament of Canada is fully expected to fill the void created by undeveloped values.
Madam Speaker, I enjoy these theoretical debates because they enable me to discuss openly with people and, without accusing those who are for or against, or without making anyone feel guilty, I will vote against this motion because, as the Hon. Member for Argenteuil-Papineau (Mrs. Bourgault) said earlier, we are not necessarily speaking to the basic issue.
I see my colleague from Bourassa (Mr. Rossi) on the other side who stated in an interview somewhere that he had already changed his mind about capital punishment, and when I began the debate on capital punishment, Madam Speaker, I was like him, I was in favour of the death penalty.
I once asked myself this question: If, on the eve of the vote in the House of Commons, my son were killed in a bank robbery, would my vote necessarily be the same if, instead of being the victim, he were the killer? If I am not sure I would still vote the same way, I must forget my emotions and take a dispassionate view.
Madam Speaker, I am here because I want to try and build a better world. I won't make a criminal of my daughter if some day she says: Dad, I don't want this baby. Madam Speaker, I would do everything I could to prevent her. I would tell her: Isabelle, we can raise that baby, we will take care of it because it's your child. But, Madam Speaker, I would not let my daughter go to court with a bunch of lawyers, all because she would be considered to have committed a crime.
In fact, my only alternative, Madam Speaker, would be to dig into my pockets and give her some money and tell her to get an abortion in the United States. But I don't want to do that. I don't want to put people through a judicial system that would put a terrific burden of guilt on them. But I also think that using abortion as a means of contraception is absolutely degrading. Yes, degrading. However, legislation is not going to make abortion any less degrading. I find it depressing and repugnant. I can find nothing positive in that kind of outlook.
However, Madam Speaker, branding my children and your children as criminals is not going to help me build a better world for those children. 1 do not really like the implications of free choice but to me, the important thing is not to criminalize
June 2, 1987

but to respect the choice someone has made, which may be a terrible choice but not criminal.


John V. Nunziata: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to make some very brief submissions with regard to the motion before us. I intend to support the motion but, before commenting upon the reasons for supporting it, it is important to point out the inconsistency which is present with regard to some of those who intend to vote in favour of and some of those who intend to vote against the particular motion.
In my view life is sacred, regardless of what stage in life, whether it is before birth or after birth. It seems somewhat inconsistent for some of those who intend to vote for this particular motion, indeed the mover of the motion, to support capital punishment on the one hand and to be opposed to abortion on the other hand.
Similarly, a number of Members in the House, most notably in the New Democratic Party, are adamantly opposed to capital punishment-and some argue because human life is sacred-yet they appear to be unanimously in favour of abortion. There is a basic inconsistency in that logic.
In my view the central issue is: When does life begin? If we conclude that life begins after birth, then there is really no need for this particular amendment, because Section 7 of the Constitution provides that any person is entitled to life, liberty, and the other provisions in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In that event there is really no need to entrench the rights of the innocent unborn.
However, if we conclude that life begins at some moment before birth, it would follow that the unborn person, the foetus, should be entitled to each and every protection afforded to living human beings under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Why would one distinguish between an unborn and a living person when in the Constitution itself we do not distinguish between black and white? We do not distinguish between short and tall. We do not distinguish between an able-bodied human being and a disabled human being. We say that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies to every person. I should point out, Madam Speaker, that the Charter applies to those who are not Canadian citizens. Every person living in Canada is entitled to the protection of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. So we do not distinguish in the Constitution itself with regard to human beings.
Why would one distinguish between a living person and a foetus if one concludes that life begins before birth? The central issue, as far as I am concerned, is, when does life begin? On a balance of probabilities-I have come to the conclusion in my own mind-and I am basically voting according to my own morality and conscience on this issue, not
Right to Life
necessarily reflecting the views of the majority of my constituents, if you will-that life begins at some point before birth. Whether that is one second before birth, three months before or nine months before birth, life begins, in my view, before birth.
Let me give an example of why I believe that life begins before birth. If a pregnant woman were to be shot and murdered on the eve of giving birth, and both the foetus and the mother were murdered, would you argue that the person who perpetrates that crime should be charged with one count of murder or two counts of murder? I would argue that the perpetrator of that crime should be charged with two murders, that of the mother and that of the foetus. One could argue about property rights to substantiate one's argument with regard to when life begins. As a parent, if I were to will my assets to my children, and let us assume that I died the day before my wife gave birth, would anyone suggest that that unborn child should not be entitled, by law, to a share of my estate or my assets? I would suggest that the unborn child in terms of property rights should be entitled to a part of that estate. I notice that Members opposite are heckling. They may disagree with where I stand, but I ask that they grant me the common courtesy of listening.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John V. Nunziata: I listened attentively when they spoke.
Unfortunately, we do not have an opportunity to speak at length. I know there are people on both sides of the House who intend to vote for and against this motion. I am appreciative of the fact that it is a free vote, at least as far as our Party is concerned and as far as the Government is concerned. I would ask that people in the House respect one another's point of view. I may disagree with those who believe in abortion who may be opposed to this motion, but I respect their points. I simply ask in return that they respect mine as a Member of Parliament. I am entitled to express my opinion and to vote this afternoon. I intend to vote for this resolution.


Mr. Vince Dantzer (Okanagan North):: Madam Speaker, I am most pleased, as most Members are, to have the opportunity to speak on this important motion. It is an issue that is one of the most important to have come before the House during the years that I have been a Member. I believe it is a national scandal that we kill by abortion between 60,000 to 70,000 human beings. I commend the Hon. Member for Gray- Simcoe (Mr. Mitges) for his courage, conviction and determination to bring this matter before the House.
The matter is difficult, contentious and, as a result, the debate has been emotional and at time acrimonious. It is a matter of deeply held principles, and there can be little compromise between those who are for abortion and those who oppose it. Those who oppose the motion and are for abortion believe that easy access to abortion is the right of women who wish to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. They believe the issue is a personal one for the woman involved. Those in favour

June 2, 1987
Right to Life
of the motion-and I am one of those-believe, to put it bluntly, that abortion is murder.
That is a strong statement, and why do I make it, Madam Speaker? I believe that a human being with untold potential is present from the moment of conception. I believe that every human being has the right to life. I believe that no one and no Government has the right to take an innocent life-and I emphasize the word innocent-or to kill an innocent human being. A human being is present from the moment of conception. This is a fact affirmed by modern science. It is a fact that can be proved genetically and was accepted as fact by the World Council on Abortion held in Washington in 1967.
From the moment of conception onward, there is human life. The first cell is a being. It is alive. It is an individual and it is human. It is not a carrot or a vegetable. It is not a cat. It is not an animal. What is conceived from human is human. The foetus is a human being with potential. It has all the genetic information and the developmental dynamism needed to become a fully developed human adult. Even a newborn baby is still mostly potential. It is important to remember that every human being is and remains a human being with potential. We all continue to grow and mature. Only death ends the process of growth which begins at conception.
Let me examine briefly some of the arguments used by proabortionists who support easy access to abortion. It is argued that a woman has control over her body and it is her choice alone whether to abort that pregnancy or to carry the child through to birth. There is undoubtedly truth in the statement that we all have or should have control over our own bodies. But even here there are caveats.
No society has condoned self-mutilation and no society has condoned suicide as a universal good. The fact remains that we are stewards, not owners of our bodies and our life. As stewards we have a duty to promote and preserve life and health. We are not the cause of our own existence and must not be the direct cause of the cessation of that existence, be it our own or someone else's.
The issue, of course, is whether the unborn child is a part of the mother, a part of her body such as, for instance, a wart. Or is it a separate human being distinct from the mother altogether, although of course depending upon her? If it is only a bunch of tissue, everyone would agree that the mother could remove that tissue at will for reasons of health. However, I submit that the evidence is clear that the foetus and unborn child is a separate being. Biological evidence shows that from the moment of conception onward, the embryo or foetus is a unique and distinct individual, a living human being having its own distinct genetic make-up different from that of the mother and the father.
The embryo has its own organs, its own growth dynamism, its own circulatory system and its own functions. Even the placenta is not part of the mother. It is an organ of the baby,
and while the blood of the mother and baby meet, they do not mix but are kept separate by the placental membrane.
No one has the right to kill that human being which is in the foetus any more than a criminal has the right to kill innocent people. For the state to forbid abortion is no more an invasion of a woman's privacy than it would be an invasion of privacy to prevent a criminal from killing innocent human beings.
Again, it has been argued that abortion should be allowed because it is not reasonable to force a woman who has been raped or becomes pregnant incestuously to bear the child for the full term and subsequently give birth to the child. My reply is that I do not understand how killing the innocent child solves the problems of rape or incest.


Mrs. Mailly:: Madam Speaker, on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly), on a point of order.


Claudy Mailly: Madam Speaker, it is really too bad we will not have enough time for a complete debate on this motion. Actually, I have some doubts as to the relevance of the comments that were made. There has been no mention of the Constitution. I thought that the prupose of the motion was to include the word "foetus" in the Constitution. This has nothing to do with the life of a child or whatever ... 1 don't think we are being relevant here, Madam Speaker. We have not been addressing the subject, and I would ask for more time so that we can do so.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Under the Standing Order I have no choice but to interrupt the debate at this time.

It being 5.51 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 36(2), the time allowed for the consideration of this motion has now expired. Therefore, the question is as follows:

The question is on the amendment of the Hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those in favour please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those opposed please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.
June 2, 1987


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Call in the Members.

And the bells having rung:


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


Jean-Robert Gauthier: As this is a historical vote, Madam Speaker,
1 think we should innovate. I suggest that you ask for unanimous consent-
# (1800)

-that unanimous consent be sought to proceed with the vote beginning with the mover of the motion and proceeding on that same side of the House row by row and then coming to the other side to finish the vote. It would be row by row starting with the mover of the motion.


Philip Derek Lewis: Madam Speaker, in keeping with parliamentary reform I suggest that this is a Private Members' motion and which side of the House a person is on should have no bearing on the vote. I suggest we take it by the easiest method possible for the Table.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is the House in agreement that the division be taken by rows?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: We will proceed as follows: As is customary, Hon. Members in favour of the motion will be asked to indicate their position first, followed by Hon. Members who are opposed.
I will ask all Members in the first row to my right who are in favour of the motion to rise together, whereupon their names will be called by a Clerk, beginning with the Hon. Member seated closest to the Chair. When the name of a Member in the row has been called and recorded, that Member will resume his or her seat.
When the taking of the names of Hon. Members in the first row to my right has been completed, I will ask Members in the second, third, fourth, and fifth rows on my right to proceed in a similar manner.
I will then ask Members in the first row to my left, regardless of their Party affiliation, who are in favour of the motion to rise and remain standing until their names have been called. We will carry on similarly with other rows on my left.
Right to Life
Once the votes of Hon. Members supporting the motions have been completed in this manner, I will then invite Hon. Members in the first row to my right who are opposed to the motion to rise. I will proceed similarly through the remaining rows to my right and follow the same procedure for Hon. Members to my left.
It bears repetition that the taking of names of Hon. Members in every row will begin with the Hon. Members seated closest to the Chair and will continue consecutively to the far end of the row. This will be so to my right, regardless of rank. It will be so to my left, regardless of rank or Party affiliation.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I declare the amendment lost.
The next question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those in favour of the motion please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those opposed please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: In my opinion, the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, I think if you seek unanimous consent, you would find that-


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Shall I dispense with the ringing of the bells?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Minaker:: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I abstained from voting on the main motion because as it reads now if one were to vote in favour of it one would not allow the abortion of a horse or a cat. That is why I supported the amendment.
Attewell	Crosby	FriesenBelsher	(Halifax West)	FrithBinns	Crouse	GagnonBlenkarn	Dantzer	GervaisCardiff	Darling	GormleyCoates	Domm	GottseligComeau	Forrestall	GreenawayCooper	Fraleigh	GustafsonFretz	Hardey


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order, please. If the Hon. Member, or any other Hon. Member, has a point of order to raise I will listen to it after the count has been announced.
And the Clerk having announced the result of the vote:
June 2, 1987


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I declare the motion lost.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Before the House adjourns I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader what business will be called tomorrow.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order, please. I realize that the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) has risen on a point of order. I do not know if anyone has heard him, the Chair has not.
Business of the House


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, may I take this opportunity to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the House Leader what will be the order of business tomorrow? Could he inform us what bill or motion or resolution we will be considering?


Philip Derek Lewis: Madam Speaker, tomorrow the House will continue debate on the motion which was before it today. We are meeting in an effort to expedite the process. The negotiations which have taken place to date among the Parties have been helpful. I expect to continue to make progress.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It being 6.34 p.m., the motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.34 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Wednesday, June 3, 1987
[Stage Direction]
Prayers